Speaking the Institution's Language

Playgoer continues the ongoing conversation about salaries over at his place and makes a couple of points that I think are worth highlighting and expanding on (also, I owe him $10.00).

Anyway, he makes the point that basically what ADs are saying today is "I had to pay my dues and work for free or little money to climb up, I should reap the rewards of that" and that, while no one is begrudging them that:

Keep in mind, when this generation of producers started out in the 60s and 70s, one could still rent an apartment in NYC--even Manhattan--for $200 a month. Or less. When the subway was a quarter. And even Broadway tickets were on average were under $40.

How anyone breaks into the theatre in this town today on a $10,000-$20,000 a year stipend and survives for more than a few years--absent a trust fund--is a miracle.

So all I'll say is: if our theartes really want there be a future generation of artistic directors, producers, dramaturgs they better invest in them.

I wanted to highlight this because I think it's important how this is phrased, and it get back to some of the things we were talking about months ago about institutionality.  What i like about this is that Garrett is putting these points in the vocabulary of the Institution's Best Interests.

And here's where being a theatre and politics writer is helpful... getting back to Alinsky for a moment (and Peter Brook, for that matter) it's important to know who your audience is and speak within their vocabulary, experience etc. Institutions exist to perpetuate themselves. They aren't altruistic, and we get confused on this point because they're "non-profit".  They care about the art form to the extent that it affects their viability.  

This is not to say that the individuals within the institution don't care about anything beyond the viability of the institution.  I know lots of people who work at large arts institutions, and they're in general dedicated people who care a lot about theatre.  But institutions have a collective will that needs to be looked at and recognized.

Back to politics for a second... I talked to a friend of mine who is an ex-60s Radical right around the Conventions. During this time, Obama was kind of shifting into this vague public rhetoric that really didn't stand for anything (like in his Olberman interviews) and seemed to be backing off a lot of the positions he took during the primary, and he changed his mind about FISA.(Remember those heady days?)  I asked her what she thought about it.  She sighed and said "you know, I knew on some level Obama would have to run as a Democrat, run as a figurehead for the moribund institution of the Democratic Party but it's still difficult to watch". 

I'm mentioning all of this to make the point that understanding how institutions work and what happens to the people involved in them when they become responsible for something much much bigger than themselves that has its own institutional gravity and will is important if you want to get anything out of them.  Roundabout and LCT both have inaugurated new programs with $20.00 and new work. The materials for LCT-3 make it pretty clear up front why this is going on: New Audiences.  The audiences for LCT's work are getting older, it is in the institutions best interest to create new ways of interesting new people.

This is not to suggest anything nefarious is going on. I happen to know from hearing him give a talk on it that Andre Bishop really cares about LCT-3 and when he made the move to LCT it was one of the first things on his mind. He's very passionate and sincere about it.  But that doesn't matter to some extent, because Bishop even as head of a large institution would still have to convince that institution (including the board, funders etc.)  to move the way he wants it to move because it's in the institution's best interests. Not because it's virtuous to do New Work. 

We have to learn to speak to the institution's best interests, to make the case that something is not just the "right" thing to do, but something that will enrich the institution and help it perpetuate itself.  A long time ago, I wrote about a friend of mine who works at a regional nonprofit and a consultant who came in, figured out how much the market value of the employees labor actually was and then said "your employees are making an in-kind donation worth X thousands of dollars to your company."  Okay, so far, so normal, right? We all know that's how it works.  But here's the thing, the consultant then explained why it was the institution's best interest to pay their staff more, "You can get people to work for this little money because they love theater, or they love the company's mission etc. But what you're doing is creating a stopping-place. Employees will come work here for a few years as training for moving to a larger nonprofit that can pay them better and you won't have the workforce stability you need to grow as an organization".

Or, to put it back in Garrett's words... if we want a new generation of talent, we have to invest in them. It is in the institution's best interest to make that investment.  

We all as artists want our institutions to work "better", and we all have our own definitions of "better".  But we have to make the case to them that it's better.  I agree with a lot of the people out there saying that theaters need to produce a wider range of voices in terms of race, gender, class background, everything.  But why is it in their best interests to do so?  This is particularly true when it comes to the gender question. Many theaters have learned that it's easier to get African American audiences to come to a play written by and starring African Americans. We can argue about whether or not this is a good thing, but it's reality.   Is the same true for women? No, it's not. 

I was listening to a nytheatre.com podcast (and I wish I had the URL if someone has it please put it in the comments) in which several female playwrights were talking about these issues and one of the said (paraphrase here)  "Look, I wrote the Public and said `I am not renewing my subscription this year because you aren't producing any plays by women".  And i was struck by how radical that idea seemed, and how few people I bet do something like that.  But in politics, it happens all the time, "I will not vote for you if you vote to put Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court" or "I will not send you a donation if you vote to renew the Patriot Act". It's a very very basic way of constituents and elected representatives communicating. It's an example of connecting to the self-interest of the other party: I will give you money if produce more plays by women.

Comments

[Aaron]

Flat out, the only thing that will make me stop going to a theater is if they keep doing bad shows. Manhattan Theater Club is dangerously close to burning me out for at least a year with their current standards and sloppy 30 Under 30 programming. Then again, most of what I see is off-Broadway, so I see plenty of work by various genders, races, &c., and I'm not as much in arms about this as some people are.

[Playgoer]

Ha, that's right! You do owe me $10! Well maybe I'll make it up in the hits I get from your link. So thank you.

And AMEN on the post, brother. Thanks for bringing our attention to the Bloomberg piece and reminding everyone we were onto it first.

[RLewis]

Just want to second the greatness of this post (what, did the election end already and I missed it? lol) And to say that I'm not a fan of Andre's salary, but I do recall that he's wanted something like LCT-3 for a long time. Even back when I interned at PH he talked about the need for a Directors Horizons, and I think that's what he was trying with the Directors Lab, but IATSE wouldn't let performances into the building. It's kinda sad that our country's anchor arts facility has to go to The Duke to mount emerging, smaller-scale work.