Tuesday, November 03, 2015
875 Scenic Artists Are Latest to Petition New York Times to Restore Production Credits in Theatre Reviews
Playbill.com: United Scenic Artists, Local USA 829, the labor union and professional association of designers, artists and craftspeople, is the latest group of theatre professionals to pen an open letter to The New York Times, urging the newspaper to restore the list of designers and production members to its printed and online reviews and listings.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
As an aspiring theatre designer, the issue of not being formally acknowledged on a show that you've worked on is something that unfortunately, is felt often. The fact that such a large supplier of updates and entertainment news like The Times decided to remove the working credits of the full creative production team (this includes costumes, scenic, lighting, sound and other integral individuals) reinforces the false notion that they didn't do as much work or that their work isn't as important as actors, directors and playwrights. Obviously, this is very untrue and it's certainly upsetting because theatre in nature, is collaborative. The whole point is to communicate, exchange and convey ideas. Theatre does not happen within a vacuum-- it is a conglomerate effort and it should be presented as that. I'm really glad that United Scenic Artists did act upon this and sent a letter to The Times because this is something that can't be pushed aside.
So, this is a bit of an issue with many designers, understandably so. I view the New York Times decision to pull designer credits from their newspaper as a symptom of the issue that we all saw when the Tony’s pulled their award for sound design. People who go to shows and marvel at theatre, at least in the eyes of the New York Times, they don’t really care about the people who design the environments for the performers.
Now, I’m not trying to be one of those people that shouts, “LOOK AT ME! I DID THAT! SEE THAT?! THAT WAS ME, GIVE ME CREDIT!!”. Those people exist in the world, but I honestly believe that people who make the argument for designer credits have a motivation that is more justified than feeding their ego.
The issue is on one of fairness. Performers work for weeks and weeks to gather together the best performance they possibly can for the show, and they work tirelessly to make sure that happens. Because of this, and because of the life they give to the character’s they portray, they rightfully get their name in the credits and the papers. Designers too, work for weeks and weeks, tirelessly creating the best possible environment and design of the show. The environment they end up creating brings a certain life to the production that wouldn’t exist if their role wasn’t necessary.
I get that you don’t need any design for a show, you only really need performers. But it’s hard to discount what having a design does for a production. The issue boils down to recognizing people for their hard work in helping create a piece of art that people saw and enjoyed. I think it’s only fair if the New York Times rethinks their decision to stop giving credit where credit is due.
Everything Alex said in the above comment is completely honest and true. As a designer, I don't necessarily feel the blatant urge for everyone to compliment me on my craft, my design, my whatever I'm putting out in the world. But there is a certain level of respect that we all have to pay to people who put in such work for a ensemble like product. It isn't only the writers, directors, and actors putting on a show. If that were true, we'd only have staged readings -- if that. Management positions run staged readings, not directors. There is an entire world behind the scenes that you cannot just cut out for the sake of keeping it brief. The credits list on and on, and even if the majority of the public isn't reading them, you know there will be a burgeoning scenic designer who wants to know who produced the awesome set he looks at on the news. The New York Times is doing a huge disservice to themselves by creating this controversy. One of the only reasons why I pick up the New York Times is to read the Arts section, but now it's becoming harder for me to like the newspaper because of the lack of representation for the people I aspire to be.
I commented on last week’s article about the 80 playwrights who wrought a similar letter to the New York Times and my immediate response to this article is similar. I’m still confused by the New York Times’ decision. How difficult can it be to keep that little box at the end of reviews? This is not some small newspaper that’s struggling to make ends meet, this is hugely well known and established newspaper. I would have thought that they could afford the cost of having that tiny little box at the end of show reviews. Since the internet is a thing that exists they don’t even have the excuse of it costing more to include those few words. In the end I feel like this comes down to the old idea of giving credit where credit is due. As an aspiring designer I don’t expect to have the same amount of recognition as the actors, director, or playwright, but I would like to be recognized somehow. What the New York Times has done smacks of the same mindset that is so often found in high school and middle school theater where the technicians and designers go nearly completely unnoticed.
If there is one thing positive about the New York Times omitting designer credits, it is that this issue us banding the theatre world together. To see theatrical artists from all areas stand up and fight for the production team's right to be acknowledged is amazing. I love reading all of the letters to the New York Times and seeing the long lists of names beneath them. Each one of them has made incredible theatre and wants to recognized, even in a small box at the end of an article, for it. As one of the new generation of theatre artists mentioned in the scenic artists letter, I do look at the names in the production team square. I do want to know who has made a show possible, more than just the playwright and director. I hope that the New York Times listens to our points, people deserve some sort of recognition for months of hard work.
Post a Comment