Chicago Tribune: In a recent article in American Theatre, the editor Rob Weinert-Kendt opined that regional theaters had “fallen short in a lot of ways by following a similar, Broadway-focused industrial model.” In the same online magazine, Brandon Ivie, the associate artistic director of the Village Theatre of Issaquah, Wash., wrote: “I’m looking ahead with an understanding that capitalism is the real enemy.”
7 comments:
Although I do understand the sentiment that capitalism can get in the way of art, I tend to disagree. I think artists should try to create what they want, but they should also try to create something that other people would like and perhaps be willing to buy or purchase a ticket to. We should not merely be making art for the sake of art but make something that has meaning to not just us but other people. Capitalism is one of the only effective ways to communicate this to artists. Although I think every person should be able to affor a place to live, food, water and clothing, these artists should still need a way to be incentivized to create what people like. These artists should be able to spend however long they feel necessary on their project and should not have to worry about basic necessities but in the end should still return a product that other people might like.
I absolutely agree with this article. Our economic system isn’t perfect but it allows artist to freely create art with the potential of being extremely successful. There are things we can do to protect workers rights in the industry, but I believe caplitalism is the best economic system—especially for artists. It is a very democratic process as the artist creates any art they want and the audience “votes” for their favorite art by purchasing tickets and watching the shows. The shows that really resonate with people will be sensationalized and the artist will be given more opportunities to spread their art to others. For profit theaters push artist creativity to create something wonderful that will bring in thousands of people. I loved when the author wrote this: “Broadway attracts more lower-middle class theatergoers than many pretentious nonprofit institutions; it pulls more young people to shows like “Mean Girls” and “To Kill a Mockingbird,” and it is far more likely to attract the large and diverse audience for shows that intersect with the history of recorded music. In short, the argument for a capitalist Broadway in a capitalist society is that it tends to end up as populist.”
This article comes off as defensive and like someone who doesn’t like having their way of life challenged. The fact that he thinks this is fueled by envy is insulting. I got two paragraphs into this before I realized this was sounding a lot like Chris Jones and sure when I scrolled up to the byline I saw his name. His argument that you can have social activist theater in a commercial model doesn’t even acknowledge that creatives often have to compromise their artistic pursuits in order to appease their commercial backers, or the idea that our theater could be even more radical if artists didn’t have to meet the bottom line. His example of Hamilton ignores their financial security that allowed them to make a “bold statement to Pence” or that Sondheim revising Rose’s Turn isn’t a resounding endorsement of capitalism but of editing and good storytelling. Also using Marxist Broadway as a boogeyman term is just embarrassing and Jones should do better in his attempt to appease his financial overlords.
I do not even really know what to say for this one. It is a fair argument what the writer is making, but it is in such a defensive tone that it highlights the reasons why I disagree with him. I don’t like disregarding commercial theater. Commercial theater can be good, and oftentimes I like to say that it is. Just because you are not part of the “starving artist” trope does not mean you cannot be an artist. Are you only allowed to create if it is for free? But I feel like the writer is completely disregarding what got these shows to the place they are. Money. They say the system works, but then that is opposing what was just said because so many compromises have to be made in order for a show to be commercial. Like recently this example of Jagged Little Pill originally having a trans character and then writing it off as soon as they got to Broadway.
This article was just super weird to me as well as a little hard to read. The tone was super defensive and sounded very hostile but I do think it brought up some pretty good points. I think my generation loves to crap all over capitalism and frankly I am one of those people but I do not think capitalism is going to go away any time soon and the best thing we can do at this point is make the systems in place better suited for everything and slowly transition away from capitalism if that is what society needs. I think artist are currently getting their livelihood from capitalism and although there is still the starving artist trope I do not think there has ever been a time in history where this trope has not existed.I think capitalism is an effective way to tell an artist what the market is looking for and what the people want and regardless of what type of economic and political system you belong to, artists who make what the people want will be more successful and more people will value their work. Of course people should be allowed to create and share whatever they want when it comes to art and their artistic expression but they can't blame capitalism if their art does not make money because nobody thinks it is good.
Opening this article with “the anti-capitalists are gunning for Broadway” makes it seem like there is a specific outside group of people that are targeting Broadway, yet many of their own theatre workers are the so called “anti-capitalists” themselves. It can be seen throughout the article, the true opinions of many makers of theatre giving their general consensus that, like any large industry, Broadway has its hold on the market. That being said, the fact that actors up on the big stage are taking advantage of this hold is immensely powerful. They use the example of the Hamilton cast using their platform to address Vice President Mike Pence, which is more of an extreme case. I think it dials back to something even simpler. Take Timothy Hughes as a better representation. Hughes, who I had the pleasure of meeting during his run on Hadestown, while performing as an ensemble member in Frozen one night, ripped a trump flag out of the hands of an audience member. That right there, is using the industry to your advantage.
I agree with the other comments that this article enters with an aggressive and confusing tone, making it hard to follow and understand at times. It makes me wonder about the purpose and intended audience of this article. Also, the problems/topics highlighted within the article are all a result of the system of capitalism, and while it is important to understand how this impacts the theater industry, it seems weird to get all worked up about it specifically with a theatrical lens. If we are addressing capitalism as a whole, either pro or anti, it feels odd to start with the topic of theater which should logically be one of the lasts concerns when discussing societal impact at large. This article just seems to be a rebuttal but they don’t have anything to rebuttal against, leading me to discredit the author and believe they are angry just for the sake of being angry.
Post a Comment