That is a cute graphic.

I responded to this post here:

http://www.mikedaisey.com/2008/07/response-to-theatreforte.sht

Mike Daisey has responded on his blog, and done so quite well. You are asking a work of art to do the work of research, scholarship, and leadership. As Chekhov said, art doesn't provide the right answers, but the right questions. Rather than ask that Daisey "define his terms," my suggestion for you and for the rest of the theatrosphere is to make the next step yourself. Don't quibble about definitions when the woods are burning. Acknowledge there is a Big Problem, that Daisey has hit on some of it, and start trying to think of how to improve the situation. In a word, stop being so damn passive!

Really? You're asking Mike Daisey to clear up your confusion about what he means by "America?" What a fucking pedant.

I haven't seen Mike's monologue so can only speak to what has appeared online, so I'll only bring up two issues that appear in his response.

The first point that is somewhat worrisome is a certain exceptionalism that attaches to theatre artists in contrast to other artists in the US and elsewhere. I doubt that Mike means to slight artists in other fields like painting, sculpture, dance, music or poetry, but it might be said that the same pressures seem to apply to them. Any of these are time-intensive disciplines when it comes to the study and practice of one's art. Are we also to guarantee working salaries and health insurance for them, simply on the say-so that they're artists?

And if not (and this is the second question, which Mike dismisses as beyond the boundaries of his monologue, though I don't see why that is if he's willing enough to castigate the current system), then who will deem and select those artists -- and that art -- worthy of public or private support? This is a central question and it won't go away just because some might think it irrelevant. I'm still waiting for Mike -- or anybody else -- to pick up the mantle that Oskar Eustis (I believe; I think I read it in one of the blog posts about a post-show discussion) threw down when he said, "Go ahead, take the theatre and run it for a while." Because in that situation there will be a decision making process. And those decisions will be based on the aesthetics, artists and plays considered worthy of that support -- a redefinition of theatre towards a way in which it might or might not "fail America" or its artists.

Of course Mike is not obliged to provide responses to any of this, but it is an issue which, whether he wants to or not, he does not grapple, and these issues are significant for their absence from the discussion.

Mike: Glad you liked the pic of Uncle Sam. Google Image Search rocks my world. I'm working on a response which I look forward to sharing with you and other Forte readers.

Scott: I hope I'm demonstrating my non-passivity by getting involved in this debate. Before I start thinking about improvements, I want to be sure I clearly understand just what the Big Problem is.

DCeiver: Yeah, I’m in grad school, so pedantry has become, for better or worse, part of how I make arguments. I want people to define, justify, and support their arguments with empirics because it creates more effective discourse. But thanks for your input. Nothing encourages thoughtful debate like good ol' fashioned petty name-calling.

George: Very good points. I fully agree.

George -- I think it is possible to set up a system that supports artists without getting into the question of which artists are going to be supported. For instance, if regional theatres committed to some form of ensemble structure that would provide more than a one-and-done contract for artists, it would help. If Actor's Equity, SAG, and AFTRA would join forces, so that weeks of work in any of those unions contributed toward the minimum number needed for health insurance, artists would be better off.

I also would draw a distinction between the performing arts and the non-performing arts -- the business model is much different, and they each require different efforts. While all artists should band together in order to insist on greater respect for artists in general, I doubt that a one-size-fits-all solution is possible.

George, i agree. All the questions everyone is raising can only be answered by practice. If theatre is going to change, then it's going to change based on every little decision that each theatre producer makes. What Mike Daisy is doing is amazing because it simultaneously talks about that change and enacts it. It's a debate and a performance at once. Debate alone is passive, and what i overwhealmingly come away with every time i read about or engage with these ideas (cuz i haven't seen the show) is a greater sense of urgency in the trial-and-error application of alternatives.

These same problems need to be solved in different ways for all artisitic mediums, a one-size-fits all solution isn't realistic, but other disciplines need to ask the same questions, and we need to look at how they answer them, cuz there's something we might be able to use there.