Outrageous Fortune 6.5: Createquity's Take

This is definitely a must-read, and a nice bit of validation for having a non-theatre arts-policy wonk on board for the group read-thru. Check out Ian David Moss' take here. He strips down Outrageous Fortune to some of its core conflicts, and shows how basically the mess we're in is a pretty clear result of market forces at work.  

He ends up the same place I am at right now: The way to reform the new play landscape is to reform the funding landscape.  We'll have more on that later, but in the meantime, seriously, RTWT. 

UPDATE: Scott's comment makes it clear that what I meant by "reform the funding landscape" is totally vague, so let me just expand on that point for a second... There are two ways forward, as far as I can tell, for changing the New Play Landscape.  The first one is what I'll call the Buckminster Fuller route, which is to say Create Something New.  Scott's CRADLE Arts, Gus' Homing Project, 99 and other joining the self-producing bandwagon, 13P... these are all examples (big and small) of that.  This fits into Mead Hunter's take that the only way to win is not to play. Obviously I agree with and am supportive of that. I think for most individual artists, this is the thing that makes sense. So the revolutionary side of me is satisfied with that.

But as I said before, there's a reformist side to me as well. And that side notices how many of the issues with New Play Development come down to incentives created by the funding community.  And so, it seems that an enormous amount of good could be done by reforming those incentives.  Scott thought I simply meant "more money" and while I am an advocate for more money (for reasons that should be obvious) what I was actually talking about here was reforming grant guidelines and funder priorities.  The emphasis on World Premieres, for example, has been particularly toxic. It's also particularly illustrative... Notice in the book (which I don't have with me in DC so this is from memory) that they quote artistic directors who say that they see no evidence that calling something a World Premiere increases audience attendance. So who are they trying to please by calling shows-- including ones that aren't-- Premieres? Simple, funders, who often define New Play quite strictly. 

Ian outlines some other areas where funders have shaped the New Play Landscape... another example is that, by relying on long-term financial viability as a major deciding factor, grant givers end up funding the very theaters that do new play development (and production) poorly... but the theme runs throughout the book. There is some evidence that the funding community is more flexible and open to a broader conversation than the current generation of artistic directors (ex: the NEA gave Scott money to start CRADLE!). So I see an opportunity to do some good there.  

The current American Theatre System was created by grant money and grant guidelines. It has been shaped by grant money and guidelines. It will continue to be. To ignore the funding part of the puzzle is to ignore half of the story. That's all I'm saying. We can do both the Buckminster Fuller route and the Funding Route at the same time.

Comments

[Scott Walters]

Oh my. Really? We did all this reading and writing to end up at the old saw "there must be more money"? If that's what we came away with, I am very disappointed.

[Josh James]

I had a wild thought yesterday ... wouldn't it be interesting if, instead of making the public domain works of the plays of Shakesphere, Greeks, all free ... why not charge a small royalty for each ... then take that money from the royalties and put it into the development of new work in America?

Just a wild hair I had ... but why not?

[Scott Walters]

Oooohhhhhh! THAT'S what you meant. OK, you go. Yes, it is time for funders to use their money to actually LEAD, not just maintain. They lead anyway, because everyone falls into line in order to score grants -- a topic that deserves more examination in itself: mission drift in pursuit of the wild grant beast, or "whatever happened to self-reliance?"

[Scott Walters]

P. S. Thanks for writing CRADLE so many times. Maybe it will get me fired up to get that website finished...

[Ian David Moss]

I also didn't mean to suggest that "more money" is the only answer (though I don't think it should be ignored, either). Actually, I didn't really suggest any answers in my post...just pointed out the simple fact that expensive productions need to be paid for by somebody (even if it's the people involved in making it). Since one of the things playwrights seem to lament is the shrinking scale of their work, that seems relevant.

Not having had experience making theater in my lifetime (well, except for an acting career in high school that lasted for all of one show), it's hard for me to comment intelligently on the self-producing bandwagon. I know that story from music and can just say from experience that it's harder than it sounds. It's possible to make it work, but it requires either really dedicated partners with lots of time on their hands or a lot of spare change in the checking account (or, if you're in NYC, probably both). So I'm a little skeptical, but willing to be convinced.

[RLewis]

While I do not disagree with your conclusion, it does make me think about: new changes to federal 990 requirements for companies that will make it harder for them to take risks, and the implementation of the Cultural Data Project that will drive funding even more toward the larger, established institutions.

These new hurdles seem to be flying over the heads of individual artists, but are sure to be part of the headwinds that your 'more money' suggestions will face.