Money and the Arts

For quite a while now, I've been writing about money and the arts. I warned about the pending economic crisis and wondered how it would affect my fellow artists. The response both on this blog and in my daily life was underwhelming.

It amazes me that my theater, literature and visual arts friends just don't want to hear it. This has the potential of being a generational-altering event; something that has been gathering steam for almost a year.

I'm not saying that we should come up with a public policy position on the matter. I'm talking about dealing with this problem both in our work and in our lives. There is a crude silence about something that is impacting millions of people world-wide. It's not going to clear up tomorrow.

It will affect you and your work. Something with this kind of impact will change our culture. It will alter the way society sees itself and the world.

Can we please be relevant for once?

Comments

[Scott Walters]

Good luck. That would require some serious, rigorous thought that actually sought to examine linkages between art and the world, and artists (particularly theatre artists) have been taught that they don't have to be part of the world -- they are the Magical Strangers that stand outside of society and comment.

The fact is that we need a new business model, one that is going to rely less on grants (because those will dry up with the crisis within the markets) and does more than simply providing an "art product." The current model was created during the Great Society, when money (both public and private) was plentiful, and we have not adapted to a new situation. It is shameful.

[Joshua James]

I've been saying the same thing, though not on my blog, for a long time. Republican financial policies just are not sound (enrich the few, let the rest flounder) and never have been.

I've had these arguments. I have.

I just get shouted down as a writer who knows nothing of the real world. We're talking about people with faith in an idea (free-market neo-cons) that is unshakeable to reason.

There are so many political fights to fight, and one needs to choose the arena they can best compete in to institute change, so I tend to put my ideas forth in a way that I hope will institute change. Getting involved in numbers is not my strong suit, so I do what fits my talents. Mostly by challenging those who traffic in this bullshit.

but I agree with you that the events of the morning will impact us all, and for a long time.

BTW, Rush and company have been denying we've even been in recession.

As to this:
"artists (particularly theatre artists) have been taught that they don't have to be part of the world -- they are the Magical Strangers that stand outside of society and comment. "

It's completely untrue - I protested the Iraq war (500,000 people who shared by view marched in NYC) before the invasion, among other things . . . plus I can sit and think of a large number of my theatre friends who are political involved and fucking act on it. I know many, many theatre people who are politically active. Many. It's part of our history, as theatre folk, to be politically involved.

My friend playwright Naomi, who is a recepient of the Genius Grant, has spent time in Palenstine in order to help bring attention to the oppression that happens to the people there, even though just to be there was a danger. She's also done many other things as a political agent that I can't even mention.

She's just one. There are many of us who are politically involved.

And Scott, you just last week BITCHED about all the theatre blogs for blogging about politics and not theatre, and now you have the gall to come here and write this shit: "artists (particularly theatre artists) have been taught that they don't have to be part of the world -- they are the Magical Strangers that stand outside of society and comment."

Really, you can't go three days without insulting nearly all people who work in theatre, can you?

[freeman]

Scott,

I'd say that words like shameful are a bit much. Artists simply adapt and work in the best way they know how. If a theater company is building a solid base of grants, selling tickets and T-shirts and trying to get by...heck, that's admirable. It's hard work.

For a person that decries contempt for small towns, I certainly don't think you have a high opinion of artists. In fact, you seem to stereotype them. Plenty of artists acknowledge the difficulties in finances, personal and institutional.

I agree that Broadway is bankrupt and that grants aren't foolproof. But a magical and transformational "new model" doesn't solve problems in the near term and I'd love to know how it fundamentally solves financial problems in the long term. For artists to share their funds with each other communally, for example, they have to have funds to begin with. Where are those funds coming from in a recession?

More has changed since the Great Society than oversight in the lending markets. Movies and television and entertainment products, those things that compete for the theatrical eyeballs, are more and more easy to distribute, functional, and impressive. The best solution is not for theatrical artists to become more and more regional and localized. All that does is take some fundamental problems that are NOT local, and spread them out.

What is it that artists can do to secure themselves financially, and also appeal to people who are in the midst of financial hardship?

How about using this to argue that Actor's Equity is not assisting actors in difficult times by stifling producers? How about speaking to the issue with our work? How about offering to create jobs in communities where industries are closing?

[Laura]

I sort of feel the need at this juncture to let everyone know that I don't support Rush Limbaugh. Jethro listens to him, and I usually try to tune him out.

I think I mentioned a while back that Jethro listened to him and somehow, that led people to think that I like Rush Limbaugh.

So in case people didn't get the message, here it is again: I DON'T SUPPORT THE VIEWS OF RUSH LIMBAUGH.

Please don't make me get all exasperated now... ;)

[freeman]

I just don't think outrage and exasperation with other artists does us much good in promoting discussion. There are probably a lot of reasons besides laziness that discussions online don't get started.

Let's give each other the benefit of the doubt.

That being said... we'll see what comes of it. It's an important thing to bring up, even if the public discussion winds up being minor.

[Joshua James]

You know, that's my fault - I do know you don't listen to Rush and all that, I'd brought it up as an extension of the other conversations we've been having regarding Talk Radio and whatnot.

I don't mean to suggest you support Rush (or even that Jethro has the same views as Rush, he may be listening for the entertainment value alone, or because his job is to track media, etc, not everyone that reads Drudge buys into what Drudge sells) - it was merely a footnote I should have left out of this forum . . . sorry about that.

[Laura]

Outrage and exasperation may not do much good, but it is an attention-getter. Since the other "more reasonable" entries stimulated little discussion, I'd say my change in tone did some good.

That said, I also believe that the economic situation as it stands appears to be most dire. And again, when you have gas shortages, foreclosures and layoffs - where people are left homeless and broke - alittle outrage and exasperation doesn't hurt.

[Laura]

Oh don't worry Joshua, it's cool. I just didn't want anyone else to think that I thought that way.

[Scott Walters]

"And Scott, you just last week BITCHED about all the theatre blogs for blogging about politics and not theatre, and now you have the gall to come here and write this shit: "artists (particularly theatre artists) have been taught that they don't have to be part of the world -- they are the Magical Strangers that stand outside of society and comment."

Yes, Joshua, I bitched that people were writing about politics EXCLUSIVELY, and not making the connection between political (or in this case economic) issues AND THE ARTS. Notice Laura's title: Money AND the Arts. That's the point.

And pointing at artists who have been involved in politics is not the point. The point I was making is that artists HAVE BEEN TAUGHT to see no linkages between the way their art is made and the outside world. Beyond those schools that teach youthful theatre people to work the system, there are very few who discuss how the arts operate within a particular economic, political, or social system, the effects those systems have on the shape of their art, and alternatives to working within that system.

Matt, I am not as narrowly focused as you'd like to paint me -- I don't believe that a collective business model is the be all and end all solution. What it reflects, however, is a willingness to consider that another model IS POSSIBLE, which is more than I see from most artists, who may kvetch about specific problems without recognizing that they could opt out of the current system and try something different.

My scorn is for the lack of imagination I see when it comes to alternatives, and for the willingness to simply accept whatever currently exists as being the only possibility. Where are the discussions by artists of thinkers like Paul Hawken, Bill McKibben, and others, for instance, who are promoting the creation of locally self-sufficient economies? Where are the discussions that go beyond kvetching about the amount of money the NEA has available for the arts?

It seems to me that Laura is calling for artists to recognize they are part of the economy, and its collapse has ramifications for us that might need to be considered in some systematic way beyond crossed fingers and heads plunged into the sand.

[freeman]

Well, point taken. You did get more discussion because you sounded the alarm. I might be wrong. It's been known to happen.

I guess I winced when I read "Could we please be relevant for once?" I think there have been plenty of times that there have been some lively and worthwhile discussions on these here computers.

But that's basically besides the point. The fact is, this is all very big stuff, and it will affect artists, like it or not.

[Joshua James]

"And pointing at artists who have been involved in politics is not the point."

It is the point, based on your statement that artists have been taught that they are MAGICAL STRANGERS outside of everything. The people I know already disprove your theory, if they're being taught that way, then the teaching ain't taking.

And -

"The point I was making is that artists HAVE BEEN TAUGHT to see no linkages between the way their art is made and the outside world."

You have no evidence of the above, none, zero. Maybe you are teaching that way, but you cannot say that all artists are being taught that there is no link between what they do and the outside world. It's not true for the people we mentioned, it's not true for me, it's not true for most of the people that I know.

Now when you say:
"Beyond those schools that teach youthful theatre people to work the system, there are very few who discuss how the arts operate within a particular economic, political, or social system, the effects those systems have on the shape of their art, and alternatives to working within that system."

I've had many a theatre history class which focused exclusively on the above, so again it strikes me as an incorrect assertion.

I've also had other classes in graduate school which also focused on those things as they apply to issues of today - so again, I think you're making a baseless claim based on what you want to believe rather than what exists.

I do believe that there are problems with our theatre in the US as it exists, and I do believe theatre education has its fair share of problems. I just don't buy your explanation - that artists are taught that we're separate via Magical thinking, ect.

[Laura]

That's alright Matt. I guess that sentence does sound exasperating, now that it's quoted back to me.

I think I have a basic belief somewhere that if we just created relevant art, we'd be relevant artists.

Since 9/11, I've had an issue with the arts. Either work is too literal and bashes people over the head or it's about butterflies. Admittedly, I don't know what the NYC is like right now. So therefore, I probably have an outdated belief.

You know, for the life of me I can't figure out why I haven't linked to your blog. I tend to check it after Isaac's, and I always meant to put a link on this site to yours. I oughtta go do that before I forget again. It sort of annoys me that I haven't done that.

[Scott Walters]

"I've had many a theatre history class which focused exclusively on the above...I've also had other classes in graduate school which also focused on those things as they apply to issues of today ..."

Really? Could you tell me where this is happening, because I'd like to refer my students there for grad school. Maybe I could go to their websites and check out these classes -- get a few pointers? Seriously. I need all the help I can get. As I'm sure you'll agree.

[freeman]

No worries.

I think that you're right in that we can do more, as artists, to address things that are happening right now. Isaac did that a bit with rapid response team. But sometimes being "topical" can be the third rail of writing, as you know. That might be why people back off a bit.

At the end of the day, though, all that anyone around me is talking about is Lehman Brothers. Is there some way to talk about that in the theater? Maybe. Or maybe there are plays out there that touch on these issues already. Arthur Miller and David Mamet?

[Joshua James]

"Really? Could you tell me where this is happening, because I'd like to refer my students there for grad school. Maybe I could go to their websites and check out these classes -- get a few pointers? Seriously. I need all the help I can get. As I'm sure you'll agree."

Easy enough to find out. It's called Google. You want to find out what grad school I went to. Fucking google it.

You want to find a grad program that addresses the issues you brought out - fucking google 'em. Go to those websites - hell, there are thousands of colleges with information - go to it, man. Get their numbers. Call their asses up. Ask 'em what's on their plate.

Now I could just TELL you where I went to school, but that may lend to you bad research and study habits, and I wouldn't want to do that. It's good for you to think for yourself.

Personally, I don't think you wrote the above as a serious query. I felt the slight tang of American sarcasm (which surprised me, as I'd heard you'd gone Aussie and Canadian on us all, fed up as you our with the state of American Theatre blogs, I believe you mentioned you were going to pack up your Hunka and head out) . . . it was just a whiff, mind you, but there was certainly a slight tang of sarcasm, as if to suggest that because I answered your question in the direction opposite your opinion of it, I am not worthy of anything other than a slight snide drive-by.

Could be. May well be. I think this not because that you have the reputation for fraudulent behavior, mais-non! (French, they speak it in parts of Canada).

Nah, I'm pretty sure you were sarcastic because whenever you get sandbagged, whenever one of your rabid generalizations gets caught out in the open like a warty frog frozen in headlights, and we see it's not this grand broad LARGE TRUTH as advertised, but rather just another attention-getting PRONOUNCEMENT from Scott.

Ballistic pronouncements, tipped in nuclear insults, and are fired ad nauseum until we wave our flag and all bow down to Walters wisdom, acknowledge his greatness, because he and only he can see all from his nest in the hills of Carolina, and he and only he can save us from ourselves.

But caught in the light of logic and reason, these pronouncements tend to shrivel and bleat like the aforementioned frozen frog.

And when that happens, Scott unleashes his Scimitar of Sarcasm, razor sharp and perfect for character assassinations, which are inevitable once reason has turned his broadly fired missiles into lonely frogs trapped by reason and logic. After that comes character assassination.

So since I turned your first couple of volleys away, blinked them into frogs, so to speak, I should plan on your Scimitar of Sarcasm swinging for my neck.

See, now that's some sarcasm for ya!

Heh-heh.

[Scott Walters]

Gosh! I just thought I was asking for information, since you were using your own personal experience to contradict my own, I thought some documentation might help me understand. I know that you are deeply in touch with the theatre history pedagogy across the nation -- not like me, a theatre historian, isolated in my North Carolina nest -- so I thought you would be willing to share your wisdom. In fact, I'm putting together a panel for the Southeastern Theatre Conference about reforming the theatre curriculum, so a few names of the people teaching what you say they're teaching might have been a valuable addition to the panel. But I'll just do the Google. As always, a pleasure.

[Joshua James]

I didn't represent myself as deeply in touch with anything other than my own experiences, Scott, nothing more or less.

I don't claim to be expect on anything other than what I've observed and done myself (okay, I am probably far too informed on MMA gossip and bad 80s movies) - that's it. I've seen and experienced things counter to your original claim and said as much.

And I know you're allegedly a tenured theatre professor specializing in history, which makes it strange that you'd ask for referrals in such a sarcastic manner . . . but then I remembered that you're also a blogger who often makes wild claims based on little to no evidence and you often contradict yourself. You pick fights on the internet with many a fine person, over nothing, and slur many others, and that you consider American theatre bloggers and theatre people to be lazy and superficial.

The few people that I've been lucky to meet and listen to who specialize in the exact type of work that's discussed, there's no way I'd refer them to you. Because based on what I've observed, you don't treat people well, especially when they don't agree with your conclusions, and while this is just my opinion, of course, but I believe that you're intellectually dishonest. I've said that before many a time, so it's not new that I believe that.

So why the hell would I refer anyone to you or a panel you would be setting up? You are better off with Google, to be honest.

Good luck with your panel.

[RLewis]

17 comments - wow! I was all clicky thinkin' there'd be an interesting discussion about something I disagree with. But no. Once again, it's become a Walters-fest. Scott, come on. Ya keep using inflamatory language (what the fuck is a magical stranger? -i can't even cap' it- who are we encouraging with such talk?) to get folks all riled up... even when you have a valid point. And then, like this, it becomes all about you. Ya really bummin' me out, dude. Please just go back to hassling Don Hall. And ya wonder why folks get turned off to theater talk. shesh.

[Scott Walters]

Google it is. Laura, the comments are all yours again. I believe Joshua and I are about to head down Memory Lane.

[Adam]

I posted a few thoughts on art and the economy here:

http://missionparadox.typepad.com/the_mission_paradox_blog/2008/09/the-money-question-in-the-arts.html

[Scott Walters]

RLewis -- Dude! Sorry to get you all riles up, man! I'll try not to have any opinions in the future, and instead just provide links to other people who think. Shhhh! It's naptime in the theatrosphere -- Nick says so!