"Artists, actors at least, aren’t stepping up because they don’t want to and because they don’t have the skills institutions need to run the business efficiently"
I don't think that's a step to far, but a recipe for exactly what we have now. And people who don't want to change will never change.
Travis Bedard
· 1 year ago
I'm not advocating this, I'm simply trying to weigh where we are, and how we got here. I think you are exactly right, it's not working So how do we change it?
How do we convince people to stop trying to get in the front door, and go through the side door? How do we convince institutions to hire less qualified candidates and include artistic merit in the hiring process?
Do we write off the generations that are in circulation now and just start training them as they come through the chain?
Remedial business skills classes?
I don't know the next step. But we have poorly equipped our general population to my thinking, and so we pay the price
walt828
· 1 year ago
I think Tony is right, and that those who don't want to change -- who just want to keep playing the blackjack game the way they learned it -- aren't the right people anyway. In "Good to Great," jim Collin stalks about "getting the right people on the bus" -- that's the first crucial step. We need to focus on finding the theatre artists, no matter where they are and what they are currently doing, who WANT to step up and play a larger role, and who are willing to learn how to do it. There is nothing that is all the mysterious about learning, say, how to write a grant -- you just have to take the time to figure the process out (I'm learning how to do it right now!).
Travis Bedard
· 1 year ago
I guess I'm not sure why we are already condemning hypothetical people for wanting to do what they were trained to do, and WANT to do.
Who are the right people? People who choose to do something more than their art. These are already the people who populate the indie theatre world. This isn't reform of the system, it's moving the system that the blogosphere is tired of up the chain.
I don't think that negates the necessity of the educational repertory circuit to train folks for the Real World, not a hypothetical World in which there are jobs to be had as though it were law school. But they are separate issues.
walt828
· 1 year ago
Travis -- I don't know that anyone is "condemning" people, but rather indicating that a new model needs new skills. Actually, OLD skills, because the idea of specialization -- "All I do is act" -- is the newcomer. Until the turn of the twentieth century, there was the tradition if the actor-manager, which is what the best actors did, and before that multiple hats were always worn. Shakespeare wrote plays and acted and ran the theatre; Moliere wrote plays, acted, and ran the company. The move to specialization, in which theatre artists put control over their work in the hands of someone else, is a 20th-century Henry-Ford-like idea that has infantilized and disempowered artists. The right people are the people who 1) care more about the art as an end in itself, rather than as a means to national recognition, 2) think entrepreneurially, and 3) are eager to control the development of their own work, and 4) are committed to a mission for the theatre.
And if you mean by the Real World, the World As It Is Right Now, then I will say for myself that I refuse. That would be as unethical as teaching computer majors Fortran. This model is bankrupt -- it no longer provides work for the vast majority of those involved in it. When Actors Equity is proud of the fact that half of its members managed to find at least one week's work during the past year, something is really wrong. And those of us who think we are doing students a favor by giving them the "tools" to enter that market are misguided.
Travis Bedard
· 1 year ago
You're right, condemns is the wrong word, and too strong... Dismiss is the word I was looking for. "aren't the right people anyway" is dismissive of people who want to do what they trained to do and not monorail up some hyphens behind their name.
+5 points for Fortran.
You read me (or I wrote) in exactly the opposite direction. The jobs don’t exist for the majoirty of our graduating students in the Ford system. But that's what they ARE being trained for. They aren’t (at least I wasn't) trained to exist in a world in which they are going to have to make their own luck, and finance their own art.
We aren’t training your "right people". We aren’t telling them that they need to be more Barnum than Olivier. We're pumping them full of Hagen, Meisner, Stanislavski and Brockett, getting them 2 contrasting and handing them a receipt.
I AGREE WITH YOU, that that's what we need to be doing.
But the question is what do we do in the NOW? We have a workforce of people who have no idea how to take that step and no real idea that they need to.
And while the indie theatre stalwarts are doing exactly that there is a disconnect between the Fords who have the money (coporations give to The Known and Reliable - like creates like) and the Actor-Managers who... Well... don't.
I'm beginning to come around to the conclusion that the first step is training up the workforce to take the reigns when the New Way is finally hatched. Because it isn’t going to look like this and whoever is holding the bag had best be ready. --- I really do love the circularity of this while discussion. In that poking at a loose tooth and it hurts like hell kinda way. Bah. When are you coming over for beers so we can hash this out?
walt828
· 1 year ago
I thought you'd never ask! How's about Friday? I'll bring the beer if you bring the chips.
Wouldn't you know that I wouldn't recognize when somebody is agreeing with me? Story of my life. Yes, we are training them only halfway. And the other half may be Barnum, but it might also be Bailey -- as in George Bailey of "It's a Wonderful Life," who created a business model based on personal relationships. Or Bill Drayton, head of Ashoka, who provides support for social entrepreneurs. "Forces for Good" or "Good to Great for the Social Sectors" may be more important to a young artist than "An Actor Prepares" and "Acting Professionally."
I do think that the best way to get this off the ground is through the college curriculum -- once you've put your money on the blackjack table, it is hard to walk away without at least breaking even. The other group would be the disaffected: those who did the blackjack table, got cleaned out, and now are walking home from the casino barefoot.
The problem with the indie theatre folks, in my opinion, is that they are trying to work in the belly of the beast. Like it or not, in a big city with lots of entertainment options they are competing with the mainstream, Big Box theatres -- and with music scenes, sports events, festivals, and bars. That is a Big Money Game -- it takes a lot of bank to get a seat at that table, and most indie theatres struggle because of it. Also, the Paradox of Choice is at work -- faced with so many choices, people are more inclined to choose none of the above!
The other problem with indie theatre is that whatever they have learned about marketing, subscriptions, advertising, and so forth is realy geared toward large theatres in big cities. My intuition tells me that the techniques for small theatres have to be adjusted, and if you are in a small market (and not Nylachi) the REALLY need to be adjusted.
Travis Bedard
· 1 year ago
In a small market it's easier and harder. It's easier to get vetted as a brand which is what gives you the critical mass necessary to get the first wave in (to Be the word of mouth) but it's harder to get space and resources.
I don;t think that the indie theatre folk NEED to walk away from the table even if their focus is still aimed at the Big Boys. They have the knowledge and experience of working on the ground to pass on to the new foot soldiers. And they have the knowledge necessary to reform the curricula needed to create The Entrepreneurial Artist.
There also needs to be some wholesale myth destruction. The myth of definitive separation between creative and interpretive artist. The myth of romantic New York and LA (the draw is there without any myth, but the romance needs to be lanced and drained), the myth of A Place For Us (in the system).
And some friggen optimism. People want this. Audiences I mean. They just forget that they want this.
RebeccaZ
· 1 year ago
This is something that could be changed at the institution level. Get rid of the BFA programs and just focus on the BA programs. When I was at Michigan State, we didn't have a BFA program so everyone took stage craft, directing, theatre history, etc along with acting and we all learned more skills. When I started my MFA training, I became quite frustrated that I was pigeon holed as "just an actor" all of a sudden when I had been directing, stage managing, serving on crews, etc. In fact, at MSU, those who just wanted to stick with only acting often received a sideways glance because it's not the practical route.
I'm now working with a lot of Michigan State graduates with my theatre company and they're all team players, looking to help in whatever way they can. We can definitely use more help, no doubt about it, but it's great when actors step up to the plate.
We definitely can't force them into doing what they don't want to do, especially since we're not able to pay people a living wage and a lot of the time (including my own) is volunteer based, but we're appreciative of what they have contributed.
Tony
· 1 year ago
I think then only way to convince a lot of people of what is possible is to prove it is. Unfortunately leadership and vision aren't the most visible traits of many managers.
What people are trained to do and what they actually will do never seems to be the same thing, but for some reason we seem to resist change more than any other industry.
I think at the end of the day if someone wants to make a living, they have to adapt. It seems counter-intuitive but I think artists need to take the first steps and convince boards and donors that there are different possibilities.
Travis Bedard
· 1 year ago
I agree. But problem is that it seems that the proposal is that for actors (pardon my myopia but they are a case onto themselves) to make a living they need to go be something else. To me that seems pyrrhic. If I wanted to make a living in business evil pays a lot better than non-profits.
I guess I'm missing your integration point. Where they work together. I'm just kind of locked in on the binary side of "you're an artist (actor in my case) or you're on the admin team". I claim that it's okay for me to be this dense because I've only had the one cup of coffee ;)
Travis Bedard
· 1 year ago
GinnyCrow's Mom ;)
I think that's the first step.
But I was in a BA program, and despite the breadth of what was expected of us there was little real world production teaching.
What I think is needed is something akin to what were called colloquium classes, interdepartmental special topics combining professors expertises' to better cover an area. In my hypothetical universe a theatre professor with production experience, a prof from the law school, and a tech writing teacher would combine to teach a class on nonprofit law and grant writing for theatre producers.
On top of making the divas mop and the electricians sing, we need to stop letting our theatre students (especially in BA programs) off the academic rigor hook.
Then when opportunities like Tony is asking after present themselves the artist isn't without tools to accept the challenge. And in the meantime they are better prepared to Walk The Line of indie theatre.
Does that make sense?
Tony
· 1 year ago
"to make a living they need to go be something else. To me that seems pyrrhic. If I wanted to make a living in business evil pays a lot better than non-profits."
Not always, being an "assistant" isn't a ticket to riches in any industry.
We're in an industry that changes at a glacial pace, and integration would be a very slow process because of that. But for someone who works in a marketing firm by day, working in non-profit marketing isn't a big step. The next step is to work from the inside for more integration.
Is the pay scale the same, probably not, but if pay is the main consideration being a freelance artist is a pretty foolish choice of professions.
If someone chooses to be an artist, the onus is on them to figure out how to eat, and learn the skills necessary to make a living. Very few will do it by acting alone. Not idyllic, but hasn't changed much in millennia
Don Hall
· 1 year ago
"The right people are the people who 1) care more about the art as an end in itself, rather than as a means to national recognition, 2) think entrepreneurially, and 3) are eager to control the development of their own work, and 4) are committed to a mission for the theatre."
Scott, you just described about 75% of the Nylachi indie theater cats I know (including myself). In fact, the model that is bankrupt has almost nothing to do with those of us in the fringe theater movement as we have chosen to produce outside of said model.
Quite frankly, I'm interested in why so many folks think it is a negative to have a day job and create art apart from the need to make a living doing it. And I'm not talking "starving artist" mythology here - I have a great and wonderful day job (although it is in another anachronistic field - radio) and get to choose exactly what artistic pursuits I'm interested in, rather than capitulate to the demands of commercial interest. I'd say that that model is not only tried and true but it isn't bankrupt in any way.
"If someone chooses to be an artist, the onus is on them to figure out how to eat, and learn the skills necessary to make a living. Very few will do it by acting alone. Not idyllic, but hasn't changed much in millennia"
All Comments
I don't think that's a step to far, but a recipe for exactly what we have now. And people who don't want to change will never change.
How do we convince people to stop trying to get in the front door, and go through the side door? How do we convince institutions to hire less qualified candidates and include artistic merit in the hiring process?
Do we write off the generations that are in circulation now and just start training them as they come through the chain?
Remedial business skills classes?
I don't know the next step. But we have poorly equipped our general population to my thinking, and so we pay the price
Who are the right people? People who choose to do something more than their art. These are already the people who populate the indie theatre world. This isn't reform of the system, it's moving the system that the blogosphere is tired of up the chain.
I don't think that negates the necessity of the educational repertory circuit to train folks for the Real World, not a hypothetical World in which there are jobs to be had as though it were law school. But they are separate issues.
And if you mean by the Real World, the World As It Is Right Now, then I will say for myself that I refuse. That would be as unethical as teaching computer majors Fortran. This model is bankrupt -- it no longer provides work for the vast majority of those involved in it. When Actors Equity is proud of the fact that half of its members managed to find at least one week's work during the past year, something is really wrong. And those of us who think we are doing students a favor by giving them the "tools" to enter that market are misguided.
"aren't the right people anyway" is dismissive of people who want to do what they trained to do and not monorail up some hyphens behind their name.
+5 points for Fortran.
You read me (or I wrote) in exactly the opposite direction. The jobs don’t exist for the majoirty of our graduating students in the Ford system. But that's what they ARE being trained for. They aren’t (at least I wasn't) trained to exist in a world in which they are going to have to make their own luck, and finance their own art.
We aren’t training your "right people". We aren’t telling them that they need to be more Barnum than Olivier. We're pumping them full of Hagen, Meisner, Stanislavski and Brockett, getting them 2 contrasting and handing them a receipt.
I AGREE WITH YOU, that that's what we need to be doing.
But the question is what do we do in the NOW? We have a workforce of people who have no idea how to take that step and no real idea that they need to.
And while the indie theatre stalwarts are doing exactly that there is a disconnect between the Fords who have the money (coporations give to The Known and Reliable - like creates like) and the Actor-Managers who... Well... don't.
I'm beginning to come around to the conclusion that the first step is training up the workforce to take the reigns when the New Way is finally hatched. Because it isn’t going to look like this and whoever is holding the bag had best be ready.
---
I really do love the circularity of this while discussion. In that poking at a loose tooth and it hurts like hell kinda way.
Bah. When are you coming over for beers so we can hash this out?
Wouldn't you know that I wouldn't recognize when somebody is agreeing with me? Story of my life. Yes, we are training them only halfway. And the other half may be Barnum, but it might also be Bailey -- as in George Bailey of "It's a Wonderful Life," who created a business model based on personal relationships. Or Bill Drayton, head of Ashoka, who provides support for social entrepreneurs. "Forces for Good" or "Good to Great for the Social Sectors" may be more important to a young artist than "An Actor Prepares" and "Acting Professionally."
I do think that the best way to get this off the ground is through the college curriculum -- once you've put your money on the blackjack table, it is hard to walk away without at least breaking even. The other group would be the disaffected: those who did the blackjack table, got cleaned out, and now are walking home from the casino barefoot.
The problem with the indie theatre folks, in my opinion, is that they are trying to work in the belly of the beast. Like it or not, in a big city with lots of entertainment options they are competing with the mainstream, Big Box theatres -- and with music scenes, sports events, festivals, and bars. That is a Big Money Game -- it takes a lot of bank to get a seat at that table, and most indie theatres struggle because of it. Also, the Paradox of Choice is at work -- faced with so many choices, people are more inclined to choose none of the above!
The other problem with indie theatre is that whatever they have learned about marketing, subscriptions, advertising, and so forth is realy geared toward large theatres in big cities. My intuition tells me that the techniques for small theatres have to be adjusted, and if you are in a small market (and not Nylachi) the REALLY need to be adjusted.
I don;t think that the indie theatre folk NEED to walk away from the table even if their focus is still aimed at the Big Boys. They have the knowledge and experience of working on the ground to pass on to the new foot soldiers. And they have the knowledge necessary to reform the curricula needed to create The Entrepreneurial Artist.
There also needs to be some wholesale myth destruction. The myth of definitive separation between creative and interpretive artist. The myth of romantic New York and LA (the draw is there without any myth, but the romance needs to be lanced and drained), the myth of A Place For Us (in the system).
And some friggen optimism. People want this. Audiences I mean. They just forget that they want this.
I'm now working with a lot of Michigan State graduates with my theatre company and they're all team players, looking to help in whatever way they can. We can definitely use more help, no doubt about it, but it's great when actors step up to the plate.
We definitely can't force them into doing what they don't want to do, especially since we're not able to pay people a living wage and a lot of the time (including my own) is volunteer based, but we're appreciative of what they have contributed.
What people are trained to do and what they actually will do never seems to be the same thing, but for some reason we seem to resist change more than any other industry.
I think at the end of the day if someone wants to make a living, they have to adapt. It seems counter-intuitive but I think artists need to take the first steps and convince boards and donors that there are different possibilities.
(pardon my myopia but they are a case onto themselves) to make a living they
need to go be something else. To me that seems pyrrhic. If I wanted to make
a living in business evil pays a lot better than non-profits.
I guess I'm missing your integration point. Where they work together. I'm
just kind of locked in on the binary side of "you're an artist (actor in my
case) or you're on the admin team".
I claim that it's okay for me to be this dense because I've only had the one
cup of coffee ;)
I think that's the first step.
But I was in a BA program, and despite the breadth of what was expected of
us there was little real world production teaching.
What I think is needed is something akin to what were called colloquium
classes, interdepartmental special topics combining professors expertises'
to better cover an area.
In my hypothetical universe a theatre professor with production experience,
a prof from the law school, and a tech writing teacher would combine to
teach a class on nonprofit law and grant writing for theatre producers.
On top of making the divas mop and the electricians sing, we need to stop
letting our theatre students (especially in BA programs) off the academic
rigor hook.
Then when opportunities like Tony is asking after present themselves the
artist isn't without tools to accept the challenge. And in the meantime they
are better prepared to Walk The Line of indie theatre.
Does that make sense?
Not always, being an "assistant" isn't a ticket to riches in any industry.
We're in an industry that changes at a glacial pace, and integration would be a very slow process because of that. But for someone who works in a marketing firm by day, working in non-profit marketing isn't a big step. The next step is to work from the inside for more integration.
Is the pay scale the same, probably not, but if pay is the main consideration being a freelance artist is a pretty foolish choice of professions.
If someone chooses to be an artist, the onus is on them to figure out how to eat, and learn the skills necessary to make a living. Very few will do it by acting alone. Not idyllic, but hasn't changed much in millennia
Scott, you just described about 75% of the Nylachi indie theater cats I know (including myself). In fact, the model that is bankrupt has almost nothing to do with those of us in the fringe theater movement as we have chosen to produce outside of said model.
Quite frankly, I'm interested in why so many folks think it is a negative to have a day job and create art apart from the need to make a living doing it. And I'm not talking "starving artist" mythology here - I have a great and wonderful day job (although it is in another anachronistic field - radio) and get to choose exactly what artistic pursuits I'm interested in, rather than capitulate to the demands of commercial interest. I'd say that that model is not only tried and true but it isn't bankrupt in any way.
"If someone chooses to be an artist, the onus is on them to figure out how to eat, and learn the skills necessary to make a living. Very few will do it by acting alone. Not idyllic, but hasn't changed much in millennia"
Dead on. DEAD ON.