2am: "In today’s Washington Post, Peter Marks imagines a new hope for theatre with a touch of audacity. (Go ahead and read it. We’ll wait.)
The short version is, he considers a world in which the White House could support more live theatre–dramatic work in particular–perhaps coordinated by Rocco Landesman and the NEA. After all, “[i]t’s embarrassing that many embassies in Washington are more aggressive about showcasing their nations’ plays and players than is the hometown administration.” His proposal is intriguing, but it really only scratches the surface…
He suggests enlisting Pulitzer Prize-winning playwrights to craft one-act plays that could be performed at the White House itself, maybe with all star casts volunteering their time to perform. Perhaps their work could revolve around a theme, perhaps not. He then suggests expanding the roster to include “prize worthy” playwrights as well. And he suggests that Landesman might be ideally suited to coordinate such a project.
It’s a good idea. As a playwright, I could get behind that idea. But then I got to thinking."
3 comments:
There is an inherent problem with public funding for the arts. How does the government decide what is good art or bad? What we need are programs that encourage individuals to become patrons of the arts. To not only attend performances, but also support performing arts through financial means other resources like time and physical property. This article is a step in the right direction. The government should help bring attention to the programs that already exist rather than creating more, but maybe they should also be encouraging the public to attend and support more individual programs at a local level. The arts is not really a place for top down government funding and mandates. The government's place is simply to encourage the organizations and the public to support the arts in our country.
I think this article has really interesting new ideas on how to make theater more accessible, and marketing it better. I like the idea of, instead of getting big-name actors and writers to do one-acts in the white house, having local theater companies from around the country present shows at the white house, and filming them for PBS or something. What this article doesn't point out is that, aside from increasing exposure, this also gives people who, because of financial reasons, are not able to go to live theater a chance to be exposed to the vibrant language and culture. Which, might encourage them to pursue a career in the arts, or even just go see a community theater show instead of Broadway. I know I'd always rather see a filmed play, then an movie adaptation of a play. A lot of the points this article makes on how this could benefit theater are really interesting.
I think that if the government should get involved in supporting the arts ,or supporting the arts more, it shouldn't be in the realm of professional, regional, or local theatre but in the realm of education. So many schools have had to cut funding for the arts and that is just tragic. If you want to garner attention, publicity, support, and appreciation for the arts - then why not start with the kids? If they are interested in theatre or music at their schools they might want to go see a show at their local theatre and drag their parents along. If the youth are energized by the arts then that insures a future for the arts. In my opinion, that is what the government should increase support for.
Post a Comment