I'd like to extend a big thank you to Mike Daisey for addressing the questions I raised in yesterday's post. I regret I haven't yet had an opportunity to see HTFA for myself, but after reading the points in his blog and re-reading his article in The Stranger, I think I have a much better understanding of how, exactly, theatre has failed America. If I could give the "Dr. Strangelove treatment" to the title, I think it could be called How Theater Failed America, Or: How Non-Profit Arts Institutions Pay Salaries and Benefits to Arts Administrators Instead of Working Artists and Why This Is Not Ethical.
Notice I used the term "ethical" instead of "fair" because it's clear that Mike is arguing for something much more fundamental than simply getting a fair slice of the funding pie. Rather, there is an ethical imperative to provide "a healthy, sustainable path for artists to live and work." Failing to provide this path has had dire repercussions in other aspects of American society, notably a meaningful engagement between art, artists, and citizens on a local scale.
But who ought to bear the burden of fulfilling this ethical imperative? And how did something as abstract as the "institution of theatre" get saddled with this massive responsibility?
I don't want to get into a history of non-profit arts funding in America, but suffice to say the US government in the 1960's made the courageous decision that working artists ought to enjoy the same kind of job security and benefits that other hard-working Americans had come to expect from their employers. It was a bold experiment for arts institutions to adopt the corporate model that had worked so well for American businesses during the Golden Age of American capitalism. There was an implicit promise made to American workers (the white male ones, anyway): if you apply yourself and earn a college degree, there will be a good job waiting for you when you're done. With the creation of the NEA, this implicit promise was extended to artists, as well.
Unfortunately, the US government made a promise that it couldn't keep. The corporate model has abandoned American workers across the board. Full-time employment has been replaced with cheaper, part-time, contingent labor while corporate administrators continue to make more money than ever. The institution of theatre is not special in this regard.
One major failure of the non-profit system is that it only supports those institutions that follow a big corporate model. Thus, we are left with a system that supports two kinds of businesses: 1) a bunch of kids operating theatre companies as if they were garage bands, and 2) stodgy old monolithic institutions operating theatre companies as if they were libraries or museums. Because of the shortcomings of non-profit law, all other business models are excluded. This is partly why there are no healthy mid-sized theatre companies in America.
American workers have adapted to new economic realities by devising business models that are smaller, more agile and flexible. We have not yet devised a way to adapt the non-profit system to the small-business model, including micro-enterprises, partnerships, close corporations, and the like. Non-profit laws can and must be reformed in such a way to support small businesses in addition to big institutions.
I haven't had the benefit of seeing HTFA for myself, but I get the sense that it's a lot like Roger & Me. Instead of railing against the auto industry for abandoning the working people of Flint, Michigan, Mike Daisey rails against the theatre industry for abandoning working artists all over the country. Like Roger & Me, it's a compelling, provocative, and heart-rending work of art. But what if we actually went after Seattle Rep Managing Director Benjamin Moore with a microphone and demanded to know why he refuses to cut his exorbitant salary in half so more actors can have the financial security of a living wage? Would anything change? Not likely.
Mike should be commended for "engendering discussion and fomenting debate" about these urgent issues. But I find it puzzling that he chooses to admonish arts administrators to "do their jobs and lead." After all, he's convincingly proven that the arts administrators are corrupted by a broken system and that they're now driven by self-interest to perpetuate that system until they retire. Arts administrators have had their chance. If anyone is to take responsibility for fixing the broken system, it must be the artists themselves.
We must dispel the myth of exceptionalism that Mr. Hunka touched on earlier. Why should theatre artists have a subsidized salary and benefits while other hard-working artists - hip-hop musicians, comics artists, fashion designers, indie filmmakers - are left to compete in a free market economy? Again, theatre is not special. I would advocate a grassroots, bottom-up approach to arts organizations, rather than the kind of top-down patronage that has continued to fail us for the last 40 years.
The ensemble theatre model represents one way to achieve this bottom-up approach, as artists take it upon themselves to create a company that is owned and operated with their own best interests at heart. If the non-profit system could be reformed in such a way to provide viable support to these smaller-sized companies, we might begin to see some positive change.
Comments (7)
Now you're talking, Brant! I have been working on just this problem at Theatre Ideas in my development of the theatre tribe model, and I agree with you that the ensemble is the way. I also like the idea of a multi-disciplinary effort.
Posted by Scott Walters | July 8, 2008 1:47 PM
Posted on July 8, 2008 13:47
Bravo! I love the way you're approaching this, and I am so glad to see someone responding critically (and thoughtfully) to Mr. Daisey's monologue.
About arts administrators - I am one, and I agree that artists are currently getting a raw deal, but not all admins are "corrupted by a broken system and that they're now driven by self-interest to perpetuate that system until they retire". Most of us take immense pride in providing a safe and stable environment for the creation of art. And believe me, we don't all get paid big salaries. And we're not sitting on our hands, waiting for retirement - we're itching to take the reins and make things work better for everybody. And we want artists to be paid more.
Artists don't (and shouldn't) have time to schedule rehearsal space, keep account books, keep up with internal audits, create and implement marketing or fundraising campaigns, maintain databases, haggle with unions and agents, collect subscription data, run the front of the house, whatever.
I'm not saying that artists CAN'T do these things - of course they can. But I would be totally freaked out if someone told me that in addition to my current job duties that I suddenly had to write or act in a play. I am bad at those things. I am good at setting up a stable space for art. I leave the artmaking to the professionals.
Anyway, I just get prickly over the artists-vs-admins argument. We all work hard, and we are all working hard to fix what's broken. But I love your post.
Posted by Sarah McLellan | July 8, 2008 4:55 PM
Posted on July 8, 2008 16:55
"Why should theatre artists have a subsidized salary and benefits while other hard-working artists - hip-hop musicians, comics artists, fashion designers, indie filmmakers - are left to compete in a free market economy?"
I don't think Mike's advocating that ONLY theatre artists should change, but since theatre is what Mike knows, that's what he's talking about. Also, baby steps. If the theatre artists can band together and change the way our industry operates, then the other media forms would be able to use theatre's changes as precedent.
Posted by Director | July 8, 2008 6:47 PM
Posted on July 8, 2008 18:47
I must admit that although I appreciate both sides of the discussion, I am a little frustrated in the lack of actionable suggestions being offered. I am a theater person who is looking to start a theater ensemble in the next year. What can I do to make the change that everyone I speak to seems to yearn for (aside from those who are integrated into the current system) a reality?
Posted by Guy Y | July 9, 2008 1:18 AM
Posted on July 9, 2008 01:18
I am a proud to be running "a theatre company like garage band" but i can't quite be called a "kid" anymore, and, if you look around you'll find that many of the people running garage bands aren't kids anymore. We are people pushing through our thirties who refuse to sell out just because we're getting older. Our art is still the highest priority in our lives even though we need day jobs to keep afloat.
I look at the "garage band" approach to art as a radical alternative, and find that transitioning to even a mid-size theatre company will require sacrifices that are smaller than the sacrifice of having to put in a few hours at a shitty day job to pay the rent.
Arts administration has interests set against the interests of the artist. The few good apples who sacrifice their interest for the artist's interest are by doing so, reducing their effectiveness and risking putting themselves out of a job. It's an institutional problem, which cannot be solved by appealing to individuals to do better in their roles in those insititutions.
Really, the root of the problem is that we've got a bunch of stodgy old audiences who artists have to coddle to sustain their livelyhoods. Arts administration's purpose is to facilitate that relationship. That relationship was easy money was easy money a decade or two ago but it can't last.
Art as a garage band opens doors to new fresh audiences. It's less money now, but it's money that'll grow, not shrivel up and die.
Posted by Rex Winsome | July 9, 2008 3:05 PM
Posted on July 9, 2008 15:05
Guy Y: Look to Growtowski's Twords a Poor Theatre Ideal and find ways to apply it in today's world. Things my company is trying (and i don't know how well they really work) include: street theatre as fundraising and promotion, DIY touring (like a punk band), local runs at underground venues, connecting with other groups that share your ethics and motives not just theatre groups, but bands, galleries, visual artists, performers, buskers, etc etc. There's a growing DIY circus / burlesque movement in america, these groups blur the line between rock band (who get young audiences) and theatre (who don't, or at least less) that's a great opportunity to get more interest in theatre in general amung a younger more enthusiastic audience.
Posted by Rex Winsome | July 10, 2008 1:26 PM
Posted on July 10, 2008 13:26
Thanks for the response, Rex. What's the name of your company? Where's it based?
Posted by Guy Y | August 12, 2008 10:28 PM
Posted on August 12, 2008 22:28