Theatre Ideas: If there were 100 nonprofit arts organizations dividing a million dollars, it would look like this:
2 organizations would split $550,000 ($275,000 each)
The remaining 98 organizations would each get $4591
The ratio is a about 60:1
In other words, the income disparity between nonprofit arts institutions is nearly twice as bad as the income disparity in the economy as a whole. If the arts are supposed to hold the mirror up to nature, it is a magnifying glass.
4 comments:
Both the Occupiers and Walker are talking about the income and wealth and how it is distributed throughout the larger system, the nation’s population or non-profit arts organizations. Let’s say that the influence of the Occupy movement affects the way arts funding is handled, perhaps the distribution of wealth and income is equally divided among all arts organizations. Each organization gets the same amount of funding, each gets the same dollar amount, but that dollar amount is much smaller. It is being distributed across a greater number of companies. This may mean that organizations who get very little funding or no funding at all, will get more funding. This is good for their budget sheet. Perhaps they have been operating in survival mode since their first artistic endeavor, struggling to break even or stay out of the red long enough until the next production. For them a more equal distribution of funding allows them to take on additional expenses that they otherwise couldn’t have; they have the financial support for more realization of their vision. But for %1 this hurts their budget sheet. Their assets and vision are dependent upon the amounts of funding they’ve received in the past and continue to plan for. When that doesn’t come it hurts the economic manifestation of their vision. They can no longer take on certain expenses and their vision suffers. In the American economic system and idealist manifestion of the demands of the Occupy movement would be a balance of class size: the middle & lower classes would shrink as the upper class got bigger. In non-profit theatre a more equal distribution of arts funding would manifest itself in larger theatres going under or shrinking, and smaller theatres thriving.
The problem with the analogy between the Occupy movement and the distribution of arts funding is that the Occupiers are pointing out the economic hardships imposed on the 99% by the %1. I don’t think Quantum Theatre in Pittsburgh feels oppressed by the Lincoln Center in NYC. But I’m sure they do feel overwhelmed in the struggle to obtain funding. The Occupy movement’s hope is that by exposing an economic system that is unable to properly sustain all citizens involved in it the democracy that supports it will change the system. (Everyone has the political freedom and potential to work for political change.) This is something non-profit arts organizations have been doing for quite some time; they are aware that there is a problem in arts funding. The external political environment surrounding grass hoots economic movements like the Occupy protests can affect the world of non-profit arts funding. Their simple, clear, and powerful expressions of economic injustices bring these same issues to the forefront of the larger political discussion. The desire for greater arts funding is part of this larger political discussion. If the Occupy movement facilitates an attitude change of how distribution of wealth is concerned it may contribute to a change in how arts funding is distributed by posing egalitarian questions. Should all theatres get the same amount of funding? Should certain theatres get more than others? And importantly, where does this funding come from?
With everything going on with Occupy, it is interesting to see statistics on how it relates specifically to the arts. I agree with Matt that the analogy is a bit weak, as there is less anger the smaller organizations feel in comparison to the anger of the 99% (he made a good point about Quantum not not feeling oppressed by Lincoln Center). The way this article discusses the issue is useful with its breakdowns but it would be more useful to also include the more in-depth motivations of those involved in Occupy, as Matt addresses. I do wonder how the outcome of Occupy will affect our industry.
...
I agree with everything Matt said.
...
I'm happy to see a discussion happening among students who will forge the future of the American theatre! I hope I'm not overstepping my bounds to respond, specifically to Matt's statement, "The problem with the analogy between the Occupy movement and the distribution of arts funding is that the Occupiers are pointing out the economic hardships imposed on the 99% by the %1. I don’t think Quantum Theatre in Pittsburgh feels oppressed by the Lincoln Center in NYC. But I’m sure they do feel overwhelmed in the struggle to obtain funding."
The Occupy movement is about the increasing gap between rich and poor, both in income (money brought in over the course of a year) and wealth (things that are owned). It isn't about direct oppression (although as governments bring police intervention, that may change), but about an economic system that unfairly privileges a few and handicaps others. I would recommend the writings of Amrtya Sen and Martha Nussbaum about "capabilities" vs "rights." (for a broad definition, see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_approach). One of the capabilities "the distribution of opportunities within society." While a homeless person has the "right" to create his own business, for instance, he lacks the capability to do so because of lack of access to capital.
This is true in the arts as well. There are many, many homeless arts orgs who must rent space for each project -- space that is rented at a premium. This reduces their capability to produce as much work as they'd like. For the 2% of nonprofits who normally have their own spaces, often built through grants and donations and often with endowments to provide for operating costs for the spaces, this is not an issue.
So is Quantum Theatre oppressed by Lincoln Center. Only insofar as they must compete for funding with such a behemoth. These theatres have created a business model that requires constant input of grant and donation money. They are continually raising money, and when a donor gives money to them, they have less money available to give to other orgs.
This sort of correspondence between the injustice of the larger economic system and the nonprofit arts system can be made in many other areas as well. No analogies are perfect, otherwise they wouldn't be analogies, but this one has enough points of contact to be useful.
The fact is that the current nonprofit theatre system is centralized in urban areas and certain states, and privileges institutions that primarily serve wealthy, white patrons with a diet of canonical work. And I contend that that is a serious problem for every aspect of the artistic ecosystem.
Post a Comment