RE:HTFA I: Making a Living

Two fundamental assumptions underpin How Theater Failed America.  First is that it should be somewhat easier for theatre artists to make a living from their art, second (and related) is that more theatre artists should be making their living from their art. I agree with both of these assumptions to such an extent that I didn’t even see them as assumptions.  What I’ve realized in pouring over the theatrosphere’s discussion w/r/t HTFA lately, however, is that there is some disagreement as to whether or not the goal “more theatre artists making a living” is worth pursuing, especially given all the other problems facing theatre (and theaters!) today.  I believe wholeheartedly that part and parcel of improving theatre in America is making it a better living for artists involved in it.

Before I start enumerating why it would be good for the art form, not just the artists working in it, let me just pause for a moment and talk a little psychology and culture. When I went to see a career counselor a few years ago and she asked me what my (practical, not artistic) career goal in theatre was, I said “to make a living doing it”.  Let’s pause for a moment at that.  There are few other professions or callings I can think of where a career goal would be to make your living doing it.  Most places, your starting point is making a living doing it.  But things are desperate enough that an (At that time aspiring artist of 24) can say “things’d be going great if I could make a living doing this”.  It’s always been hard for artists to make a living, and I think an end result of that difficulty is that we’ve internalized our state of affairs in a kind of Panglossian way—since this is the only system of theatre making, it must be the best of all possible systems of theatre making.

This leads in a number of different directions, none of which are helpful.  The first is an antipathy towards the business side of making the art and especially towards those who are good at the business end, and those (aka development folk) who make it their business to be good at the business end so that art can be made. (For more on this, check out Mark Armstrong's excellent post on the topic of AD salaries).  Next is the glamorization of the difficulty of making a life in the theatre. Third is the dismissing of protestations about the living and working conditions of theatre artists as whiners looking for handouts.  Finally, and this is the justification under which most of the nonprofit world functions w/r/t its employees on all levels, is the idea that if you love doing something, it’s okay not to adequately compensate you for doing it.  I have myself so internalized most of these that I actually found writing this post extremely difficult, and find myself nervous hitting the “publish” button.  So let me say this right now, in case it is not clear: I do not believe that someone should be paid a living wage simply by declaring themselves an artist.  I do think, however, that a system by which it were easier and more possible for theatre artists to make a living doing their art would be better for the art form.  Not necessarily easy, just easier.

Let’s start with the economics perspective. Making it more possible to make a living in the theatre will incentivize entering and remaining in the art form.  Some view this as a bad thing, and generally when I ask people why they view it as a bad thing, the answer I get is that the incentive will only work on mediocre artists, but this assumption is not borne out by my experience. I know many extremely gifted theatre artists who have moved to LA and make their living off of commercials and bit roles and day player work rather than practicing their art on stage. Other countries have created entire theatre scenes simply by making it possible to make a good living in the theatre. Especially for those interested in a Regional Movement Revival (including me), this kind of incentivization is key. NYC might not need more people staying in and choosing theatre as a life path, but certainly other places do.

Second (and interrelated) is an economic cultural perspective: we value what we’re willing to pay for.  This works two ways, the first is respecting the artists we are hiring; the second is destigmatizing theatre as a life choice which is part and parcel with getting theatre back on the cultural radar as something worth paying attention to.   It’s all interrelated. Theatre is always to some extent going to be a home for the outsider, and I think this is a good thing, but it shouldn’t be considered so simply because you’d be insane to try to do it.

I also believe that better work results from a system in which more people are making a living from their art. I witness this every time I hold auditions or go into a rehearsal room.  Many people who want to work in theatre and also not starve find one of several different options for subsidizing employment. They either (a) work a full-time day job that they do not care about, (b) work a full-time job that they do care about, (c) work a part-time or sporatic job (like temping) that they do not care about or (d) work a part-time or sporatic job that they do care about.  I know very few people who belong in category b, who are capable of having two simultaneous work passions that take up fourteen hours of their day.  I know a lot of people in Category A, and it is largely those people that I’m talking about here.

I am lucky.  Anne and I have worked out our finances so that I don’t have to do much in the way of daytime employment while I’m rehearsing.  We did this because during periods when I tried to do both, I was exhausted and my work suffered; my choices were less thoughtful, my patience was thin at all times (and you must be patient to be a director), and I developed some sloppy work habits. Most actors, designers and fellow directors I talk to mention similar things from having to balance full time day work and a busy rehearsal schedule.

I have also worked with actors who are lucky enough to either have part-time work or make a living from their art, and the difference is recognizable.  There’s a big difference to being able to sit at home and memorize your lines and frantically trying to learn them on the subway.  There’s a big difference to going into an audition rested and relaxed and going into it on your lunch break.  And there’s a difference in being able to rehearse something for six hours a day and being able to rehearse something for three.

Making a living in the theatre as an artist is also hard enough right now that it forces people to adopt some not great working habits. Let’s take directors for a moment.  I was once having coffee with a pretty big up and coming director (Yale grad, directed off Broadway and in midsized LORT theaters).  He told me his rate when he did a regional show was around $5,000.  This means he would have to direct seven shows a year just to make $35,000. Doing a show right generally takes time, time to develop ideas, time to meet with people, time to do research, time to rehearse. Directing seven shows a year all over the country doesn’t really allow the time to do that. Designers frequently work on multiple shows in disparate parts of the country simultaneously. Our current system revolves around shortening the necessary time as much as possible, and sometimes more than a play (or an artist) can really bear. 

I want to just take a moment to pause here and say that my point is not that no good work is going on, or that it is impossible to make good work in the current circumstances, or that actors who make their living from theatre are necessarily better than actors who don’t.  There are really good artists out there who have figured out how to make this system work, and many training programs are essentially helping people adapt to this in ways that makes good work possible.  My point is about creating an environment where it could be better for both the people involved and the art they make.

Finally, I will also mention that there is a human cost to all of this, and that human cost again can bear out on the artwork itself. The system as it stands creates an environment in which it is more possible (not inevitable, but more possible) for people to become Theater Grotesques. For more successful artists on the migrant circuit, there’s the constant grind to make that living, the traveling that makes forming relationships with people difficult to impossible, the unsettled lifestyle etc. Some people feed off of this and it makes them better artists, but many do not and there should be other options available for them.  For those of us who don’t make a living from our art, there’s also the not-really-having-a-life problem, where between the struggle to make money and the struggle to make good art, our other life activities and relationships suffer.  I am actually taking the Fall largely off from the rehearsal room so that I can see people’s shows, go to museums, read more, be with other human beings in non-rehearsal hall settings, grow my relationships with people, help Obama get elected, start to codify elsewhere and what we’re about, study theatre etc.  All of this other stuff, this non-rehearsal room stuff is important for being a more well-rounded human being, but it’s also important to being a good artist.  And again, I’m not saying this is the only way to be a good human being or a good artist or make good art, but rather simply that it should be more possible to pursue this, should one choose to.  

When I talk to people who are leaving or have left theatre as a career, they inevitably mention the human cost above, as well as the cost to their relationships with other people, as chief concerns.  Making it easier for artists to make a living from theatre will not cure these problems, but it will help them. 

(for more on this, read this Denver post article with a tip of the hat to Adam S.)

UPDATE: Devilvet writes a post saying "Almost nobody cares. When that changes, then the economic possibilities will change." I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see the goals of making art that is more relevant to people's lives and thus more important culturally and more artists making a living at theatre are mutually exclusive. In fact, I'd say they're deeply interrelated. For more on that, we link back to more Mike Daisey. Also here's a relevant Scott Walters post from today on similar subjects.

Comments

[Sean C Lewis]

I'm curious- if you're interested in the Regional Theatre Revival why you aren't located in a region? Not a judgment on you- but an honest question. I know lots of people interested in Regional Theatre- I myself am obsessed with the lore of the old rep companies and can only imagine what those days must have been like (all the actors I've looked up to when working with have seemed to come from this time)... it just sometimes seems strange that people in NY are calling for a revitalized Regional theater movement. Yet, they've moved to a city- albeit the accepted "theater capital" of the US- that is plagued with the problems they rail against.

I don't know anyone in Philadelphia or Iowa or Denver or Chicago (all places I've worked in the past few years) bemoaning the Regional model- actors in Philly (obviously, not all) are buying houses... If you want to revitalize the American Theater, if you want to ignite the Regions- shouldn't you go and do it?

Now, whenever this gets brought up- people get upset and feel they're being singled out. But I think it's a real question to look at. These conversations just fall into the typical "not enough money" "we need more support" categories. It's theoretical. And it's really not changing.

If you think they should be doing more exciting and engaging work in Des Moines or Kansas City or anywhere else maybe you should do it.

We accept the model by living within the model.

Just a thought...

Sean

[adam szymkowicz]

On a personal note, I am burned out from having a full time job and trying to see plays and write plays. I just can't do it like this anymore. I'm trying to figure out what comes next. It's one thing to work hard but it's another to work hard and still not have any money. That's where I am right now and I have to figure out something else.

[Joshua James]

I want to echo Adam, and also say that I've found it to be next to impossible when you add family (i.e. my new child) in addition to the work I do for money and the networking and theatre . . . it's a struggle even to see theatre these days, much less create it on a consistent basis like I used to do.

2008 marks the first year (so far, we're only 7 months into it) that I haven't had at least one production of a play that I wrote (I have had a couple readings) since 1994 - before this year I averaged three or four productions a year, often more (and a LOT of readings).

A large part of that is that I've shifted focus from theatre to film and fiction, primarily so that I can hopefully make a somewhat sustainable living as a writer.

[Rex Winsome]

Hey. We're living in a transitional time. It's going to be rough, and it'll get worse before it gets better, but the sooner we commit to making it better, and the more we act on that commitment, the sooner we'll get past the rough parts.

If you're doing alternative model theatre and it's not paying, it's too new and it's going to take some time before things catch on more. If you can't sustain the level of production you wanna sustain, then slow down, find something more lucrative and support the people who are sustaining that level of production, with either your volunteer labor, your money, or just your ass in their seats and word of mouth.

[devilvet]

First off, Issac...well thought out post.

Second, "making art that is more relevant to people's lives and thus more important culturally and more artists making a living at theatre are mutually exclusive."

I dont think that is what I am saying. I believe that the medium of theater is in a position where regardless of content, it is dismissed as an opinion by the majority of Americans based solely as a system of distribution.

This seriously complicates any notion of the possibility of getting people back in the theater to see shows that are culturally relevant since the theater is not a site where most people go to discover that which they will endow with relevance.

Whereas lovers of theater might be anxious to get a seat at August:Osage County...the majority of Americans aren't even aware of it...and once the become aware...will merely wait for the DVD skipping it at the cinema house...

Then once the DVD comes out, community theaters across the country will produce the show with non-equity actors, no one or maybe just the techs getting paid...

This more specifically is what I mean when I say nobody cares...that until the DVD viewer demands the product (theatrical narrative) before it leaves the theater. That the majority of America doesn't care about whether or not actors on stage are paid...

Do I paint an inaccurate picture of how narrative is distributed especially theatrical narrative? This is the paradigm that needs to be changed in order to make things easier....

I desire an easier way, as you put it...but think that the products' marketability is the key. I believe this is totally an issue of economics not morals, culture, or anything else except how it relates to economics. Either the market can support it's own existence and everyone is fighting for the captain's deck on a sinking ship...or...

the ecomonic resource is there and it is being misused or misappropriated.

[Malachy Walsh]

"You can't make a living as a playwright. You can barely scrape by."
- Sam Shepard

Maybe someday it'll get figgered out. But I don't think he was the first to utter such either.

[Ken]

I know it sounds like science fiction, but in the early 50s, after several bad reviews (and an apparent embargo on any reviews of his books by the NY Times), which led to ever decreasing book sales, Gore Vidal turned to playwriting in order to continue making a living (!) I had to read that sentence twice when I ran across it in Gore's memoir, the idea was so completely beyond imagining. But, let's not feel too bad for ourselves--the plays Gore wrote were almost all silly commercial Broadway comedies or melodramas, none of which hold up very well today (I know--I saw the Broadway Revival of "The Best Man" about 7 years ago. Yikes!). However, you could also say that he was lucky in the fact that if you wanted to write such fluff, you could get it done. Try to peddle "Visit to a Small Planet" or "The Best Man" to Broadway producers today, and see if they bite. Better take it to London first (yeah, I'm looking at you, "Boeing, Boeing."!).

[Rex Winsome]

Devilvet- we are in complete agreement, and the alternative you seek exists. The things we need to do are laid out before us, most of us are already doing those things. We need merely to do them more, and more effectively, and convince others to do them as well.

oh the Le Tigre lyrics repeat in my head... "get off the internet! I'll meet you in the street!"

[Karl Miller]

Hey Isaac ... I haven't seen Daisey's show, but I've been marinating my own screed on the subject for some time. I finally posted it on my site. I should have divvied it up into four parts like you, but ... it's all there for the moment.

thanks for continuing the discussion ...

http://tundratastic.blogspot.com/2008/07/against-national-theatre.html

--Karl

[Scott Walters]

Theatre was totally passe in London in the 1950s until John Osborne amd Kenneth Tynan made it The Place for Hip People to Be. Suddenly, there was a renaissance of interest, a blossoming of playwriting, and a generation of exciting actors who didn't come through RADA. The Royal Court nurtured that activity, and fanned the flame until the fire was strong.

In other words, dv, things can change in ther blink of an eye. So basing predictions on current conditions is an iffy prospect at best.

[devilvet]

"In other words, dv, things can change in ther blink of an eye. So basing predictions on current conditions is an iffy prospect at best."

Scott I think that is sort of a silly irresponsible thing to say. It seems more about wishing based on a romantized paradigm that based on observation of the actual environment.

Could I reflect on the small theatre post war movement in paris and say something like...see adsurdism can become the soupdour again in a blink?

If we disregard the landscape in our thought process and reasoning...we are in trouble. That doesnt mean acknowledging NYLACHI prejudices, but it does mean calling a spade a spade and not crossing our fingers in wait fro the next tynan or osborne...the media has tried that with Shepard last generation and labute (gasp) this generation...

But maybe what you are talking about is possible but that sort of change would have to part of something bigger and the theatre comes along for the ride like happenings and the protest era.

[Rex Winsome]

Devilvet- agree completely again! Yes, the source of our optimism must come from the situation on the ground, not our hopes or dreams or past fancy times.

Some reccommended reading / viewing for a new perspective of the situation on the ground:

1. Richard Florida's Rise of the Creative Class.
2. http://indiecraftdocumentary.blogspot.com/
3. any basement in a poor neighborhood of the city you are living in with loud punk rock music and underage drinkers spilling out of it.

None of these are ideal, but the three combined indicate that there is a MOVEMENT happening. You'll notice that the band in that basement is very likely from the other side of the country, and very possibly making a sustainable living on it.

If you don't care about other mediums: here are a few theatre companies i've seen trying the same thing in ours: http://www.themissoulaoblongata.com/
http://nonsensecompany.com/home.html
and, mine: http://www.insurgenttheatre.org/

Your skepticism is appreciated, and i wonder if you think these landmarks on the landscape carry and weight for you.