HowlRound: The other day I found myself on the phone with a reporter of a major newspaper. He was trying to tell the truth about a big theater that isn’t telling the truth. I heard myself say to the reporter, who was so frustrated by the lack of transparency in the nonprofit theater: “It’s weird right? Getting anyone to go on record in our profession to tell the truth is like trying to crack a CIA security code.”
6 comments:
I think its important to point his out: we are being trained (and eventually paid) to lie. I think that's a little ironic in the context of this article. I also want to point out I have worked at several non-profit theatres in my day. They keep things under wraps for their own protection. Businesses do the same thing, and non-profits have even more at stake. I get it.
"Do we believe in the evolving truth of late capitalism that everything is defined by its value as a transaction?"
The blogger compares the lying and "truthiness" found in non profits art institutions to similiar practices in the political sphere to point to a larger philosophical question, "What is the truth?" And more importantly what should out attitude towards it as artists. Should we demonstrate the same earnest in communicating daily goings-on and operations to our families as we do our supervisors, or board members? Seemingly the answer is no, but where does we cross the line of being truthful or truthy to lying or misrepresenting important details. The fact that we have to ask ourselves this question is a cause of concern. Art is both passion and career. The career can sometimes complicate the art.
I think there are reasons why we can see parallels between the truthiness of the political sphere and the truthiness in theater. This isn't seen just seen in representing the bottom line like the examples they cite, though the money question may be part of it. It can be seen in communication between TD and PM, LD and ME, or in our case student and teacher-as-mentor. We are living in a business-driven capitalist society. This pushes us all to want to suceed in everything we do professionally. The nemesis of this drive is failure. There are two ways to address failure. The most difficult one would be to recognize it and respect it: admit mistakes, accept the consequences, and move forward. The second is to disguise failure through either lying about it or disguising it as something else.
It is easier to lie of course. No one wants to do this but everyone does. Leaders do not want to admit failure and its consequences for fear of losing credibility and authority. People who report to that authority won't want to admit failure for fear of losing what power they have. The constant fear of losing credibility combined with the rocky economic structure that is non-profit arts organizing reinforces these practices. I'm not optimistic it can change. I don't know how we can separate the American drive to succeed while constantly communicating that things are all right.
I love the comparison of theater and politics. This blog post doesn't really delve into the comparison of that, but it starts to. I view much of modern politics as a version of theater: political theater. Its now more about the story and the emotion than the truth or facts that they are telling. I think the difference though is that theater can survive the harsh reality of needing truth, while politics will ultimately not survive the transition to a more theatrical language. Eventually that will fail for them, which will eventually lead to theater becoming more valued because it is not part of everyday politics and therefore everyday life.
I don't think you lose credibility by admitting your failures. You lose credibility by trying to hide them. I think it is okay to admit your failings just so long as you realize what went wrong and how to be successful in the future. It is also better to more upfront anyway, so the mistake or failure can be dealt with before it becomes a major problem.
I also agree with Brian that politics is a form of theater. It's all about how the politician uses acting and theatricality to get us, the audience, to vote for them.
"But committing to honesty, to the values and ethics that originally motivated us to make a life in the arts and eschew more culturally acceptable means to success and wealth, must become the touchstone of nonprofit theaters and the artists who give it life." I think this is a great thesis statement for this article, or perhaps conclusion to reach. Recently someone made a point that if you are not happy in this profession, find a different one immediately because you are likely to get paid just as much or more to be less miserable. If we are lying in this profession similarly to the way politicians lie, we should realize that we hold ourselves to a higher standard as artists and should make a change. On a side note, it is increasingly unfortunate that we, as Americans, see the danger and negativity in the way our own government functions and use it as an example of what is wrong in our everyday lives if we become to like it. What does that say about our country's morals, standards, and example we give?
The point the author is trying to make is valid. Theatre should not be accepting and therefore perpetuating the lies that are told to us in a political mind set. But this can be applied to many different types of theatre as well. Unless it is blatantly obvious that the theatre is treating the lie as the truth to provoke thought on what we take to be true it shouldnt be done.
Post a Comment