Chicago Tribune: In the 1980s, the Theatre Communications Group, a trade association for nonprofit theaters, wanted to explore the future of the so-called resident theater movement — the network of professional, nonprofit theaters that had transformed the cultural landscape of America’s cities since Margo Jones, a.k.a. the Texas Tornado, and her revolutionary doings at her groundbreaking Theatre ’47 in Dallas.
Who did they ask? Artistic directors, of course.
3 comments:
I've always wondered what an artistic director of a theater is and what they do. I understand the director’s job, and the designers, but an artistic director seems a little weird. After reading this article, I too wonder how much longer they are going to last in the world of non-profit theaters. Artistic directors decide the theater's overall vision for the season, as well as for each individual show. They are almost like a director and producer together, but solely in charge of the design process and artistic vision. They do not do anything with money. It's almost a PR and Marketing chief but for theater shows and productions. I can understand why this position is slowly going out, especially if the position can cost up to 500,000 for a salary. For non-profit theaters, that cost is too much to sustain, especially if their membership for the season is dropping. I wonder how many theaters will drop this position entirely, or if some will just combine it with the chief administrative officer or some other position.
At this stage of my education and theatre career, I am very interested in the role that an artistic director has as a potential path for myself. However, I feel like I am still learning all the roles and responsibilities of an artistic director. This article is very interesting because it questions the traditional role of an artistic director. The article brings up an interesting point about the concerns that begin to arise when running a show for several weeks when you don't know how successful it will be. When money is tight, especially in not for profit environments, it becomes a difficult call to make. This role is beginning to shift to break down into several roles including producers, directors, etc. However, it is exciting to me that this role within the theatre is beginning to change, because it reflects the fact that the industry we work in is also changing.
I think for a low-budget theater, dismissing the role artistic directors play would be easy, since they need the money for other things. The fact that most of an artistic directors' roles depend on soft skills more than most other jobs in a theater. Personally, I think having an artistic director is really important, especially in the matter of choosing shows to cater to the local environments. I think hiring directors from outside the institution is valid, but I think it's important that one person choose the season for the sake of cohesiveness and relevance to the community. This is definitely easier said than done. When trying to make necessary budget cuts, a role that consists almost exclusively of soft skills is really easy to cut. There's a tangible loss when you let a designer or stage manager go, but I think theaters will notice a huge difference in engagement down the road if they decide to do away with this important role. I think it's important to consider the important role of an artistic director before making that drastic decision.
Post a Comment