Building What, Exactly?

Had an interesting conversation with a friend who is working in DC. She said that she was amazed that every theatre company in DC seemed to be building (or have just built) new digs. This comes right on the heals of Playgoer's post about the same issue nationally here. And, from personal DC experience, I know what she's talking about. The Studio Theatre (where my mother is on the board) bought their building, renovated it, bought the building next door, renovated it, and is now buying housing for out of town artists and apprentices. Arena Stage is in the midst of redoing their building. The Shakespeare Theater just built a new theater (their second, they built their first when I was a child). Woolly Mammoth put the finishing touches on their new space a few years ago (they had been homeless for a few years after losing their 14th st. location).

As we were marveling at all of this new construction, she then voiced the thing that's been on a lot of people's minds lately: Amazing, isn't it, that you can get all of this money to rebuild or build new spaces. You'd think they could also raise the money for the art that goes in the building.

She was referring, specifically to actor's salaries (she is not an actor). And specifically the idea of paying actors a living wage.

And so I was wondering... why is it so hard to raise money to fund the lives of the artists who work in those brand spanking new buildings? Is it that the artists won't demand the money so companies don't feel they have to raise it? Is it that people can't put their names on other people, but can put their names on chairs, bricks, mortar etc? Is it that we're worried about too much corporate influence on the art anyway?... I mean, Can you imagine if Playwrights had a resident acting company simply called The Ford Motor Company instead of a Ford Motor Company lobby? Would we be outraged by that? Probably. But I don't know if they'd go for it in the first place.

Anyway, I don't exactly understand why funding real estate that art is in is so much more popular than funding the salaries of artists. I mean, could you have endowed chairs for actors/playwrights/directors/whatever and pay them a yearly salary or something? There's gotta be some bright way that people can figure out to sell this idea to some donors...

Comments

[Karl Miller]

Excellent point, Isaac ... The Ford Motor Company wouldn't be too ridiculous -- the old Elizabethan companies were named after poncey royals and rich people, so ...

Capital campaigns appeal because they make mini-monuments of the donors. Little placards on the arm-rest, bricks in the lobby, etc. I'd happily put a bold shout-out to any patron in my program bio or something ... but it's not the same.

DC's starting to reach a saturation point, I think. The metro area has about 3 million people and they sold over 2 million tickets last year -- which is a pretty encouraging ratio for per capita theatregoing. Even smaller troupes like Stage Guild and Rorschach Theatre are working on new spaces. Signature in Virginia just opened a wonderful two-stage building a couple years ago. And someone recently plopped down in Bethesda to do off-Broadway musical hits in their own snazzy space.

It's dizzying and I fear DC is also coming close to a saturation point. Not for artists, though -- more and more work with higher and higher salaries keeps coming to town. But new theatres are like restaurants ... some crazy percentage of them close after the ribbon-cutting.

[herxanthikles]

I'm right with you, Isaac. Down at Houston Grand Opera, almost all of the Studio Artist positions are endowed fellowships with names attached. From what I can tell, the folks who lend their names to the fellowships get a big kick out of not only financing a young career but also having access to chill with talented people. I mean, I would pay money to have dinner with Philip Goodwin twice a year and a wink during parties.

This is making me nostalgic for the Arena Rep Company of yesteryear. Sigh...

[David Daniel]

Isaac,

I understand your frustration completely....BUT.... don't we already ask people to pay salaries? I know here out at APT in Wisconsin we're building a new indoor space (we're an outdoor rep) and we've been working on a new capital campaign to fund it. I also know that the new capital campaign will bite into our "normal" donations and givings that we use to cover some costs-- including salaries.

So I guess my question (really, truely, it is a question) is how are the monies received from a typical, albiet, rare, yearly donor different than the "Ford Motor Company Resident Theatre Troupe"?

What are donors giving to normally? The water bill or the leading lady?