tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post6346710140599761213..comments2024-02-27T16:59:54.089-05:00Comments on (The New) Theatre Ideas: Occupy Lincoln Center (part 2)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-66561705047444813912011-11-22T14:50:21.342-05:002011-11-22T14:50:21.342-05:00Just moved to a large metropolitan center (5 mil+)...Just moved to a large metropolitan center (5 mil+) to a much smaller one (100K+). Several great theatres to some decent college theatre and BAD community theatre (emphasis on bad, not because they are extra bad, but to contrast to good community theatre, which does exist). I've always wanted to start a theatre company but was daunted by the size and saturation of the theatres in my previous location. However, reading these posts have (believe it or not) inspired me to think it might be able to work here. <br /><br />One thing to remember, that I don't think has been said: For smaller organizations, a little goes a very long way, as opposed to comparing the wealth disparity to the individual, when we all need essentially the same to survive as a human being. <br /><br />Making sense? Love the blog.Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14459912711528974289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-1778752600565195952011-11-21T00:14:36.847-05:002011-11-21T00:14:36.847-05:00Clayton: What if funding didn't go to organiza...Clayton: What if funding didn't go to organizations at all, but directly to artists? see http://wp.me/1gG8Q<br />Scott: thoughts?LindaInPhoenixhttp://creativeinfrastructure.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-91388019791101087972011-11-20T13:09:22.196-05:002011-11-20T13:09:22.196-05:00But Scott, here's the problem - say that sudde...But Scott, here's the problem - say that suddenly half of the money currently going to the large offending organizations was freed up to be redistributed. Who should it go to? How should that decision be made? What are the criteria of effectiveness? Ultimately, there will always be organizations frozen out - we simply, as Landesman pointed out, seem to have too many organizations to effectively fund (which is not to say that too many organizations exist for the general good - I personally believe that we shouldn't be stifling the creation of new arts entities - but equally we shouldn't be working from an expectation that all of those organizations are equally valid, effective, and worthy of funding.). MLK's powerful words were about a specific issue with specific redress - the oppressed minorities of the United States deserved equality. And equality, at least on paper, was given. And yet economic disparities exist. Questions about distribution of funding exists. And the problem is that, when you're dealing with people, human beings, and a democracy, you don't have the relative luxury of being able to make decisions--to curate--the maximal effect. <br /><br />Not all arts organizations are created equal, and the honest truth is that they should not be funded as such - especially since the vast majority of them exist to serve some version of the public good. Where you and I agree is that we both don't think the current funding model is addressing that issue as much as it addresses which organizations have the loudest voices and the deepest development benches. Where we disagree, as far as I can tell, is that you believe we should attempt to adjust the model without clearly proposing a solution (which, I'll say, sounds a lot like the Occupy ethos, much as I respect them), and I think that, in an unequal power distribution such as exists between funders and fundees, the best way to ensure change is to have data and clear pathways for how to proceed to a new future...Clayton Lordhttp://www.artsjournal.com/newbeansnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-56645861068730119012011-11-20T07:12:51.747-05:002011-11-20T07:12:51.747-05:00Linda -- Data doesn't hurt. What hurts is wait...Linda -- Data doesn't hurt. What hurts is waiting while we gather more and more data. We have been waiting for decades now. AS MLK said, "freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied." I fail to see what is unclear about the data we currently have -- it looks at the field as a whole and draws some very stark conclusions that are justified. It's not as if the comparison is even close: 2% of the nonprofit arts and culture organizations receive 55% of the philanthropic money. What more data do we need to draw our conclusions? This is a moral and humanistic issue, not a scientific or economic problem. It is about what is right.Scott Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465161646609405658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-76555743783026991692011-11-19T22:39:59.621-05:002011-11-19T22:39:59.621-05:00Scott:
You make some important points and so does...Scott:<br /><br />You make some important points and so does Clayton. Thank you both. However, to say that “gathering more data is counterproductive” is in itself counterproductive. Data is much easier to come by now than it was in MLK’s time; it can be analyzed quickly and distributed at the speed of light. Passion combined with data analysis makes for more powerful tools advocacy than passion alone. We need both.LindaInPhoenixhttp://creativeinfrastructure.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-49143521695729446392011-11-19T17:30:55.604-05:002011-11-19T17:30:55.604-05:00Clayton -- Thank you for your thoughtful response....Clayton -- Thank you for your thoughtful response. I agree that it is a complex problem, but I see the need to gather more data as counter-productive. Paralysis by analysis, death by delay, whatever one wants to call it, but it is the same thing that prompted MLK's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" -- waiting is not an option. Are there people who think that the arts are unnecessary -- yes. But not the foundations I am talking about, who are committed to the arts. It is time to move toward economic justice, in the arts as in the nation as a whole. The time for more studies is past.Scott Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465161646609405658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-10051208588740859592011-11-19T12:28:09.180-05:002011-11-19T12:28:09.180-05:00Scott,
I find myself so conflicted on this. At Th...Scott,<br /><br />I find myself so conflicted on this. At Theatre Bay Area, where I work, we spend a lot of time thinking about the disparities in funding (in fact, I wrote a series of articles trying to better understand the variations), and I think that there are so many valid points both in Holly's writing and yours. And yet, I find myself frustrated at the idea of turning on ourselves, attacking the biggest, most visible members of our species right when everyone else in the world wants to attack us too - as superfluous, as a waste, as something that should be stripped out of an austere new American necessity.<br /><br />The problems here run deep, and are the fault of many different entity, including but absolutely not limited to the funding community, the large theaters themselves, an education system that has systematically turned minorities away from the arts over three decades and that therefore demonstrates a strong disparity in white vs. non-white arts masters holders. And while "fault" isn't the right word for this next bit, perhaps simply "reality" is better, reports from the SPPA to WolfBrown's research on cultural participation to anecdotal evidence from anyone who has cared to ask reveal that part of the reason white people and the European canon so dominate the cultural scene is that people who aren't white are generally less interested in the presentational, place-based art that the cultural scene's biggest animals specialize in.<br /><br />We, currently conducting work to look at the intrinsic impact of art with WolfBrown, particularly looking at theatre, and there's a lot of positive to be seen in the first look at the data, at least as far as an argument for more funding parity is concerned. Small theaters seem to be able to, with the right combination of quality, content, and appropriate audience, generate equal-to or higher impacts on their patrons. On a more nuts-and-bolts level, if response rate to the survey is an indicator of passion from a theatre's audience, then small theaters, who were generally able to get higher response percentages, may have (in some ways) more enthusiastic audiences. <br /><br />At the same time, we're trying to commission a study looking at which theaters are the "sources" within a community - the places from which patrons rise up - and which theaters are the "sinks" - the places where patrons end their artistic lifecycle. And we're also looking at research out of Dell'Arte and other non-arts areas that indicates that the impact of art on a brain activity level isn't really associated with size of theatre.<br /><br />Which is all good. And is data-based, which I think is crucial in this conversation. Because it's simply not enough, for me, to understand that a disparity exists - even understanding that that disparity is indeed disproportionately affecting non-white audiences, LGBT audiences, etc.<br /><br />I guess where I get to is, I probably agree with you ultimately - but I'm worried that a gut reaction against the "1%" in the theatre community - when the theatre community as a whole, if you look at wages (including administrators, including at those largest companies), is waaaaay out of the reach of that 1%, isn't going to serve anyone, and may actually weaken our ability to fight those people who simply say that art doesn't matter, and that if we're not satisfied with our pie, then someone else can eat it.Clayton Lordhttp://www.artsjournal.com/newbeansnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-53193109557711438642011-11-18T23:38:28.754-05:002011-11-18T23:38:28.754-05:00Hi Scott,
cf. http://www.apoorplayer.net/2011/10/...Hi Scott,<br /><br />cf. http://www.apoorplayer.net/2011/10/occupy-broadwayhollywood/thecontrarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16504640846139055898noreply@blogger.com