Adelaide Now: NO concert hall. No ensemble theatre. A famous drama school sinking under the weight of "managerialism".The pleasure Emeritus Professor Michael Morley feels at becoming the 2011 recipient of the Premier's Lifetime Achievement Award is tinged with a sense of triste that the arts to which he has devoted his life have left their heyday far behind.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
State of arts slowly fading
Adelaide Now: NO concert hall. No ensemble theatre. A famous drama school sinking under the weight of "managerialism".The pleasure Emeritus Professor Michael Morley feels at becoming the 2011 recipient of the Premier's Lifetime Achievement Award is tinged with a sense of triste that the arts to which he has devoted his life have left their heyday far behind.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I would have to agree with Professor Michael Morely on this issue, the extravagance that theater once had definitely faded. Although it can be argued that there are many productions costing large sums of money, I feel that more and more our efforts to create brilliant art is being neglected by the need to create brilliant technology, computers and gadgets. I feel that with any surplus in technology, we loose a little bit of art, and we are being removed ever so slightly away from pen and paper, paint and plywood, into a world we ourselves might not even be too sure of. Whether this is exciting or not, I understand where Morely's wariness is coming from, and only hope that we can rediscover and re-invent the majestic theater world of the past into a new and exciting one of the future.
In a lot of ways, I agree with Morley's observations that theatre is becoming more and more commercial. Theatres are concerned with how much revenue they can bring in and if a show will be financially worthwhile. As a result, theatres take less risks and could produce less controversial or new work in favor of tried-and-true classics. There is more incentive and pushing to create something that is huge and technologically complex so that the audience feels like they got their money's worth. While there is nothing wrong with huge complex shows with big sets and happy musical numbers, that is not the entire world of theatre. If theatre companies become more and more focused on revenue and donations and fundraisers, the artistic quality and exciting risk-taking that theatre should be might become compromised. I am hopeful that this will not happen, as smaller theatre companies have begun to emerge rapidly to tackle the new works and the riskier shows, but the face of commercial theatre is definitely in flux.
The point that is made about needing to fail in the theatre in order to create is one I completely support. It is so vital to this argument about the ways theatre has changed over the years, and that with the vanishing of funding, much risk taking and creative collaboration have also disappeared. This article does a great job drawing connections between theatre and other academics, and how the educational system has changed in a way that is less efficient for bringing forth new creative possibilities in our future.
I'm not sure that I entirely agree with Morely. Do I think that education systems are becoming less about teacher-student relationships and the exchange of ideas and more about getting the most information out the quickest and most efficiently we can? Yes. Do I think that arts appreciation is lacking, both in academia and the world at large? Sure. However, I don't think that the change of scope that theatre is experiencing is necessarily representative of a "fading of the state of the arts." I think that the advent of film, television, and even video games have forced theatre to find a new niche in the industry, and as with many industries, that niche may not be as institutionalized and as permanent as it has been in other time periods. However, as long as there are creative people in the world who are determined to create art, regardless of whether their venue is grand or small, the "State of arts" cannot die away, just evolve in the same way it's been evolving for the past 3000 years.
Sadly I have to say that I understand where Morely is coming from. That we are losing our roots and becoming more and more commercially and bottom line driven in the things that we produce. I think that we can tell ourselves that we are being proactive and doing things that are wild and outlandish, but we really arent. We are catering to the audience to make more money, by using all the new technical aspects that we can. Now while that is a good thing on one hand it can be a slippery slope on the other. I would agree though that it is also a fine line between creating new and interesting theatre with cutting edge technology and selling out. Because 40 or 50 years ago they still put on amazing productions, without any of the stuff that we have today, they were just good.
I would also agree with Mr. Morley. His concerns about his own city reminding of the issues in Las Vegas. My dad manages the concert hall that brings in Broadway veterans, classic guitarists and violinists, world- famous dance companies, and more. And yet I am often one of only a handful of young people at these events. The current buzz is about the opening of the Smith Center, a venue that will finally bring Broadway tours to Vegas. While I am excited about this opportunity, it's unfortunate that the only arts venue that people of all ages are really buzzing about is the venue tha's bringing in the commercial money makers. Las Vegas is not necessarily lacking in some of the elements Morley doesn't find at home, but the problem is the people aren't paying attention to them! The city seems culturally lacking because the people don't pay any respect to the development of new cultural venues or the existent of current venues. Long story short, I think the issue in most cities lies with the lack of demand for and participation in the arts from the general public. Yet many people are so ignorant of the arts and are so technology-driven that I'm not surprised.
I agree with Prof. Morely's position that theater may not have the same social standing that it has in the past. Now people are more likely to go out to a movie or sporting event than to go to the theater. I would not agree with (maybe) the editor's position stated in the headline that the "state of the arts [is] slowly fading". I think that what we think of as art has broadened to include TV, film, video games, interactive installations, comics, and other art forms. The participation in theater has declined as people have started to move to some of these newer art forms. I do agree with the professor's claim that businesses (arts organizations and universities) need to be putting the money where their mouth is (at the end product) rather than focusing on overhead support and bells and whistles (of course there is a trade off).
I think I would agree that right now there is certainly a greater disinterest in the arts than there was in decades and centuries past.
I think a lot of it has to do with the fact the change in how our societies work. If you think back to the days of Shakespeare, a lot of the reason he and other playwrights, and other artists of the time were able to create was because they had patrons. It was considered a mark of prestige and power to be a patron to an artist, to be connected to someone with creativity.
The idea of patronage has faded, and funding for the arts from the government has gotten smaller over time. In schools they always say that when budget cuts come in, it's the art's that are the first to go. I think maybe we just need a new social mindset about supporting and encouraging art and artists. There should be just as many scholarships, fellowships, and internships for those in the creative fields as there are for those in science and technology. It's an issue more people are aware of, but until more is done to support creativity, and to allow experimentation and "failure" in art, things will likely continue to become more commercialized, simple to allow artists to survive.
I agree with Morley in that a lot of collegiate programs are becoming more about numbers and less about the students. My brother often tells me about his lecture classes with so many students that attendance is not taken and interaction with the teacher does not occur. In programs like this a student has to speak up in order to interact with the teacher. Maybe that's a good thing--while many students won't take the initiative the ones who will will benefit so much. Are one-on-one interactions better than situations where you have to be outgoing and assertive?
I come from almost an exactly opposite position, which made reading this article interesting. It certainly made me feel lucky to go to a drama school that is not filled with huge lectures and powerpoints, and lots of one-on-one teaching and experience, which the author of this article is lamenting the loss of. But, at least in most public schools, we are not coming to drama schools from a well funded background. I mean that, maybe while the article says that students in New Zealand going to school for drama are coming from secondary schools that have up to date theaters and well funded productions, our high school productions are often significantly less than that. I think that's probably a good thing, at least for us, because it's more of a positive learning curve. We're always impressed and inspired with what's ahead of us, rather than reaching our peak, so to say, in high school.
Post a Comment