I guess we kinda needed a summer vacation. But it hasn't been all play and no work. We've been writing. I've been researching and writing my thesis. Matt and the Available Light gang have been writing Time and a Few Words. We've also been hard at work prepping a new, more general arts and culture blog focused on the Columbus scene. Look for the launch sometime next month. But I wanted to take a moment now to highlight a comment from last month's discussion that I've been thinking about a lot lately.

Guy Y lamented,

I am a little frustrated in the lack of actionable suggestions being offered. I am a theater person who is looking to start a theater ensemble in the next year. What can I do to make the change ... a reality?

Continue reading "Where the hell did Forte go?" »

Taking a break from the Great Debate, this post from screenwriter / director John August caught my attention. It's relevant because it adds another dimension to our discussion about making a living as an actor, especially if earning that living involves 1) moving to LA or NY and 2) working as a day player in TV in addition to pursuing theatre.

In Los Angeles or New York, if you're trying to cast a day player in their 20s (say, a car wash attendant), it's easy. You've got thousands of people to choose from. Even if you need a specific characteristic -- say, Russian-speaking -- you're going to have great candidates. But what if you need an intimidating Chinese woman in her 60's? Or a really, really old man you can believe is from Nigeria?

Well, you hope they're out there. And increasingly, they're not. So what's going on? At the risk of getting Freakonomics, it appears there's a point at which it's not economically viable to remain a day player.

I'd like to extend a big thank you to Mike Daisey for addressing the questions I raised in yesterday's post. I regret I haven't yet had an opportunity to see HTFA for myself, but after reading the points in his blog and re-reading his article in The Stranger, I think I have a much better understanding of how, exactly, theatre has failed America. If I could give the "Dr. Strangelove treatment" to the title, I think it could be called How Theater Failed America, Or: How Non-Profit Arts Institutions Pay Salaries and Benefits to Arts Administrators Instead of Working Artists and Why This Is Not Ethical.

Notice I used the term "ethical" instead of "fair" because it's clear that Mike is arguing for something much more fundamental than simply getting a fair slice of the funding pie. Rather, there is an ethical imperative to provide "a healthy, sustainable path for artists to live and work." Failing to provide this path has had dire repercussions in other aspects of American society, notably a meaningful engagement between art, artists, and citizens on a local scale.

But who ought to bear the burden of fulfilling this ethical imperative? And how did something as abstract as the "institution of theatre" get saddled with this massive responsibility?

Continue reading "Responding to Mike Daisey's response about responsibility" »

Mr. Daisey makes a compelling argument, but I have to question one of his fundamental assumptions. He states:

My piece is called HOW THEATER FAILED AMERICA because I am speaking about the responsibility the institution of theater has to America, how it has failed that responsibility, and how we are all implicated in this.

Continue reading "Responsibility" »