Should Some Theaters Die?

I took a look at Chloe Veltman's post Tragic Magic the other day, which talks about how a group of San Francisco stage folk gathered, as they've been doing semi-regularly, to discuss issues of the day, and how the elephant in the room (to use her phrase) wasn't just the fact that the Magic Theatre was nearly knocked off the map a few months ago due to recession-related fiscal pressure, but how...

With the exception of a few dissenting voices, nearly everyone in the room had said that they hadn't seen anything at the flagship new play theatre in around a decade that they thought was any good. Yet despite the negative attitudes surrounding the theatre's artistic output, most Salonites believed that the disappearance of the Magic -- if it were to go under for good as threatened a couple of months ago -- would be extremely detrimental to the local ecosystem in terms of such things as lost jobs and even fewer mid-sized houses.

So this raises a question: Must all theaters -- should all theaters -- be saved? I've seen one production at the Magic (I've only been to San Francisco twice), so I can't judge the artistic merit of the organization's output, plus that's a totally subjective assessment anyway. The point is, if you have a theater that is indeed crucial to the "local ecosystem" in terms of jobs but is not crucial in terms of artistic quality, is it more moral, is it more ethical, to save the theater and hope for better artistic work in the future, or is it better to accept the possibility that theaters do die, that they indeed have lifespans, and that it's a natural part of the ecosystem for some organizations to wither while others bloom?

Sphere: Related Content

Some Theatres Get the Blogosphere, Some Don't

There's a very interesting post up at Chloe Veltman's Lies Like Truth today called The Perils of Institutional Blogging. Give this a quick read:

Many arts institutions are launching blogs these days. In some ways, the advent of institutional blogging makes perfect sense: Blogs provide an easy, interactive and cheap way to reach out to audiences and provide them with more detailed insights into such areas as the artistic process, the latest ticket deals and how an organization runs on a day-to-day basis.

But in the process of figuring out what content to put on their blogs, the tone and style of entries, whom should be responsible for authoring them and with what regularity posts should be added, arts organizations frequently come unstuck. Lately, I've heard several slightly worrying stories concerning issues that have arisen as a result of institutional blogging which highlights the differences between blogging as an outsider (like me) and blogging as the spokesperson for an institution.

The most alarming tale I've heard was of a young staffer at a theatre company who was given the job of blogging about the process of rehearsing a production of a play by a famous playwright. The playwright was closely involved in the rehearsal process and the blog focused quite significantly on his presence in the rehearsal room. The blogger did what most outside bloggers do: He gave his opinions. Unfortunately, these opinions weren't altogether positive. When the playwright saw the blog entries on the theatre company's website, he demanded an apology from the theatre company. The young blogger got his fingers burned and the incident put a strain on the company's relationship with the playwright.

And this got me thinking: Why do some theatres get it and some don't? After all, here in New York many of the nonprofit institutional theatres are continuing to invite certain members of the theatrosphere to see early previews, knowing fully that their latest production may be reviewed prior to the rest of the media crew, thus running the real risk of hurting the playwright, director and the actors, but offering them something theoretically tangible in terms of potential buzz and all the other things that have been debated ad nauseum. Other theatres, meanwhile, sort of get the idea of the blogosphere but fail to anticipate situations like the one Veltman describes. I put a comment on her blog:

Part of the problem, too, is that theatres don't think through just who the audience is for such blogs. For example, if the idea is to create a production blog so that subscribers can have another window into the process -- some theatres are doing virtually the same thing with so-called "open rehearsals" -- then I think the institution can put on some controls, such as not allowing comments. I realize this doesn't directly address the question of what an insider can or should blog about, for example, the comportment of a playwright during a difficult moment, but perhaps the theatre can also have an agreement with the playwright before the process begins in terms of what will or will not appear on the blog. When you think about it, in a situation like the one you describe, how is a blog unlike a reality TV show? People who agree to appear on reality TV receive and sign extensive contracts; they know what they're getting into before things move forward. Why shouldn't theatres be up front about who may or may not be blogging, and what may or may not be written in those blogs, before the blogging begins? At that point, all the creative stakeholders may voice their objection and the theatre can either smooth things out or not. I mean, if an insider blogs about an actor -- positive or negative -- does that mean Equity implicitly approves? I tend to think not. Unless theatres think about blog in a comprehensive way, these kinds of tales will continue to crop up, and I fear with ever more problematic endings. (I'd love to be on your blogroll, by the way.)

Thoughts?

Sphere: Related Content