Monday, September 10, 2012
Public Funding?
Gwydion Suilebhan: We’ve all heard the argument that political campaigns (particularly for President) ought to be publicly financed, so that politicians won’t be beholden to special interests with lots of money in their messaging and their governing. Just imagine the things we might hear out of politicians’ mouths if they didn’t have to worry about offending the wrong rich person!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I agree with most of this article however I feel after people began returning the whole art form of theatre would change, anybody could take part in these productions. Talent may lower or alter in very different ways, but as an exchange for this, every individual could have a chance to tell their story and share and learn about other individuals.
One of the fundamental arguments in debates over the arts is that artists have messages that they want to communicate, but those don't always line up with the size of audiences that they would like to transmit those messages to. Certainly the popularity of the latest rehashed-movies-as-big-budget-Broadway-musicals-with-American-Idol-winners-as-star-vehicles has shown us what the public wants to buy. As such, their projects are not commercially viable enough to exist in the ecosystem that needs some funding to at least produce the show (unless there's a very philanthropic company to produce it). So in comes the National Endowment for the Arts, who propose public funding to support projects that wouldn't normally get enough money to put up their projects. Then we get to the ultimately important issue there - who decides what messages need to be funded? Rocco Landesman (the chairman) felt, infamously, that theatre in Peoria, IL was not going to be as good as that at Lookingglass or Steppenwolf... who, by the way, get plenty of funding above and beyond the NEA. As long as we're talking about topics like "messages", "impact" and "art", there's going to be a subjective call in it. This article suggests a world after funding, where we'd go even further to the extreme, then go back to the same old system. So is there really a good way around this? Depends how compromising on your "art" you're willing to be.
I want to continue the metaphor used in this and apply it more completely back to politics, in order to see if the metaphor is being understood correctly. Essentially, if candidates took only public money (which, under current election law, is a possibility that the more minor parties take advantage of), they would be able to not just take risks but tell us the things we need to hear instead of want to hear. I still believe that would backfire though, because politics is not art. Politics is about economy, about being able to live in the way you want to. Sadly, theater will never have quite that much power- we'll never be able to effect if our audience members go home and have something to eat for dinner or have savings for retirement. What we CAN do however is do exactly what this article says, and that I believe is incredibly important, and that is filling a need. Sadly, many people would argue that is less "artistic"- its what Broadway does- they fill a need. It's supply and demand. But I agree, it does have the opportunity to increase the exposure in our business.
I agree that if everyone in theater were to be somehow funded forever, people would start to experiment in new and absurd forms of theater. I also follow that the result would be a significant loss in our audience, although I do think a lot of forms of theater would remain the same, such as classical opera and similar things. However I do not follow that we would arrive at the realization that we had lost our audience. If we continued to have funding for all our activities, I think theater would become about pushing boundaries and the only audience we would seek would be other artists or the same group of people that these days regularly attend museums dedicated to modern or conceptual art.
A majority of theatre is already not for profit, so unlike presidential elections - most theatrical endeavors aren't aiming to raise an astronomical amount of money. I also feel like if money werent an issue theatre - the talent would ultimately decrease. Good theatre costs money, and if there is differentiation between who can produce good/bad theatre there is no competition in the market... creating too much theatre for not enough of an audience and everyone suffers.
I agree with the outcome this post comes up with, but I don't know if the conclusions it comes to are correct. There are many theatre people who work in smaller settings (like fringe theatre) that do make plays that very greatly form the norm. These artists bring one style of show to the industry. These shows my have things that "big" theatre can learn from, but "big" theatre also has a place in the world. I think that the more styles of theatre we have the better off our industry and art will be. We should not all start acting like we’ve got all the money in the world right now and just cut to the end of the story? Some can, but that's not the only way to go about theatre in the next decade.
I'm not sure that the middle step Suilebhan suggests is necessary, or a good decision in general. If we drive everyone away from theater and make everyone stop coming, it would be a great challenge to reel them back in. But her suggestion that we "cut to the end of the story," presumingly advising us to connect with our audiences, is a great one. The challenge, however, to connect with your audience and have a stunning show is a tough one. On a big stage that could have spectacular shows, it would be harder to connect to the audience… yet in a small stage where it would be easier to connect with an audience, publicity about the show would be tougher to get. The challenge is great, but I agree that we must connect with our audiences, no matter what. Otherwise they could just watch a mindless TV show to be entertained.
Barring magic wands, or perhaps even more unlikely a change in the political wind, it might be more instructive to look at this issue from somewhere closer to reality. In a country where per capita government funding for the arts is basically non-existent (in the U.S. less than 50 cents per capita per year, God Bless America), artists depend on commercial success or private funding to realize their visions. Again, realizing that this situation is not likely to change in our lifetimes, maybe we should look on the bright side. I don't know if I think that's such a bad thing that a free market rather than a bureaucrat should decide what art should be produced and what is best left un-produced. Call me a Republican, but I think it's a mistake to place any power concerning taste in the hands of government. From commercially successful, subscriber-based theaters to hillbilly art collectives making floating sculptures out of trash, there are many ways fund the endeavor. In my limited experience, most of them involve creating within your means and being true to your goals than free piles of cash. Good art will always find a way to get done, and if your worried about it, so will bad art (and yes, there is such a thing).
--
Yes! If no one was concerned with the amount of money they had to put into their productions this theatre world we live in would go CRAZY. It would be CRAZY in the best way at first, but would soon descend into pure artistic masochism. If no money is on the line than no risks are too big, no spiderman too unsuccessful. I would love to try this. Perhaps the government could build a National Theatre Month in which all the theatre was funded by the public. What a world that would be!!!
Post a Comment