Sunday, November 27, 2011
Occupy Lincoln Center (part 3)
Theatre Ideas: On October 26th, one of the great pioneers of the regional theatre movement, Zelda Fichlander, addressed the assembled Stage Directors and Choreographers Society in celebration of the 3rd annual award named in her honor. The invaluable on-line journal HowlRound posted the text of her speech, in which Fichlander spoke passionately about the early history of the regional theatre movement and the values that formed its foundation. I take a back seat to no one in my admiration for Fichlander, who has provided strong leadership and a vital moral voice in the regional theatre and theatre education for decades. That said, there is a portion of the speech that is, frankly, inaccurate and one that propagates a myth about the development of the regional theatre movement that supports the lack of diversity that is revealed in the Fusing Arts, Culture and Social Change report that has been discussed in the first two parts of this series.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I see his point but I'd like to challenge him to respond with a plan of action, his thoughts on what the diversity and economics of America's regional theatres should like. In part Scott Walters is falling into the a danger of the Occupy movement, one of the movement's main criticisms: it's all action and no thought. The occupiers are not presenting an economic model in response to the current oppresive capitalist system. Sure there are undertones of socialism, communism, and anarchy but it's largely a movement against something but not for anything.
At first Walters' blog posts were sympathetic with the Occupy movement and called upon the blogosphere to consider the state of regional theater and funding. Occupy Lincoln Center (Part 1) was largely about the huge gaps in funding. In Part 2 we start to see where Walters is going with his argument, he points out that the gaps in funding are not just between large and small theaters but between white and minority theaters. These issues show up in the Occupy movement as well. Groups like Occupy the Hood and Occupy Patriarchy are standing in solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street movement becasue an oppressive economic system tends to limit certain minorities and groups. In Part 3 we see the true focus of his call for solidarity with the Occupy movement, an attack on the NEA.
The Occupy movement is not attacking one thing. Their target is big-business banks, in general, but not specifically one bank over another. Bank of America or Wells Fargo are the not the direct targets of the movement but because they fall into the general category of oppressive economic forces they are targets of the movement. Walters is focusing on the NEA, specifically their potential affects on the health and success of regional theaters. But he is quick to point out that the NEA favors a certain majority or perhaps are ignoring certain ethnic groups, geographic regions, and demographics. Yes, I can see where the misuse of power is taking place (saying funding helps the economies of rural communities yet devoting most of the funds to urban areas) but I'd like to know what Walters suggests about it. In focusing his comments specifically about the NEA he has done something the Occupy movement has not: identified a clear target. Tactically the Occupy movement does not do this and therefore does not have to adopt a plan of action. In calling out the NEA and its effect on the distribution of arts funding, affecting diversity in regional theater, and the economic development of rural and urban arts communities, I'd like to know what Walters suggests to chnage this.
I'm not attacking him, I agree with most of what he has to say, I'd like to know what can be done about it? The NEA has changed their funding criteria and target artists before. To change that now and to consider the changes Walters is suggesting (more diverse and more dispersed funding) will change the face of regional theatre. It's a very exciting notion.
What's even more exciting is that perhaps this is the tactical plan of the Occupy movement in action. The are not proposing solutions to the problems but their awareness of the problem is creating an awareness in other environments and economic circles. Perhaps those will culminate into the manifestation of something bigger.
I do agree that the theater community is incredibly centralized. However, I think that the rise of small (and some larger) theater companies in Pittsburgh and Chicago are emblematic of a movement that is bringing theater out of NYC and LA. Of course both of these cities are large metro areas in and of themselves, but once we get theater moving, it will possibly be easier to continue. Secondly, I would argue that many small communities of 50,000 - 100,000 are barely able to sustain such an organization. And in many of them, a theater is not necessarily wanted or needed by the vast majority. From a theater industry perspective and even a larger cultural perspective, having a theater in all of these communities would be great. I just don't know that it is currently an economic possibility.
I think that's the point of his blog post Chris. Smaller rural communities absolutely cannot provide proper financial support to sustain a healthy arts community. What is the NEA doing about this?
I question your claim that these smaller arts communities do not need or want theatre. Is this the case or can they not support them and don't want the financial struggle it would take to bring theaters to smaller communities. Your kind of thinking, that smaller communities don't want/need arts (and therefore the funding they require) is the exact kind thing that Walters is attacking the NEA for. Also what does it say about us as artists (and students looking to get a job in the arts) to say that what we do is not universal and not loved and cherished by everyone? I think to admit that is to limit the need for more arts funding: if what we do doesn't really matter, then why fund it at all? If it only matters to areas with a certain population then where is the cut-off between which population gets the money and which doesn't? Walters is operating under the assumption that theater is still valued by all and everyone deserves the right to art. Don't we all agree on that?
That was definitely one of the more interesting articles I've read yet concerning the state of theatre in this country today. Now, I'll be the first to admit that as a native New Yorker, I have just about zero knowledge of what "small town" life is like, how art affects those communities, or how communities without art might feel cheated. And yes, I love having quite a large percentage of the NEA's funding within walking distance, but it seems unfair that we aren't sharing the wealth more. Sure, we want people to come see shows in New York, because it makes great tourist revenue and it's something special. But we also want to give them art where they live, and let it become a fundamental part of their community. New York is at the point where without art, it would be missing an enormous chunk of its personality, and other cities and towns deserve that sort of vitality of art in their culture.
Matt -- Hello again! I appreciate your call for a plan. Diane Ragsdale, for instance, has made a few suggestions, and I will as well in a later post. However, I think the first step is to get people both in and out of the arts to recognize that there is, in fact, a problem. I have seen a lot of defending of the status quo coming from artists, concern for the financial health of the poor top 2% -- much like the Republicans worry about the bank accounts of those with incomes over a million. This comes from a misplaced sense that they aspire to be hired at such a privileged place -- the "I'm gonna get mine" sydrome which professors (and I am a professor myself) drum into theatre majors. We don't require students to ask "is this right," but only "how can I win," and I find that the biggest barriers to important change in the arts.
I disagree that the NEA represents my villain. The three posts are additive: the first was about the nonprofit grantmaking world, the second about the effect of that on all kinds of diversity, and the third shows how public grants such as those by the NEA mirror the same problem. My personal focus is on geographic diversity, but that is part of a larger concern with demographic and artistic diversity. When foundations and the government both follow the same value system, the result is the gap between institutions.
The Occupy movement is bringing back into the discussion a moral question: is the yawning income gap right? The first thing that has to happen is for enough people to have this question brought to the forefront of their minds and to answer "no, it isn't." THEN a plan should emerge. Watch Simon Sinek's TED talk (http://bit.ly/cZ9IYd) -- he says people don't buy what you do, they buy why you do it. I agree, and at the root of the Occupy movement and my own efforts is a why that is about justice, fairness, and equity.
Post a Comment