Monday, November 28, 2011
Media Suite at David H. Koch Theater Goes Unused
NYTimes.com: More than a year after its completion at a cost of several million dollars, a sleek media control room equipped to help the New York City Ballet record its performances for digital archiving and for theater broadcasts has languished unused.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
It is really sad that the company has not yet put the media room to use (and from the sound of it, there may be a lot of time before it does). I think that there are significant issues that have to be resolved before the organization can broadcast their performances regularly including, as the article mentions, the unions. It is interesting to me that the company is not using the room for their upcoming Live at Lincoln Center broadcast. In my limited experience, significant technical upgrades often do not include a lot of equipment that is later determined to be inadequate for what the company is trying to do. This seems to be either because the issues were unforeseen or that important equipment was cut for cost purposes without actually consulting with the people who would be using the system. I hope that the Ballet resolves their issues with the unions and starts to develop their broadcast and digital outreach program. Like the author and many of those interviewed claim, these broadcasts could be a massive financial benefit to the company.
In some ways I am happy with this. Okay, well maybe they should have used it once, but I hope that the reason that they haven't used it yet is because the shows have not merited it. Then again it might just be overwhelming. However I could see this sort of an installation causing a massive influx of media in each show, and sometimes I think that a more cautious approach might be better. They have the facilities available to them if they find that a show needs to include that aspect of design.
Chris makes some good points about how through the equipment and installation actually was. One hopes with a multi-million dollar price tag, that that is not the case.
I would hope that City Ballet begins to use this technology to their advantage. You would never think they would have so many problems about staffing and compensation off of revenue. It seems as if many excuses are being made and there are plans but they just need to implement them. I wonder how much they had settled before the suite was built. Although I would love to see how they use the suite and the outcome, it is good that City Ballet did not just such into using the suite. Its almost like using media for media's sake in productions. Once City Ballet has settled on everything they need to come to terms with hopefully their broadcasting and archiving will take place in beneficial ways to everyone.
This article was pretty vague. It seems like everyone is pointing fingers at everyone else, and also that (I'm reading between the lines here, perhaps inaccurately) they never really had a solid plan for it's use, other than to use it for something. But when no ballet company in the world has cleared that path, it seems silly to spend so much money without a clear plan of how to use it. That includes the debate over who should staff the room and what they should be paid, etc. It seems like this whole thing comes from a huge lack of planning.
It's unfortunate that such a great facility has gone virtually unused since its' construction. So many technologies could be integrated with the New York City Ballet to record and enhance performances there. I agree with Rachael that it appears that a solid plan for the Media room was never established during the donation and construction process. I think it says something when the financer of the renovation himself comments on the lack of use of the word, that must be tough to hear amid their efforts to work out a way to staff the room and bring it into full functionality.
While I don't feel that the article completely explained the situation, I find this to be very disheartening. It seems like an obvious move to have a plan to implement any new technology that's being introduced. They could have made some incredible strides and produced some really interesting new elements, but instead left the media room unused. I just wonder how this could happen. It's just plain irresponsible. If nothing else, just for fiscal reasons. Why get the equipment if the upcoming shows does not warrant it? Or why not choose and direct shows that could use the equipment? It just seems like there is an utter lack of leadership and responsibility.
I have seen this happen on every economic level. From the poor public school that has an LCD projector that no one knows how to plug in to the Trinity School of Ministry that got a grant for $50K for video production equipment that they have used twice in the last 3 years. I don't know the impetus that institutions and foundations want to give money for equipment but not for personnel. I know the children's hospital has $100K grant for a closed circuit television program they just don't have any funding to run it.
someone smarter than me will have to explain why this is.
This is so disappointing. All of that gorgeous equipment sitting there and collecting dust. In another light though, it is sort of a blessing that they are unable to televise their performances. Ballet and theatre are art forms which I feel are somewhat devalued when televised or converted to film because it takes away from the uniqueness of the experience, robbing the audience of the intimacy of the experience. Not entirely related but still, food for thought.
There are several things that I found bizarre about this situation:
Why are the stagehands responsible for broadcast facilities or archive facilities? I imagine there are other unions both with the IA and outside of it that could equally contend for jurisdiction there...
Why do the stagehands and actors get a part of the profit for the broadcasts? You almost never hear of actors getting a piece of the box office revenue on a show, let alone the stagehands, so why is that different for broadcast? Seems like it should go to the producers and possibly some to the creative team, and the actors and stagehands should get paid more up front.
How come nobody thought about the union issue when the room was built two years ago? It's technology in the entertainment business in New York; of course there will be some lengthy conversations about union involvement.
Too funny. I love these like this. Too much money spent on projects that are immediately mothballed. It's unfortunate that these resources cannot be utilized, and that the Ballet is bringing in a darned broadcast trailer, with all of the facilities at hand. I don't think the other commentors have actually read the article, but it's a shame that these labor and revenue negations have held up the use of these facilities that could really be helpful in bringing the product of theatre to new markets. But hey, I guess at least now there's a new break room filled with many counters to place your coffee.
Was there an intention to use this room? For $9 million I feel like there should have been some more concrete plans as to the intentions of the City Ballet.
The City Ballet by no means has to use the room, but why was it built then? Surely it wasn't updated with today's latest technology to be used ten years from now? I feel like if the City Ballet really wanted their productions to be broadcast then the complications with the stagehands union would have been solved by now, an entire year later. Or maybe I just don't understand how complicated negotiations are. But then why spend $9 million dollars on this room now?
Post a Comment