Sunday, January 30, 2011
Landesman Comments on Theater
NYTimes.com: "Count on Rocco Landesman to stir the pot. Speaking at a conference about new play development at Arena Stage in Washington on Thursday, Mr. Landesman, the chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, addressed the problem of struggling theaters. “You can either increase demand or decrease supply,” he said.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
As much as I feel we should be encouraging new artists, even the artistic well is prone to running dry. To some extent, I agree with Mr. Landesman's comment that we may need to cut back, or at least redistribute. With new theatre companies everywhere, we run the risk of spreading ourselves too thin; even if jobs are being created, there might not be enough audience members or potential viewers out there for all the new theatre that's happening. People with new exciting ideas might try going to existing theatre companies and seeing if they can work together before just diving in on their own, it could work wonders for the NEA and for theatre in America in general.
This is partially disturbing yet I partially agree. If you put theater in terms of supply and demand, the conclusion is that certain theaters who have the demand will get the supply (NEA funding.) This is scary. How steep is the slope where we begin to allocate money to things that will sell more tickets (make money.) An artis / theatre doesn't want to think about returns, they want to think about the product: for an idea to be in demand, the idea simply needs to exist.
However
Limiting the supply will increase the demand. Imagine the worst case scenario: Republicans create legislation to abolish the NEA, eventually leading cutting all types of funding in all types of arts (theaters, schools, everywhere.) I believe people will want theater even more when it is impossible to have. Imagine the world without art, imagine the world without theater; I don't think it is possible. Perhaps performance is a universal trait of humanity. I can understand why putting it in economic terms can be disheartening. Maybe all the more reason to stop trying to fit an art into a quasi-capitalist model.
I see where Mr. Landesman's comment came from, and I agree that the people probably most excited about theatre are the people involved in producing it, but we are in a recession. When it comes to economy there are many many reasons for patterns beyond what the chart is seeming to say. Theatre is an unnecessary expense for average consumers. If the NEA dropped funding, I'm sure it wouldn't last long. Theres so much research regarding the benefit of art in schools, and artists will create despite any obstacle. Theatre will continue to happen despite government funds, thanks to donors and creative fundraising. There will be a lot less of it however. I just fear the ones left standing won't be the strongest company with the new ideas but the corporate company who produces what would be financially savvy as a means to stay open. I doubt the government will drop funding to the arts, but maybe it is something to think about if they gave more grants to less companies.
Sadly, I feel as though the increase in theatre's demand is what's contributing to its downfall. With show like Spiderman and Bring it On, Broadway is killing its originality by producing shows only geared towards to popular and less artistic crowds who strive for only entertainment instead of an artistic experience. We need to produce theatre that is more relatable on a higher, more intellectual matter such as world issues. A wonderful example of this is Kushner's Angel's in America, a play that tackled key issue of the time and brought in both positive and negative press. Attendance is one things, admiration is another, but a life changing experience should be the goal.
Post a Comment