« Diversity Is Not Only Theater's Problem |
| A Radically Condensed History of American Theatre »
Posted by Parabasis on December 17, 2009 at 09:16 AM in Theater | Permalink
| | Digg This
| Save to del.icio.us
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
You know, the reason we don't actually DO anything about things like diversity is BECAUSE people get sick of a conversation after a couple days. So it remains up to us to make certain that the issue not disappear.
Scott Walters |
December 17, 2009 at 11:25 AM
I disagree. The reason people get sick of the diversity conversation is because it eats itself. The same problems and unsatisfactory solutions, restated forever. We may have to accept that the nature of the business precludes real change. What's left but to tear the whole thing down and start over again? Honestly.
Jack Worthing |
December 19, 2009 at 12:32 PM
It's not much of a conversation.
It's mostly one side arguing a principle (we need more diversity!) without really offering any facts. Instead, unsupported suppositions, misleading correlations and inappropriate parallels are offered in support of a hypothetical ideas of what's wrong. Underneath it all is a concept that "good" has an objective set of criteria... a concept that is also unexamined with any depth and that there are plenty of plays that meet these criteria but are overlooked because the authors are from the wrong class. These thoughts are then followed by some strange and rather ridiculous ideas about how to fix it (a lottery, for instance).
Meanwhile, others make points based on anecdotes, which - while always suspect for drawing larger conclusions - are at least based on direct experience. However, when this group points out what they've actually seen and heard with their own eyes and ears they are labeled as being privileged and blind. So when they counter they appear to become increasing shrill...
The whole thing is real turn-off.
December 20, 2009 at 03:01 PM
Precisely. My talent didn't get me anywhere, so I don't know anything. I've skated by on my parents' non-existent pocketbook and my skill at fellatio. My many years of doing this don't count for much.
Jack Worthing |
December 20, 2009 at 05:38 PM
Um? Unsupported supposition? This whole conversation has focused around a study that shows that there is a clear tilt towards the graduates of a small number of schools, as well as another study that indicates that the audiences for theatre are increasingly wealthy, not to mention the discussion of the lists of the most produced playwrights, the overwhelming majority of whom are white men. I'm not sure what more evidence you need to show that there is a pervasive bias in our field. Whether you think that's an okay or acceptable thing is something between you and your conscience and worldview, I suppose. I do not. I think that it would serve the arts and theatre in particular better to have more voices, more participants, more points of entry, as opposed to seven elite graduate schools.
If you don't think there's anything wrong with how our field is operating, that's your opinion and you're welcome to it. But those of us who do have more than anecdotes to discuss.
I shudder to say this all again, but it seems to bear repeating: talent has nothing to do with any of this conversation. Not at all. No one is saying that people only get into MFA programs due to connections and their achievements are unearned. No one. If anything makes this conversation shrill and unproductive, it's that.
December 21, 2009 at 12:58 AM
You're supposing that there's no reason for these schools to be looked to for work. And that it's as simple as going to one of those schools and you're in.
Here are some questions we should all be asking when we examine that survey - some qualitative, some quantitative.
How did they find their playwrights?
How did they define "playwright" (eg, production credits or self-defined)?
How many theaters did they approach?
What kind of theaters did they approach (size, mission and scope)?
What are the submission policies at these theaters?
What is the decision process like at these theaters?
Who are the decision makers at these theaters and where do they come from?
You ask some similar questions of the audience survey.
Are we talking Broadway, off-Broadway, off-off-Broadway?
What are people doing instead?
What was the make-up of the theatre audience 50 years ago?
December 21, 2009 at 01:30 PM
Good questions all and I'm looking forward to reading the study to get into the answers.
December 21, 2009 at 01:58 PM
Thanks KL, I am with you on all that.
And for everyone interested in reading the study, about an hour ago, I received this email from TDF:
“Thank you for your interest in “Outrageous Fortune, the Life and Times of the New American Play”. The book is now available for purchase on TDF’s website. A direct link is provided below for your convenience. ”
However, I tried two different credit cards and neither worked, so I suspect some glitch there.
December 21, 2009 at 06:32 PM
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.
(You can use HTML tags like <b> <i> and <ul> to style your text. URLs automatically linked.)
(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
Name is required to post a comment
Please enter a valid email address