I don't know how it found its way to my backstage, but I came across a booklet from Apollo Design that really show the company has a sense of their customer's needs and seek to add value to their products. They have what they term Playbooks which provide a scene by scene break down with gel and pattern suggestions of some of the most popular plays high schools and community theatres perform.
They admit that the options they offer are among the safest choices a lighting designer can make. They also can't offer guidance about placement of instruments and intensity of light since they can't know the needs of every theatre. But for the high school teacher who has volunteered to direct the fall play and knows nothing about choosing gel colors, the booklets can remove quite a bit of anxiety. Even if you aren't directing any of the plays they cover, you can get a sense of how the design theory you might read in a text book has been put into practice in specific instances.
You can download pdf versions of specific Playbook sections here. As an example of the general guidance they offer, for The Glass Menagerie, the notes state:
“Smoky, red glow” - mentioned in the Amanda and Tom argument scene. The colors should not be malevolent or suggest violence. It should be a subtle indication of frustration and tension"
Another example is in scene 3 the booklet provides guidance for different colors on the fire escape, living room, bedrooms and dance hall.
Although their skills far outstrip those of the people who would use these booklets, my technical crew thought the booklets were a great idea and have been thumbing through them for the last week.
We did get a little chuckle though from their political correct renaming of Bastard Amber, one of the most often used gel colors around. It was created by mistake when a guy was trying to create a batch of regular amber. Bastard Amber ended up being generally a better color choice and more widely used than regular Amber. The two leading gel manufacturers, Rosco and Lee both have the color in their swatch books.
Apollo on the other hand calls the color Fatherless Amber. Given that they have a Dominant and Submissive Lavender, we can't imagine they are complete prudes.
If you want to have a bit of fun, ask your tech director if you can see their gel swatch books. You can find some amusing names for colors in there. Given that Rosco and Lee have created proprietary colors that the other hasn't been able to reproduce, you can have fun looking through both. Like some famous painters who have created their own paint shades, lighting designers have asked that unique colors be created for them and so you will find some colors named after notable theatrical folks. Be warned that there are also a lot of mundane boring colors in there as well though you will probably wonder at the contradiction of shades like No Color Blue.
Okay another cautionary tale. I swear that I am not trying to emulate Jason Heath's wild gig stories. This stuff is just falling into my lap. The drama director, tech director and motley band of collaborators have been meeting recently and having exciting discussions about our Fall drama production. It has gotten easy to get caught up in the energy so I keep forgetting a crucial point. We don't have the rights to do the show yet.
The show isn't currently in print but the playwright has said we can perform it. It will be something of a coup for us--but only if this permission is communicated to the playwright's literary agent. I have asked my assistant theatre manager to keep an eye on me to make sure I don't forget this crucial fact and list the show in our brochure or something. He then related this great story on that topic to me.
It seems he was in rehearsals for an off-Broadway play and the producer invited the playwright's brother to view the final dress. As the playwright was deceased, the brother administered all of the rights. After the show the brother was very critical of the directing and the casting decisions. He may have been within his rights to complain about the issues if the performance license stipulated details about how the show should be presented. But we will never know because the brother finished by pointing out that the producer never requested the rights for the show.
The producer essentially told the brother that she assumed since the brother and she were of the same race and the play dealt with issues facing their shared race, the rights would naturally have been granted. The brother refused to grant the rights and the results of many weeks of rehearsal was never seen by an outside audience.
Even with the concepts of intellectual property blurring, there were a lot of mistakes made here. Not the least of which was that you shouldn't try performing anything in the heart of Manhattan without securing the rights even if you are smart enough not to invite the executor of said rights to your show. This is not to say you are safer flaunting licenses the further you are from NYC. There are plenty of stories of vacationing playwrights and agents gasping in horror at the liberties taken with scripts in both sanctioned and unsanctioned productions.
The assumption that blood is thicker than money or least permission was also probably ill-advised.
It is likely that the playwright wasn't terribly specific about how his play was to be directed and cast. The brother's problem most likely started with the fact the rights hadn't be granted and every other little dislike became enlarged as fuel for the complaint. The guy who taught me about the presenting business talked about the same thing in reference to horror stories we heard about performers who were absolutely sweet to us. The bizarre comments we heard about probably wasn't the root complaint but merely one of many expressions of dissatisfaction about the absence of things their riders specified should be present.
Hopefully we will be granted the rights to perform the show we want to do in the Fall so I can relate the interesting way the script fell into our hands. Not to mention how our excited, creative madmen and women manage to execute the show.
During a meeting I had today I was reminded of a series of problems I had with a group of traveling artists some time ago. I think enough time has passed that I can talk about it without revealing the identity of the group to any but the most ingenious of researchers.
One of the things I am often most anxious about when a performing group arrives is that they won't find the arrangements we have made suitable to their needs. Following the advice of the man who trained me in the business, I am pretty meticulous about advancing a show with a road manager. I double check the details of a rider just in case personnel changes result in different dietary or technical needs. It isn't foolproof but generally the worst that happens is the group arrives and says, "Oh, you must have the old rider," and accommodates what is usually the lack of something minor.
I am also upfront about anything we can't provide as soon as the topic comes up. If I suspect there might be a problem brewing with something, I send off an email confirming conversations so that I have it in writing and time stamped. In one case, I reiterated a fact in three different emails because it didn't seem to be sinking in to the guy's brain. Fortunately, it did before he arrived.
There was an instance where despite a lengthy conversation with the road manager the group had issues with the food, hotel and transportation after they arrived. The only thing that didn't emerge as a problem was the technical equipment we provided. What contributed to the problem was that the agent and the road manager apparently did not communicate the information to the artists. The artists did not communicate their needs with the road manager or have them written into the contract. What seemed strangest to me was that they had been touring for years upon years and hadn't ironed these details out. There were plenty of "you must haves" listed in the contract but a lot of basic details omitted, too.
The night before the group arrived the road manager called and said that the group would like to exercise the option I had mentioned (and expected them to exercise) a month earlier and have their rooms upgraded to suites. They would pick up the cost difference. So I scramble and as luck would have it, there are enough suites available. I am also asked to make a dentist appointment for the first business day after the concert for a group member who is having a problem with a tooth. Even more amazingly, I find someone at a dentist office near the hotel that late at night and make the arrangements during the specific time frame the performer requested.
When the group arrives, we go to the venue and I am asked to go grab food for the group because they hadn't gotten to eat before their flight and their technical director doesn't want them leaving the theatre. (Come to find out, they went swimming instead of eating earlier that day.) Later when dinner arrives, we discover the caterer has decided to embellish a little and stuffed the entree with crab. One of the group won't eat it because of the crab.
Now my mother is deathly allergic to shellfish and has almost died on a number of occasions. The two questions about food I specifically address is seafood allergies because of her and vegetarian requirements because the term means different things to different people. There were no allergies of any sort mentioned. So off I go for two more meals because one of the other people decides that since I am going anyway they would rather have something else.
An hour before curtain the road manager comes and asks if I can move them to another hotel. Now note that at this point, they haven't checked in to the rooms I upgraded for them the day before. The reason is due to a minor feature, the lack of which I revealed to the road manager a month prior. Since I had made the reservations month earlier to secure good rates during high season and a purchase order had been issued to cover the estimated cost at that hotel, there was nothing I could do.
I think they secretly wanted to stay at a specific hotel because they ended up staying there on their own dime which equaled four times the amount they would have paid for the upgraded rooms I arranged. Unfortunately, due to the fact I had canceled the rooms hours before they were to be occupied, I ended up paying for them. Fortunately, the hotel took pity on me and only charged me the regular room rate rather than the suite rate.
After the show, I discovered that instead of one trip to the airport, they had changed their plans and would now be leaving at four different times. The next day was a non-travel day for the company and all seemed well. No messages at all from the group. Still, after I went home I checked my voice mail and email regularlly for problems. Then at 11 pm I got a call at home (a number I didn't give them) from the road manager saying the group wanted to alter their pick up times.
That was about the end of the troubles, fortunately. If I recall, the performance was great. The audience loved it and had no clue what was happening behind the scenes. The one thing I appreciated was that they let the road manager do all the talking. Maybe it was because they didn't like confrontational situations. But I was glad that as I drove them to the hotel I didn't book, they didn't try to explain themselves. They kept thanking me and my staff for all we did and talked about how grateful they were. I grinned and bore it while looking forward to their departure thinking all the while that if they were really grateful, they would stop making my life a living hell. Revisiting a frustrating topic while driving would probably not have been a good idea so I was just as happy to have them ignore that elephant in the room.
Were I to offer any advice to people starting out and those who have been lucky enough not to have a couple days like these. This was one of those fluke occurrences that transpire despite your diligent efforts to address issues well in advance. In fact, good advance planning allowed the situation not to get worse. The night of the performance everything that I would usually wander around checking on was completed by staff and volunteers doing their jobs. That left me the time to address these problems without overtly freaking out. Following this incident, I am sure I annoyed the next few road managers coming through on tour to no end double and triple checking their requirements. But I guarantee you that everyone has been happier that I have wanted to be better safe than sorry.
People are getting married and I will be attending. Posting shall resume upon my return.
Perhaps I will have some great insight about arts administration while doing the chicken dance at the reception.
I have been participating in some interesting exchanges lately. The drama production class produced a pretty dark adaptation of A Midsummer Night's Dream in the Lab Classroom this semester. I wasn't too keen on the show in principle because it was set in a dance club and an organization in town had just finished their 3rd revival of Romeo and Juliet set in a strip club. I was annoyed that it was so derivative when so many other options available.
Taken on its own, it was pretty good. There were some inventive moments. For example, since the playwright decided the rude mechanicals didn't have enough time to rehearse and learn lines, he has them present a silent butoh version of Pyramis and Thisbe. The students did a good job creating the club atmosphere by having officious bouncers at the door, black lights in the stairwell and a half-hour pre-show of the characters dancing in the club. The pre-show lent itself especially well to establishing the Helena-Demetrius-Hermia characters and backstory.
In any case, the show sold out every night of the extended run. The director started thinking it would be great to do it on Mainstage setting up platform seating around a playing area on stage rather than having the audience sit in the permanent seats. The playwright and I are both against the idea because the dynamics of the show will be entirely different. Instead of the cramped quarters and low ceilings of the Lab classroom, audiences will be watching a show surrounded by the wide open spaces of the wing space on the sides and the 70 feet of air in the fly system overhead.
To create the same ambiance, we would have to have everyone come in through the loading dock roll up door at the back of the theatre, build a hallway through the shop into a room we constructed on stage. At a certain point it seems strange to build a theatre inside your theatre. Even still the relationship of the audience to the actors and to each other is going to change. The small basement space holds 75 people which translates to two rows of 12 chairs on three side of the playing area. The director is talking about serving an audience of 300. Even if the performance was done fully in the round, that is 75 people in each direction. This increase in both the width and the depth of the seating area changes the size of the playing area and reduces the sense of tension and conflict.
Of course, part of the endeavor would be to create an entirely new production that had its own character rather than to recreate the elements of a past success. Though as the playwright pointed out, each revival of the aforementioned Romeo and Juliet adaptation was worse than the one before. Granted, they didn't have the benefit of our superb production team. The adage about not being able to enter the same river twice probably is a good caution when considering your motivation for reviving a show.
The date proposed for the revival is Fall 2010 and a lot can happen in the interim. Perhaps both the playwright and I will feel less strongly about the topic a year from now when the time comes to decide such things. I don't talk a lot about the decision making process I go through here on the blog. I wanted to take advantage of the opportunity to record some of the considerations that have come into play. It will be interesting to me to see how I view things next year and 18 months hence if the decision to perform it on our mainstage is made.
Given the dearth of conductors with the celebrity grade gravitas to attract audiences, the Detroit Symphony is trying out a replacement in the form of a robot made by Honda. Asimo, as the robot is known is said to be a strict task master and citing a perceived lack of discipline among the musicians, has ordered them fitted with electrodes in order to monitor when their focus is about to waver. When the brain waves associated with an imminent change in focus are detected, a mild shock will be automatically administered to the musician. Asimo will also have manual control of the system and has stated he hasn't ruled out its use as a general disciplinary tool.
Ah, it is a pity these stories didn't come out around April 1st!
While the robot is conducting and the technology to detect a loss of focus before it occurs does exist, they are independent of one another. Initially I was going to suggest the brainwave monitoring for orchestra/ballet/opera audiences to ensure their attention throughout. When I came across the robot story though, the idea of it torturing the musicians was much more fun. Frankly, given some of Jason Heath's gig stories, a sadistic robot conductor may not necessarily be far fetched.
Via the Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription required, I believe) is a story about a study of M.B.A. student perceptions that the Aspen Institute Center for Business Education conducted. Some of the results reveal some attitudes that non-profits, especially those focussed on social and environmental issues, might find heartening.
From the Chronicle article,
"Students seem to be saying that they really want to have careers with a positive impact on society, but they're feeling like they can't do that in mainstream business," said Nancy McGaw, deputy director of the institute's Business and Society Program. "There's a disconnect there."
Among those surveyed, "Only half of the 2007 respondents think that their personal integrity figures largely in corporate recruiters’ evaluation of them as a potential employee." About 80% believe they will be faced with a situation that would challenge their morals and values and about 90% said they expected they would look for work elsewhere if they encountered that situation. Less than half said they would voice their objections.
This report might be a wake up call for non-profits to become more involved in recruiting M.B.As. They can provide graduates with a situation that embraced their values, provided an opportunity to make a positive impact and made them feel they could speak up rather than quit when faced with moral quandaries. I had taken a little poke at a CareerBuilder.com article a couple weeks ago for implying the grass might be greener in non-profits. One of the motivations CareerBuilder mentioned that I didn't necessary find fault with was achieving ends by questionable means. Given that this is something MBAs imagine they would quit in order to avoid confronting, this could be one of the stronger selling points for non-profits.
Though the students are just as concerned about renumeration and work-life balance as anyone.
That factor will always need to be addressed.
I am making an assumption indirectly that non-profits are not actively recruiting MBAs given the fact that the students don't feel that sociopolitical knowledge is valued by recruiters and that good social and environmental practices aren't anything more than good public relations opportunities rather than integral to the value of the company and bottom line. Reading the survey results, much of this appears to be due to the way the training in their program is conducted. So it may take some lobbying of MBA programs to effect some changes in addition to showing up on career day.
I have to admit that one of my guilty pleasures when working in theatres is giving tours. It is probably because I don't have to give them often and so don't become bored with the process. I am a bit of a history buff so I tend to learn all I can about the facility in which I am working.
The interior of the Asolo Theatre in Sarasota, FL was once the interior of the Dunfermline Opera House in Dunfermline, Fife, Scotland and was built there by Andrew Carnegie. When I was working there many moons ago, I had the pleasure of giving a tour to the then current mayor of Dunfermline who was visiting the U.S.
Today we gave a tour to a school group that visits once a year as part of their tour of all the theatres in town. I have to confess, I look forward to their visit and actually called them about 6 weeks ago to find out when they would be coming. To make something of a double confession, in doing so I wasn't so much committing my time as my technical director's. He typically handles the bulk of the tour with some comments thrown in by myself. Mostly, I just follow along and listen.
Don't get me wrong. I can do an interesting tour too. I have been a big proponent of having science classes come through because a theatre is a great practical example of physics employing counterweight systems, electrical calculations, additive and subtractive light, lens, load bearing construction that has to move, etc. Whenever someone asks what they have to learn math or science for, the reason can often be found in the theatre. I have spoken to some classes on these topics.
But as for the theatre itself, the technical director has been with the theatre for over 30 years so he knows all the stories and nooks and crannies. He has all the great stories to tell as the budding arts students ride the pit elevator down 20 feet and climb to the grid 70 feet above the stage.
Technology wise, our theatre is woefully behind the times but some of the most exciting parts of our tour are not technology dependent. I think one of the reasons why this school keeps coming back here year after year is because we are taking them to places they usually don't see and telling them great stories about what it is they are looking at. Again, this springs from the TD's love for his job and his facility. The stage was completely bare and lit by work lights. When we got to our lab classroom space, the always ready to ham it up students ran the small lighting board and instrument hang through its special effect paces. But that was at the end of the tour after plenty of pictures had been taken and questions had been asked about our big, empty space.
The technical director's ability to keep a group engaged with few bells and whistles reminds us where the true source of theatre's appeal is. Perhaps some might say it follows that his job isn't really a necessary part of the transaction. I would counter that it is his mastery of this very concept that has allowed him to create minimal sets that evoke much more with the meager production budget he is allocated. (Well, that along with heroic recycling efforts.)
I am not waxing so sentimental as to claim the look in the kids' eyes are all the thanks I need. I am proud of the theatre and like to show it off, however. I have been in and out of theatres so much I forget what a novelty it is for most people to be able to climb around and place their hands on things. I talk about so many problems and challenges on the blog I wanted to celebrate the wonder people can experience in an empty theatre space.
I am working tonight (and tomorrow night for that matter) so I don't have much time to write. I do want to take this brief opportunity to direct you to Ken Davenport's blog, The Producer's Perspective. As a producer of off-Broadway shows he has some great insights into the business in NYC like how to get your show produced, how much a risk it is to produce on Broadway, what does a press agent do, and the importance of having those who sell your product believe in it (and why that is tough to accomplish on Broadway).
Since he also takes a look at the implications of policy issues like today's entry on what the universal health care program being touted by the presidential candidates may mean for Broadway.
I had actually gotten an email from one of his assistants a year or so ago inviting me to see Altar Boyz in New York, but I didn't know he had a blog (maybe he didn't at the time.) I have to give credit to TheatreForte for turning me on to his blog with their tireless efforts at indexing arts related blogs.
Much to my disappointment, Gene Weingarten got a Pulitzer for his little "experiment" with Joshua Bell in a Metro Station. While the award is for the quality of writing rather than the subject, it does lend credibility to the premise of the story itself. But I have already expressed my feelings on that matter as well as the attempt to replicate it in London with Tasmin Little.
We (meaning bloggers and various and sundry arts writers) often talk about how the arts attendance experience was a lot less like the staid and proper process of sitting in a dark room facing a stage. However, other than a few generalizations, we didn't have much to offer in the way of concrete specifics.
Or at least that has been the case here at Butts In The Seats.
Fortunately, blogger and arts critic Terry Teachout comes to the rescue with an article about the good old days in Commentary this month. Since he addresses piano concerts people who perform or attend such concerts probably have a better idea about some of the things to which he refers. It is clear to the general audience that things were a little looser by today's standards. There was more embellishment and improvisation even from the composers themselves.
"...British composer Charles Villiers Stanford heard Johannes Brahms play his Second Piano Concerto, he observed that the composer 'took it for granted that the public knew he had written the right notes, and did not worry himself over such little trifles as hitting the wrong ones. . . . [T]hey did not disturb his hearers any more than himself.'"
Liszt apparently had a urn placed in lobbies and would sit at the piano reviewing the suggestions placed within by audience members and would chat with them between pieces. Audience members, for their part "...thought nothing of applauding not merely between movements, but in order to pay tribute to a particularly well-played passage in the middle of a piece."
It is dishonest in a sense to talk about "how things used to be" because the reality was that these gentlemen were the popular musicians of their time and everything Teachout cites is no different than attending a contemporary music concert today. Musicians improvise on their own work knowing that the audience is aware of the more perfect version produced in a studio but don't care that they aren't playing it exactly like the album. The audience will applaud during the opening notes of the song, after the solo and will sing along. Unless you are the only one singing and are out of tune and drunk, no one generally cares.
Teachout says he is not encouraging a raucous free for all, but a general loosening of some aspects of the experience. I am familiar enough with classical music to be certain, but I imagine I would agree with him. I wouldn't necessarily want people walking through the aisles hawking oranges while I am watching Shakespeare. The language is so complex and delicious that you need to devote a bit more attention than you would at a Mamet play which, truth be told, has a complexity and deliciousness of language of its own.
It doesn't take much effort to imagine someone associated with an orchestra would say the same thing about the product they offer. It may have been popular entertainment at one time, but it does require more attentiveness to appreciate these days.
Scott Walters over at Theatre Ideas had some thoughts on yesterday's post and then I responded to his entry and, if I didn't mess up my submission while running back and forth preparing my dinner, just replied to his response.
With all that thinking and writing, I pretty much figure I have done my blogging contribution of the day. Whew!
Actually, I did want to highlight a project Scott has been working on in conjunction with other arts bloggers, over the course of a number of blog entries called Theatre Tribe. This project is dedicated to finding viable way to do theatre in the changing economic/political/social landscape. Since he has been developing the concept essentially from scratch in entries interspersed over the course of several months, he has set up a central page that organizes his thoughts for easy reference. I have read some of his entries at various points though when I clicked through the headers on the central page, I realized how many I had missed. Scott presents some interesting ideas for revising the way performances are mounted and the nature of the artist-community relationship.
There are times when I find Scott's writings to be strident and in opposition with my own thoughts. But he is also very thoughtful and reflective. Which is why I keep going back.
The impetus for the original entry I followed up on yesterday was writing effective press releases. It got me thinking so when I came home this evening I started looking around for tips for putting together a successful publicity photo shoot. There are plenty of guides on composing a shot but I haven't been able to find anything on how to get performers to look natural. There are plenty of groups that do a good job with their publicity shots but I have seen enough awful pictures in newspapers and on websites that I essentially consider it a moral imperative to list some sort of resource on my blog.
I have worked with any number of directors who were pretty vigilant about keeping bad acting out of their shows who seem to throw those rules out the window for the photo shoot. You get heavily posed shots where the actors are blatantly indicating their emotions-"Here I am terrified. Boy am I terrified."
The only advice I can offer is from two different places I worked. Both essentially followed the same scheme. One had the actors run through a scene and the photographer either snapped away or yelled freeze. The other had much more advanced performers and let them essentially improv with each other in character and the photographer snapped away. In the latter case, the photographer was more likely to tell the actors to keep going than to stop so he could catch something. The photographs in got cases tended to have a more organic dynamic to them.
I wonder if someone out there with more photo shoots under their belt might have a more formal list of tips for effective publicity shots. (Or knows of a source that has them.) I would think a list of cliches to avoid would be valuable as well. (Mollified person in foreground with person glaring disapprovingly behind and to the side, for example.) I did find one website talking about photo cliches but it was pretty snarky so I thought it best not to link.
If you have tips or know where to find them, let me know.
In an attempt to dance with the one that brung me and pay local culture its due, I wanted to mention a production we presented this weekend. One of our consortium partners re-mounted a production about the life of the last pre-Contact chief of Maui island, Kahekili. The original performance was about 10 years ago. The current production expands on the original and marks the first time the National Endowment for the Arts has recognized hula kahiko with in their American Masterpieces grant program.
I don't usually promote performances on my blog but I do feel some loyalty to culture in which I am living. Productions of this kind which expand on traditional hula performances are few and far between so I am eager to advance what I feel is a part of a renaissance in Hawaiian culture.
What I find fascinating about the story of Kahekili is the parallels to Arthurian legend. Kahekili essentially ruled 7 of the 8 major Hawaiian islands through either conquest or capitulation. Unfortunately, like Uther, he couldn't close the deal and unite all into all into a single kingdom. That fell to Kamehameha the Great who is said to be Kahekili's son. Since Kamehameha didn't live in the Maui court there is a sense that like Arthur, there is some illegitimacy attached. That is where the similarities end. Kamehameha denied Kahekili was his father and even opposed the Maui chief's conquest of the Big Island of Hawaii.
Since most of Kahekili's activities occurred prior to Captain Cook's arrival, it is interesting to see a parallel to Arthurian legend emerge. On the other hand, given that all knowledge was transmitted orally at the time, some alterations to the story to bring it in line with Camelot may have crept in post-Contact. Especially if someone was trying to validate his reign and right to treat with other monarchs and leaders.
The other reason I promote shows like this for the educational elements. During the production's tour on the U.S. Mainland, the group had to explain the difference between Hawaiian hula and other related forms like Samoan fire knives and the frenetic hips and drumming of Tahitian dance. The one indication the group had that the Hawaii Visitors and Convention Bureau was doing a good job with their advertising was that some people were surprised by the battles portrayed in the show. They thought Hawaiians were all aloha and didn't fight.
In fact, Kahekili was incredibly ruthless in war. The district our theatre is located in was the site of a particularly infamous massacre by his armies where he wiped out all the noble houses on the island. Any nobles living here after that came from the Neighboring Islands. One of the most scenic spots on the island is the location where Kamehameha's troops drove their opposition over the cliffs during his conquests.
The production was equally as educational for local audiences as it portrays fertility, wedding and chiefly practices rarely witnessed these days. Kahekili having been eclipsed by Kamehameha, is also not a very well known figure so his story is also informative for the community. The tour is winding down this summer though there are whispers of some interest from a place in Germany. If there is additional interest, who knows what might be arranged....
I have no stake in the success of the show so if there is any interest from my readers, they should contact these folks.
As something of a counterpoint to my entry yesterday on how exposure to the arts can benefit one's neurological development is this National Review piece from December in which Robert Fulford reminds us that arts exposure won't save your soul or improve your personality.
He quotes George Steiner, "'We know that a man can play Bach and Schubert and go to his day's work at Auschwitz in the morning,'" and notes "...we also can't claim that immersion in the arts will create a lively mind. Art education has produced armies of learned bores." He also points out that artists are not imbued with any special grace as people and may possess the most vie personalities even as they produce the most engaging works we have ever encountered.
This observation is has become less true of late as an ever increasing tabloid eye on the activities of celebrities has seen art valued in the context of the artist. This isn't just a matter of actors being fired from Lost to minimize the bad press from a DUI. There is often trouble with the performance of J.S. Bach's work given a perception of anti-Semitic sentiments which may have simply been a reflection of the time in which he lived and text which he drew from. (The Gospel of John from which he derived his St. John Passion contains a good deal of derogatory content.)
What Fulford says the arts do guarantee is, "Those who give it their time and love are offered the chance to live more expansive, more enjoyable and deeper lives." It is somewhat reminiscent of the proverb about leading a horse to water since the arts only afford the opportunity of improvement. Education and religion can also prove uplifting but only if they are embraced. Likewise, exposure to the arts with the intent of developing the neurological structures discussed in yesterday's entry only becomes meaningful in someone's life if they value the experience.
There have been a number of books and articles that have come out recently bemoaning the lack of knowledge exhibited by people today. Whether it was Miss South Carolina's flub at the Miss America contest, the woman on Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader who thought Europe was a country and had never heard of Hungry (her pronunciation) or talk show stunts like Jay Leno's where he asks people easy questions for which they provide embarrassing incorrect answers.
The latest chapter in this discussion making rounds of the talk shows and newspaper reviews is Susan Jacoby's The Age of American Unreason. You can read a review here or watch a pretty good interview with a transcript with Bill Moyers here. Much of her focus seems to be on how active anti-intellectualism is causing people to essentially renounce their roles as citizens of the US.
But while some of the examples Jacoby discusses are worthy of some consideration, what she says isn't as important as the whole concept of people actively not caring that they aren't familiar with basic knowledge about the world around them. It could have been any book or discussion on this topic that suddenly raised the question, do the arts have any idea how to deal with anti-intellectualism?
Most of the strategies suggested about how to build audiences seem to assume that mistakes were made but audiences can be regained. Perhaps the attendance won't be as great as before, but it seems that arts organizations are coming to the conclusion that things changed and they weren't agile or perceptive enough to recognize it. Proposals to bolster education and effect changes that reflect shifting audience expectations about the experience and social environment all seem to assume that the arts can reclaim some of the ground it lost to the Internet, high def plasma televisions and video on demand.
But does the arts world have any solutions to combat complete indifference or even worse, active attempts reinforced by social pressure, to distance oneself from anything that might indicate that one was more than just plain folks. You have probably heard that in some communities, showing signs of being educated could find one accused of putting on airs and having elitist notions. When I was discussing the general topic of this book with a person in my office, he said that in some of the communities that the college served, some males were resistant to attend for fear of becoming homosexuals. Not being labeled--becoming. This puts a survey the college did a couple years ago in an entirely different context. One of the top answers from men regarding what they liked about the school was the attractive women.
Frankly, I wonder if there is any solution the arts world can enact in its current position. Had the arts community more influence in society, it might work to make intellectual pursuits more of a core value. Perhaps it still can, though the road will certainly be slow and long. The truth might be that there are plenty of intellectually curious people out there to whom the arts wielding a new approach might appeal. It is easy enough for shows like Jay Leno's to edit out all the correct answers in order to put a comedy bit together. And certainly the erudite answers of Miss America and game show contestants probably aren't popular viewing on YouTube if they are posted at all.
Schadenfreude aside, even if things aren't as bad as popular media makes it seem, there are genuine problems with lack of intellectual curiosity and critical thinking skills in the country. While handling all the other troubles that besets them, the arts community's continued existence probably hinges in a large part on combating the idea that it is okay and perhaps even preferable not to know. People may claim that they can easily look up anything they need to know, but I often wonder if they ever bother doing it. The conditions constituting a need to know seem to be none existent.
I used to joke that I was glad people were so lazy about learning because that way employers would pay me more for being competent and knowledgeable. The truth is, that isn't the type of world I really want to live in. Nor do I imagine the majority of people would. Not only would people lack the wit to laugh at my jokes, but the lack of intellectual and perhaps social and emotional engagement would be quite dispiriting. (Initially, I was also going to say it can be depressing to be surrounded by people who willingly choose not to live up to their potential but I realized I was starting to channel my mother.)
I had a moment of panic a couple weeks ago when I was taking notes on the audio from the "Intrinsic Impacts" session at the APAP conference for one of my earlier entries. When Lisa Booth mentioned she hoped arts organizations didn't use the report as an excuse to justify providing a small group with an experience of high intrinsic value, I felt a little guilty because I had a show coming up that I knew would only have limited appeal but would provide a highly rewarding experience to those who attended.
I relaxed a few moments later because I knew that on the whole the season held wide appeal for many people. I knew this because every time I picked up the phone or checked the overnight internet ticket sales, most of the orders were for those events even though they were weeks and months hence instead of for the show we did last week. Given that most of our sales generally come in the last couple days before a performance, these steady purchases this far out is quite pleasing. Unfortunately, the weaker sales on the most recent show only served to confirm my impression that it might have a more limited appeal.
Of course, the appeal I refer to is relative to audience size rather than their enthusiasm. The audience size was actually pretty good in terms of my expectations. Their enthusiasm was through the roof. Therefore I don't have any reservations about mentioning the performer was Paul Zaloom. (Who is also the guy I mentioned yesterday.) Zaloom is probably best known for his role as the wild hair mad scientist on the Saturday morning science show, Beakman's World. However, he has had a long history as a performer with Bread and Puppet, film maker and puppeteer/performer.
I had contracted him primarily to do a performance but also asked for a couple of workshops. I am glad I did because by some measures they were some of the most successful ancillary activities I have conducted. For the first workshop, I asked him to channel part of his Beakman personae and do his Science Edu-tainment workshop where he talks about how educators can teach science in an entertaining and engaging way.
With a title like that, you might think the session was a lot of flashy tricks with little substance. I have to say I was impressed by how he really emphasized the diligence he applied in making sure the specific terminology he was using on his show (and our workshop) was vetted by scientists at the Exploratorium in San Francisco. I guess he did a good job because a half hour into his 90 minute presentation, one of the science faculty offered him a job as a lecturer next semester. Zaloom deferred because he doesn't have a science degree. I think his enthusiasm and contention that the best scientists are as creative as any artist really energized and excited the 50 educators and educators in training who attended the session.
The second workshop he did was titled "Theatre of Trash." This one he did for our drama students and some improv groups with an association with our school. For this workshop he raided our prop room for miscellaneous items and required participants to bring some items of their own. He gave a lecture/demo on the use of found objects in performance. Then he set the students loose on the pile and critiqued their work when they were done.
While my hope for Zaloom's visit was that people would walk away with some new ideas about creating and viewing art and science, I was really hoping this workshop in particular would inject some new perspective. A lot of what I see the students, alumni and even some renters do is derivative of others. Worse, they are borrowing liberally from other local performers who did the same so it is all pretty incestuous. Granted, with sampling, mash-ups, etc., it may just be a function of how they have been socialized to think of the creative process. They still need a kick in the pants though.
Zaloom's performance did some rump kicking of its own. As a social satirist, his work pushes some buttons at times. Because Zaloom employs found objects and puppetry in his shows it introduces a level of insulation that allows the audience to accept what is happening in a way they couldn't if a person was saying it directly to them.
After the show he invited the audience up for a backstage tour and 90% of them came up. He explained that puppeteers are the opposite of magicians in that they love to show off their secrets. He spent a fairly long time demonstrating and answering questions for the people huddled around his gear. For the third time in a week, I think people left his presence having had an entirely different experience than they usually do when they enter a familiar room, be it a classroom or theatre.
As I mentioned yesterday, there are experiences you can't replicate in all situations because the dynamic isn't there. I talked yesterday about how the audience had an entirely different relationship with Zaloom than they usually do at our shows. As an interesting counterpoint, the night he performed, one of our sister campuses was presenting a version of The Tempest employing Balinese shadow puppetry. Zaloom's show also employed shadow puppets rigged in the Balinese fashion.
The Tempest was much more technically advanced and very cleverly done. I really wanted to know how they managed to alternate between what was being projected without also including the people who appeared to be standing right in front of the screen. Unfortunately, the dynamic for that show was such that it didn't allow audience members more than a glimpse of the mechanisms at curtain call.
The ultimate result of Paul Zaloom's visit is that many people were pleased with their experiences of last week. I am getting all sorts of praise and thanks. There have also been a number of people who have stated we should be doing this type of thing more often. They forget, of course, that I actually started the process 18 months ago when I approached them about their interest in the workshops. It ain't a simple proposition. What's more, it also seems to have slipped their minds that the money to pay for artist fees, transportation, lodging and food is coming out of my earned income! Good ideas are always free. Reality costs, n'est-ce pas?
A nod of appreciation to Stanlyn Brevé at the National Performance Network for noting that Fractured Atlas is continuing in the practice of being a irreplaceable resource for artists by offering online classes.
A couple weeks ago, Fractured Atlas Founder, Adam Huttler announced the opening of Fractured U. as a source of information for artists.
For the last year we've been quietly putting together an online curriculum in arts management aimed squarely at artists who are working outside the mainstream establishment and trying to make things happen on their own terms. The initial roster of classes provides introductions to fundraising, marketing, and professional identity. The course list is short for the moment, but we'll be expanding it steadily over time.Fractured U. is free and open to the public, although you'll need to be a Fractured Atlas member to participate in discussion forums or take quizzes.
A lot of the information seems elementary to me -- which is good because I went to school learn this stuff! But it also seems to be a fairly complete and clearly explained basic set of information. If you don't have a clue about marketing or are intimidated by the concept, their information is a good place to start.
I am always happy to promote Fractured Atlas because I am grateful I am in a position where I don't have to avail myself of their services. I am fortunate enough to have insurance coverage and a job, etc, but there are plenty of folks I know who don't and I often point them to Fractured Atlas. They are big advocates for equitable treatment for artists with housing, healthcare and in other areas that impact artists.
There is an article on the National Endowment of the Arts in Commentary this month (via Arts and Letters Daily) with a suggestion about the role the organization should play that may not please everyone.
The author, Michael J. Lewis, an Art and Architecture professor at Williams College recounts the history of the organization from President Johnson's declaration at the NEA's founding that “There is a quality in art which speaks across the gulf dividing man from man and nation from nation, and century from century. . . . The stakes may well be the survival of civilization” to the obscenity accusations of the 80s and the caution exhibited in the years that followed.
Lewis argues that NEA funding practices, rather than freeing artists to experiment actually promote mediocrity by funding the under served instead of quality artists and succumbing to political pressure from elected officials. (I should note that a number of his citations from two other Commentary articles on the NEA so the opinions are a little inbred.)
Having failed to cultivate new works on a wide scale, Lewis argues the NEA should re-purpose itself to preserve existing works.
"The audiences for music and dance have long been graying (perhaps whitening is now the better term), and there is much concern that they will vanish within a generation’s time. Here, the role of the NEA would not be to create but rather to preserve or, if it comes to that, to “cocoon” art by means of a holding action: for instance, subsidizing classical orchestras and ballet companies so as to maintain a cadre of professionals who will keep alive what would otherwise become a dead language. As it happens, this is precisely the area where the NEA record has historically been brightest."
I am not sure if I appreciate his reference to orchestras and ballet companies as working in a dead language (or soon to be so.) But maybe that is a truth that needs to be faced. At the same time, I am also not terribly comfortable with the idea that the NEA should enable ballets and orchestras to avoid innovating their practices. Though I am sure if this philosophy was embraced, the nation's flagship ballets and orchestras would be the ones receiving the funding leaving the smaller organizations to innovate or disappear.
I am packing and repacking for my trip to the APAP conference, but I couldn't pass up the opportunity point out a great story that appeared on Artsjournal.com about a rotating club show in Berlin that has people packing techno clubs on Monday nights despite the lack of advertising to listen to chamber orchestras.
Every first Monday a club night called Yellow Lounge rotates among the hottest clubs in the city. According to the article, one club turned over 100 people away. The live performance is sandwiched between DJs playing classical recordings. Part of the appeal to attendees seems to be the approach to classical music the DJs and performers bring.
"What is particularly enjoyable about the Yellow Lounge is that it is not at all intimidating. You don't need to know anything about classical music to feel at home. There is none of the snobbery associated with the genre; Canisius never gives you a "Duh! It's Mozart, dummy" look if you ask what he has just played, and the musicians tend to introduce each track with a non-patronising explanation of its importance. He welcomes requests, too, but only plays them "if the mood is right".
Admission is only five euros ($7.33). Universal Music, seeing an opportunity to change perceptions about classical music, underwrites the cost of the event. The organizers are apparently free to book who they like, but many of the artists are on a Universal label.
I am not going to suggest that a similar program could be successful in the U.S. because I suspect that classical music has a more prominent place in the collective consciousness of Germans than U.S. citizens. Even if younger Germans are turning away from classical music, I imagine that the concept of what type of person listens to the music isn't as narrowly defined as it is in the U.S.
But perhaps there is some sort of program that might have success that doesn't necessarily involve plugging instruments into amps.
I don't know how wide spread this experience is, but there is one area where I assumed that technology was making a window of interest smaller that I think it is actually expanding it-- Press Releases.
One of the cardinal rules of writing press releases has always been to keep the subject matter timely. This often means releasing your information within a certain window where it is not so early that news people have more immediate events to cover and not so late that you miss the deadline.
As Internet connections got better and sending images and releases by email rather than hard copies through regular mail became more prevalent, there was a brief period where sending out information closer to a performance night seemed wiser and preferred.
Now I am getting calls from newspapers 4-6 weeks before a performance asking me for a release and images. It is a minority that seems to prefer the information two weeks or so out from the performance. My theory is that technology has made it easier for news outlets to organized stories. I am guessing I get the calls because they have inputted the calendar listings I send out in the Fall into some sort of software that reminds them to call me for information. I also guess technology is helping them put their story together and lay out part of the issue it will run in weeks ahead of time.
In a certain respect, my job has actually gotten harder because I need to be thinking about these shows weeks early than I used to so I have a release ready for the asking. I also need to be bugging the performance groups for information to support what I write and images to send to the press. With some artists and agents who are not well organized, this can create a problem.
There is a standard line in most every contract I get that says press materials will be provided to me a month before a performance. I have begun toying with the idea of researching the amount of information available about an artist online and changing that to 60 days for those with a dearth of materials.
Has anyone else had this experience or am I just surrounded by a well organized, zealous media?
The NY Times covers the Metropolitan Opera's high definition broadcast of Hansel and Gretel to movie theatres throughout the country. One of the questions they ask is whether the experience will translate into people going to see the opera live.
By some coincidence, I received a brochure from the Philadelphia Orchestra today offering me the opportunity to host a high definition broadcast of up to five performances this year. Except that I have a 15 year old sound system in my theatre, I could easily host one of these events. Actually, since their fees are fairly reasonable, I could rent sound equipment and probably still finish in the black.
I don't foresee hosting one of these any time soon. But I have to think, if I got one of these brochures and I don't program classical music, who else around here has gotten one? There are plenty of other places that could hold a screening. And even though I don't intend to present one of these, there is nothing to say that someone may not rent my facility and a sound system to do so.
So what does this mean for my local symphony whose musicians haven't been paid in over a month? Or any symphony whose audience is faltering or, like Jacksonville, is enduring a protracted strike?
Is seeing a projection of the renown Philadelphia Orchestra for $15 in a movie theatre on speakers set to make explosions sound good (and perhaps has said explosions bleeding in from next door) preferable to hearing the local symphony for mediocre $50 seats amplified only by the building's natural acoustics? Do sticky floors and popcorn go better with Wagner than reserved seating and wine?
Philadelphia is fully supporting the program with all sorts of promotional materials and ideas, study guides, interactive discussions and post-performance online discussions in which audiences can participate.
And like the NY Times article asks, could the Philadelphia Orchestra inspire people to see the local symphony? Or because of the money and support they enjoy, are they setting the bar so high now that local orchestras will never be able to compete? The fidelity of sound may not be as good as a live performance, but Philadelphia may be providing the environment and interactivity that people expect from their arts attendance experience these days.
Humans being social animals, I have always been a little skeptical of the idea that 100 inch flat screen televisions, TiVos, video game systems and the Internet would ever replace the appeal of the group experience. However, if attending a video feed of an orchestra performance accompanied by a bucket of popcorn constitutes the new definition of "going to the symphony," performing arts organizations of all stripes may have to reconsider the medium through which they are delivering their product.
Want to know why people get depressed and cranky after the Christmas and New Year holidays? It's not that the cold blustery depth of winter sets in with no joy in sight until the Spring. It is entirely the Salvation Army's fault. According to an article on giving by Arthur Brooks, psychologists "...believe that charitable activity induces endorphins that produce a very mild version of the sensations people get from drugs like morphine and heroin."
So it isn't all the snow. People are just going through withdrawal when the Salvation Army packs up their bells and kettles. You may think all that bell ringing is annoying, but in reality, they just leave you wanting more.
The article cites a number of surveys and studies which have found that people who give, be it time, money or blood, are much happier than those who don't. "American households, people who gave money to charity in 2000 were 43% more likely than non-givers to say they were "very happy" about their lives. Similarly, volunteers were 42% more likely to be very happy than non-volunteers. "
There is a chicken-egg question in the article. Do people who are happy to begin with give more often or does giving lead to a feeling of happiness? Brooks cites a study that shows more happiness after giving, but I still wonder if predisposition has something to do with it.
In any case, it seems that scheduling the annual deadline for tax deductible giving with the Christmas holidays is well timed. If having the atmosphere permeated with goodwill doesn't provide the impetus to give, the tax incentive adds a little more motivation.
Knowing that my customer service skills can be lacking, I try to keep my eyes open for practices that answer customer needs well. One of the cardinal rules for relations with anyone, be it your boss, relatives, friends or patrons is to try to anticipate the needs of the other person.
Last week I came across an instance of what to do and wanted to share it with the readers. It is a small act, but it can make a big difference.
I have been emailing back and forth among two other alumni members of the Association of Performing Arts Presenters Emerging Leadership Institute about some activities we want new and alumni members to participate in as part of our attempt to enhance the value of attending the institute.
One person emailed the rest of us a draft letter addressed to the new and returning ELI members alerting them to conference sessions and social events where concerns members had would be addressed. The format was pretty simple with a listing of the event and the time. It looked fine and I replied to that effect mentioning that I would have to research one session a little more because the title made it look interesting.
The next email I received had a revision of the previous letter. This time each session listed had a full description of what the session was all about. What had impressed me was that she took a cue from my comment that I intended to research a session that sounded interesting to provide me the information herself. Obviously, she didn't do it for me alone. If I was curious, others would be as well.
Actually, since I am praising her rather than criticizing, I don't mind mentioning her by name- Laura Kendall, Assistant Director of Community Engagement and Learning at the Lied Center in Lincoln, NE. There, now maybe she will get a raise.
You would naturally expect someone with a title like hers to make that connection and act on it, but it is a rarer quality than you would think. It is easy to enter a mindset that the community you are engaging and educating is only your own and that you only need to do so within the context of programs planned in conjunction with performances.
And maybe she doesn't pick up on the unspoken messages all the time either. However, I emailed her back last week praising her for recognizing that additional information would make a better letter. She said I made her day so I will bet she will be more conscious of these cues in the future regardless of how well she noticed them before.
Anticipating and answering needs people didn't really know they had is what will help set an experience at an arts organization apart from other experiences. People are able to gain the information they want more and more easily these days. Global positioning directional units were one of the hottest selling items this Christmas season. But information sources like GPS units only provide what you ask for and not only is the information sometimes incorrect, it also lacks wisdom and discernment to advise well.
But this is only one example of good practices arts organizations should be embracing. Keeping alert for everyday occurrence that can adapted and applied to become your standard procedures is the real point of this entry. Often it isn't that you come across a new practice as you encounter something that makes you question if you are doing it well enough.
More and more frequently we read about how the next phase of the economy will be the Creative economy. It is in major magazines, the subject of conferences, and the topic of study for state and regional arts organizations.
But I am wondering if the U.S. as a society is adequately preparing the next generation to take part in this economy. I am not referring to the disappearance of arts from schools or the fact that fewer people are reading. These things are important, to be sure. I am beginning to wonder if children today are even being challenged to use their basic imagination.
As a commute to work and run errands, I often see televisions playing DVDs in cars and SUVs. I hate to lapse into a round of "in my day", but I wonder if these kids are going to want for not being challenged to entertain themselves on trips around town, much less on long vacation trips. When I was younger, my mother would actually hide our toys about 6 weeks before a long trip and then give me back to us so that they would be new to us and keep us occupied during the trip. (I must have inherited my frugality and cleverness from her.)
Although it tests parents' patience, there is something to be said for having to develop the self-control not to antagonize your sisters. And there is something to be said for having to invent strange games to keep yourself occupied during the trip. My sisters came up with some rules about holding your breath while passing a cemetery and lifting your feet when crossing train tracks. My father would then pretend to pass out from lack of oxygen while driving by large cemeteries and rolling to a stop on train tracks because his feet were no longer on the accelerator.
Now I will admit that not everyone is as blessed with my ability to read in moving vehicles. I will also never suggest that the television sets on airplanes be removed. I like the distraction of those itty-bitty screens just fine.
DVDs and video games are starting to tout themselves as educational and they might be. But are the games sharpening and improving creativity? Maybe, but I think it is too soon and too tough to tell.
One thing I do know is that boredom, like necessity is the mother of invention. Certainly, much of what I produced while a bored child was destructive as much as it was constructive but there is little gained and learned in the absence of taking that risk. I had acres and acres of fields and forests upon which to wreak havoc without the distraction of color television much less cable to distract me.
Many kids today may not have the physical space to explore and experiment that me and my friends did. But I also suspect and fear that some of the limits they face are barriers of imagination that they haven't learned to surmount.
Observant folks and readers of the Adaptistration blog will have noted that I have joined with Drew McManus and his Merry Band over at InsidetheArts.com. Unlike the existing blogs associated with Inside the Arts which are hosted under Drew's Typepad account, I am still solely in control of what appears here.
So don't blame Drew for any strangeness found on Butts in the Seats like the Tag Cloud on the left which won't turn into a weighted cloud no matter how many code changes I have made in Movable Type. Unfortunately, Drew can't help because he just clicks a few boxes in Typepad and what he wants to happen magically appears. Movable Type is made by the same company but requires changes by hand. Something I am usually quite adept at. I am thinking I should have switched to TypePad when I upgraded my software.
Anyhow, I am happy to have joined up on Inside the Arts. I have been corresponding with Drew for a few years now and even contributed to his Take A Friend to the Orchestra project a couple times. I am very excited by the way he thinks and his vision for Inside the Arts.
I have also corresponded with Sticks and Drones contributor Ron Spigelman who has had his students at Drury University read Butts in the Seats as part of the class he teaches. How can I not want to be associated with someone with such obvious wisdom and taste?
And Ron's partner in crime, Bill Eddins has had people complain that he wiggles his bum too much while conducting. How could I not want to be associated with a person who brings so much energy and enthusiasm to orchestra music.
As for the Arts Addict, Jason Heath-- he drive a fire breathing Saturn. I am pretty sure a guy that tough can take me so I am not going to say anything that might offend.
Anyhow, I look forward to my association with these folks and those slated to join. I anticipate there will be some cross blog conversations because there are things I am curious about regarding the artistic and educational circles these guys travel in. I figure many of our readers probably are too.
So stay tuned and see what develops!
Since things are quieting down around the theatre this week (we only have a pre-school Christmas show, college winter graduation, Nutcracker brush up rehearsal and performances). I have been trying to dispose of obsolete equipment from around the office and such.
One of the things it is difficult to do around a theatre is get rid of stuff. The technical director here is notorious for holding on to things. In one respect this is good because so much is recycled, we don't need to purchase new materials all the time. Saving money is good.
On the other hand, there are items we have had for 25 years and haven't used and probably will never use again. We have tried to get rid of them but he insists we keep them against a theoretical use we may have in the future. This is preventing us from freeing up some much needed storage space and actually endangering other objects given that many of the old pieces are termite infested. We are able to toss some things out while he is on vacation (parting is less painful out of sight) or when they crumble under his touch due to the aforementioned termites.
Given that he is the one that has to work around the lack of storage, the situation is really more a bother for him than for me. I merely look around the shop and sigh about all the room we would have if shelves and the area under the pit were cleaned out.
In some respects, I am as bad as he only on a much smaller scale. We got brand new shiny ticket printers this summer but I just packed away the old one "just in case" even though it won't work well at all with our new ticketing software. If the new printer had a problem, it would be a better use of our time to hand write all our tickets rather than attempt to configure the software to the old printer.
I am sure these type of practices are a metaphor for theatre as an industry as a whole. Resistance to tossing out barely functional equipment for fear we may one day need it probably equates to holding on to old practices and programming for fear that adopting new ones might leave us with less of an audience than we are already drawing.
In fact, I am pretty sure a feng shui practitioner would say that cluttering our space with old, unused objects is anchoring us to the past and hindering the progress we could be making in our lives. Since there are some items that we use often like our platforms, those feng shui practitioners and people on those anti-clutter home improvement shows wouldn't necessarily counsel us to toss them.
Repainting a platform to make it look better on stage is one thing, but dressing up old audience development and programming strategies is another. The platform has some functional life left to it. There is often less hope to be found in old marketing practices.
The fear of discarding something with even marginal use when you have an untried replacement--or no replacement at all, can be paralyzing. I fully acknowledged to my assistant theatre manager that I would probably toss the old ticket printer this summer but I couldn't bring myself to part with it just right now.
In years past I have written about how the members of my block blocking consortium leverage our purchasing power by proposing a tour to performers and their agents. Given the difficulty of finding workable time slots among 3-6 different organizations across the state, we often earn our discounts.
One thing I hadn't found was a good example of producing organizations who cooperated to cut costs. Among presenters like my consortium, the questions that come up are mainly date and cost related--when are the artists available, are there openings on members' calendars, can we afford the terms the performers seek.
Among producing organizations, there are so many more questions many potentially related to the artistic differences among the organizations- who does the casting, who designs costumes, lights, sets. Will the artistic quality and value reflect what patrons have come to expect of their local theatre. Will the other theatres have input into any of these elements? How much of the sets travel and how much is built by each organization? Given differences in stage sizes, what set pieces may be cut and still maintain the vision of the directors and designers?
How is it going to be paid for? If the theatres each normally operate under different Equity pay rates, will the actors be paid differently in each theatre?
Presenters face some of these questions on occasion, but to very limited degree compared to groups that are co-producing.
A blog entry on the McCarter Theatre website sheds some light on some of these questions. They are co-producing Argonautika with Berkeley Rep and Shakespeare Theatre Company. The show was rehearsed and first opened in San Francisco though the show was cast from auditions at all three locations. All three organizations are sharing all rehearsal costs (including the brush ups when the show moves) and presumably a portion of many of the other costs.
I liked McCarter Producing Associate, Adam Immerwahr's reasons for partnering with other organizations.
1) it allows what would otherwise be a local production to have a much broader impact;2) it allows an artist to continue to develop their work over time (allowing them another chance to make adjustments with each production);
3) it can be a cost-saving measure, allowing each of the theaters to share common costs (like the set, costumes, rehearsal time and casting expenses);
4) it is a way for multiple theaters to each share their expertise (new play development, mounting musicals, building big sets, etc.).
I especially appreciated the final point about shared expertise. I have been talking about cooperative efforts for a long time and while cost-savings is certainly going to be important in increasingly difficult financial times, I have always felt sharing knowledge and effort was going to prove crucial to the survival of many arts organizations because so little occurs among arts entities to begin with.
Drew McManus at Adaptistration links to an article on The Partial Observer today on a familiar topic which author Holly Mulcahy terms, "The Talk." You know, the one that goes "When a young man or woman grows up and falls in love with the arts, their thoughts turn to making a career of it. They impulsively jump into a passionate embrace with family, friends and faculty whispering sweet words of encouragement in their ears. They throw themselves into their art without reservation and without thought of cultivating alternative skills. But an arts career is a lot of responsibility and takes commitment and not the subject of a mere fling or dalliance. Even so, those who invest a lot of time and effort don't always succeed."
Mulcahy observes that most young artists aren't given this warning during their studies even if they are too optimistic about their talent to believe they might fail.
I have seen some evidence that students are receiving warnings about job prospects from their professors and teacher more frequently of late. Tom Loughlin who teaches theatre at the State University of NY-Fredonia recently posted a survey of graduates of his program on his blog, A Poor Player. While the survey was not completely scientific and only applies to the graduates of the SUNY-Fredonia program, the 80 responses he received show enough of a trend to be sobering.
When asked how much of their income over the past year was derived from working on a entertainment related project, 30.6% said zero percent and 30.6% said one hundred percent. The rest fell in between. Although all told, 54% of the respondents made between 0% and 25% of their income so the results skewed fairly low. Working in the industry is a veritable all or nothing prospect. Half the respondents graduated between 1990 and 2000 so they have had some time to work on establishing themselves.
The following is excerpted from the conclusions of his survey. (DTD=Dept. of Theatre and Dance)
Technicians and administrators have the highest probability of earning any money in the business. Because the probabilities which follow combine the data for all types of entertainment/arts employment, it can be safely assumed that all the probabilities following are lower for performers.......• There is about a 33% probability, or about a 1 in 3 chance, that a DTD graduate will make as much as 50% of their income from the business in any one year. All other income will come from “day jobs.”
• There is a 31% probability, or slightly less than 1 in 3 chance, that a DTD graduate will earn no money at all in the entertainment business in any one year (and thus drop out), and a 47% probability (roughly 50-50 chance) that a DTD graduate will make no money at all in live theatre after graduation in any one
year......• There is no direct correlation between membership in a union and earning significant income among DTD graduates. 2 out of 3 DTD graduates will not be successful in joining a union, and given the reality of multiple memberships those odds may be slightly higher.
• The probability of earning a salary which exceeds $50K in any one year in the arts/entertainment field for a DTD graduate is slightly better than 1 in 3, or 36.5%. [N.B. I suspect this statistic might be better stated as applying to only those graduates who are working in the field.]
In conclusion, the statistics seem to bear out the reality that full-time undergraduate students who major in theatre are, in all probability, preparing themselves for, at best, a part-time career. They will have to face the reality that, most likely, in any one given year they will make two-thirds of their income from a source outside the arts/entertainment field... They should enter the field with an intelligent combination of aspirations and practical planning, and with an understanding that all their hard work and preparation will be for a part-time career.
As always, your experience and mileage may vary according to your degree, experience and network of contacts. Actually, these statistics should motivate people to develop an extensive network of contacts. Having a wide network of people who think highly of your work becomes increasingly important the tougher it is to find meaningful paid work.