tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post6481642927951655249..comments2024-02-27T16:59:54.089-05:00Comments on (The New) Theatre Ideas: On Blackjack and TheatreUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-18377185093440068222008-07-11T18:41:00.000-04:002008-07-11T18:41:00.000-04:00We're very close to "I am rubber, you are glue..."...We're very close to "I am rubber, you are glue..."Scott Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465161646609405658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-61431898141053784152008-07-11T17:56:00.000-04:002008-07-11T17:56:00.000-04:00Scott - you are the best example of that very thin...Scott - you are the best example of that very thing. Actually, you're worse - you see, but only through your own slanted view.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-54853063702535063092008-07-11T17:15:00.000-04:002008-07-11T17:15:00.000-04:00Don -- There are none so blind as those who will n...Don -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.Scott Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465161646609405658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-36463959299527276702008-07-11T17:02:00.000-04:002008-07-11T17:02:00.000-04:00RW -There's where you and I cannot see eye to eye....RW -<BR/><BR/>There's where you and I cannot see eye to eye.<BR/><BR/>I don't think they've <I>shown</I> anything of the sort.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-64227446186804054532008-07-11T14:59:00.000-04:002008-07-11T14:59:00.000-04:00Don- Mike and Scott have been discussing the issue...Don- Mike and Scott have been discussing the issue for a long long time. Their response to the issue you raise (bad artists are like dead money) is contained in their critique of the analogy. They've shown how and why bad artists are NOT dead money, how art is NOT a zero-sum game, and how the rules of theatre production are not transparent and meritritious. That seems to skewer your beleif that there will always be a small number of big winners and a mass of big losers because they've shown how all those decisions are made by social institution, not artist's talent or the nature of theatre. Change the institutional arrangement, you'll change the outcome. <BR/><BR/>We could just as well stick with the analogy and say that what we're proposing is a reform or re-creation of the structure of the tournament and the rules of the game to produce a more equalizing and humane result.Ben Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04838599516482103220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-90208903877942062502008-07-11T13:17:00.000-04:002008-07-11T13:17:00.000-04:00http://missionparadox.typepad.com/the_mission_para...http://missionparadox.typepad.com/the_mission_paradox_blog/2008/07/the-power-of-scarcity-a-response-to-mike-and-scott.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-64048562114398707342008-07-11T13:12:00.000-04:002008-07-11T13:12:00.000-04:00A) There is a pretty big difference between Daisey...A) There is a pretty big difference between Daisey and you saying you think the analogy is baseless because you don't like what it has to say about the profession and it actually being baseless. Just for the record and all.<BR/><BR/>B) Speaking for myself - I can't speak for Adam - my point certainly is not that the analogy represents the way things should be but the way things are. You and Mike may not like the fact that artists are not only gambling with their ideas but their money and their marriages, etc. but your distaste for reality doesn't change it.<BR/><BR/>C) Why don't you and Mike discuss the ISSUE rather than quibbling over the analogy? You don't like the quibbling, so why not stop doing it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-22880588915431973872008-07-11T12:57:00.000-04:002008-07-11T12:57:00.000-04:00http://www.mikedaisey.com/2008/07/scott-walters-po...http://www.mikedaisey.com/2008/07/scott-walters-posts-on-dumbness-of.shtScott Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465161646609405658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-44883538557372128682008-07-11T12:41:00.000-04:002008-07-11T12:41:00.000-04:00Scott, all of the examples that you use above are ...Scott, all of the examples that you use above are a tiny fraction of the populations of their time.<BR/><BR/>Far Fewer actors made a living then than now. One major difference was actors were responsible for making sure they ate. They were entrepreneurs, just like what you advocate for.<BR/><BR/>Most of the thousands of theatres that dotted the American landscape in the 1800s and so on did not pay performers a living wage.<BR/><BR/>So while I fully agree that regional theatres have failed in their original intent to provide consistent employment and stable companies, artists who are willingly complicit in a system that treats them like chattle are not without blame either. Actors are only chattle if they allow themselves to be. <BR/><BR/>The notion that someone can make a full time living doing nothing but acting has never existed in reality except for a tiny fraction of people at any given time. <BR/><BR/>Though few training centers tell young actors this while taking their money like chattle.<BR/><BR/>Even in your tribal model, <B>acting</B> is not what you've talked about as the sole means of income. You've been pretty clear about the need to find other sources of revenue for the tribe.Tony Adamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02141675073979325374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-63147365715417693392008-07-11T12:19:00.000-04:002008-07-11T12:19:00.000-04:00For the masses? WTF? We're talking about a system ...For the masses? WTF? We're talking about a system that makes it impossible for <I>almost everyone</I>. There have been many times in history when it was possible to make a decent living as part of a company: commedia dell 'arte, Shakespeare's Globe, Moliere's troupe, the thousands of theatres that dotted the American landscape in the 1800s and so on. Once the one-and-done approach to creating productions, which began in the 1870s, became the dominant mode theatre artists became chattel. The regional theatre's orginal intent, as stated by the early pioneers, was to provide consistent employment and stable companies.Scott Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465161646609405658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-59650801125626616022008-07-11T12:12:00.000-04:002008-07-11T12:12:00.000-04:00Scott, when in the thousands of years of recorded ...Scott, when in the thousands of years of recorded theatre has acting been a viable way to make a living for the masses?Tony Adamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02141675073979325374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-11641036290206434822008-07-11T12:07:00.000-04:002008-07-11T12:07:00.000-04:00Tony and Director -- You can read them yourselves ...Tony and Director -- You can read them yourselves and make a decision about their meaning. Don seems to say that making theatre and making blackjack are the same, and so fighting for health insurance and a more stable lifestyle is wrong. Adam concludes his post, which Don loves, like this: "But my gut tells me that making a living as a professional artist will always be like making a living as a poker player. A few big winners, another group of people that are consistently profitable in the world. And lots of Dead Money.<BR/><I>And maybe that's the way it is supposed to be.</I>" So that seems an endorsement of the gambling model. And Director, they aren't describing the way it is, but the way it is "supposed to be." Would you agree that the art is best served, and the public is best served, by a random, irrational, and economically discriminatory system?Scott Waltershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06465161646609405658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-84184297442328891332008-07-11T11:55:00.000-04:002008-07-11T11:55:00.000-04:00Well thought out. I see both sides to the argumen...Well thought out. I see both sides to the argument and I'm undecided on whether the analogy is apt or not. On the one hand, it seems to be a very good analogy, but on the other hand, I have fingers.<BR/><BR/>I've learned that no analogy is perfect, so I'm going to have to say it's a pretty good analogy, all things considered. It demonstrates the sheer luck required and the sheer odds against you when you enter the profession. It's not like they compared it to a Congressional election year, where there are a couple hundred seats available and everyone else is just screwed. Like gambling, making it to the top has a lot to do with luck -- much like you described with equal performances in different auditions resulting in different outcomes.<BR/><BR/>You are correct, however, in asserting that one could take that 10 grand to a local casino and probably make a more reliable profit, if not quite $9M. Problem is that is not the point that Don and Adam Thurman's posts were making. You, however, made that point quite well.<BR/><BR/>So while I see what you're saying, that doesn't necessarily diminish the gambling analogy..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16876687.post-20763350940954861902008-07-11T11:46:00.000-04:002008-07-11T11:46:00.000-04:00Are they advocating gambling, or just making a rea...Are they advocating gambling, or just making a realistic assessment of the current state of things.Tony Adamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02141675073979325374noreply@blogger.com