Did Ben Brantley Give a Smackdown to Aaron Sorkin Because of Robbie Baitz's Smackdown of Charles Isherwood?

The third comment regarding this New York Magazine piece seems to think so.

Sphere: Related Content

The Death of the Critic, Updated

Lots of discussion lately about criticism, and the death thereof. For one thing, there's a Matt Eagan piece in the Hartford Courant that loudly, quite rightly bemoans that "Daily newspapers are trimming full-time critics faster than they can grow back." But why does he omit any real discussion of theater critics? He talks about film critics left and right, but let's be honest: If you were a publisher of a chain of papers and all you cared about was the bottom line, you could get away with one film critic because it's the same product, no matter where you are. You can't do that with theater, which is why the lack of interest in theater criticism is such a problem.

I post a comment at the end of his article, also, because everybody complains but no one ever does anything to address the problem -- such as flexing economic muscle.

Sphere: Related Content

The "Production Values" Question

Isaac Butler also has another very good post on the question of production values and what they mean -- he does a nifty job of working up some definitions. In essence, his essay is an attempt to quantify quality -- and ascribe quality to the only real method we have to quantify theater as an art form, certainly in the commercial marketplace, which is the ticket price.

He divides his discussion into five sections, leading off with "What are ticket buyers paying for?," and relates a story about how All Wear Bowlers knocked him out but not enough to $120 a ticket. Well, of course not -- that's as it should be; he's right about that. The problem with the ticket-price argument, however, is that everything is utterly relative: $120 to you or me might be out of range of what we can either afford or feel theater is intrinsically worth (let's not even talk about opera prices), but to another person, it's part of the cost of participating in the international cultural buffet and no skin off their nose. You cannot assume that this is a tiny percentage of the theatergoing public, by the way -- or else Broadway would not have had a $929 million season last year at $100+ a ticket. Someone's paying it, and more.

Walk around the five boroughs and you see condominium construction wherever you go. You may, from time to time, think to yourself, Who is buying all this real estate?, and yet new land-development deals are still being signed all the time, even with the subprime market not yet cratering nationwide, and new construction in NYC is still being purchased by the public. There is a tremendous (and global) population of people for whom $120 is very little; these are the same people who will buy $300 jeans on Fifth Avenue, or pay $1,500 for a leather jacket or always pay for first-class on an airplane or will travel here from Europe to do their Christmas shopping because the dollar is so low. (This last example is NO joke -- there are people staying in Ken's hotel at this moment who are doing this, and they're STILL saving money.) So-called "regular" people are astonished and upset and certainly artists are offended that Broadway -- well, crappy Broadway -- can get away with a $120 ticket price, but it gets away with it because people are willing to pay it, and they do.

This brings us to the intrinsic worth question -- to the production values question, or at Isaac smartly puts it, lavishness. (He has a very good line, by the way: "What these rationales start to do is pervert the conversation away from art.") A good example was Vanessa Redgrave last season in The Year of Magical Thinking. The set was one chair, a series of breakaway murals, a copy of Joan Didion's book, and Miss Redgrave -- and that play was charging, what, $90? No production values there, but I think part of the commerical-theater calculus was that Miss Redgrave was, in a sense, part of the production value. Stars sell shows. People want to pay to see stars. In the commercial theater, which is what Isaac is really writing about (except for correctly mentioning that Playwrights Horizons charging $65 a ticket is outragous), it's about salesmanship -- indeed, who is the star? what is the material? what is the brand? how is the piece executed? If any or all of those questions can be answered satisfactorily, $120 a ticket it is.

This is why, by the way, the producers' going to the press during the stagehands strike and deliberating spreading lies about the average stagehand's salary was so outrageous. Some of those people would sell their mothers to make a buck and probably already have.

But the other thing Isaac talks about is how all this affects the cost of creating theater for the rest of us, and what is to become of the present situation -- where does the ticket-cost spiral finally end?; where does the question of production values ultimately go? Sitting through Young Frankenstein, people are absolutely seeing their $120 (or $400) on stage, and that makes them happy because that's why they came to see the show in the first place. This also has all to do with the branding of Broadway, with what ordinary human beings, not artists, consciously or subconsciously aim to get of their theatrical experience. Isaac's question about production values could just as easily go to the topic of standing ovations -- why does absolutely everything now get a standing ovation? The answer is because a ticket costs $120 -- even if that amount of money means nothing to someone, they want to feel as if they're witnessed something extraordinary, so they stand. It seems to me that $120 is more symptomatic of the commodization of high culture than anything else.

Here's a long quote from Isaac's post that I want to comment on a bit:

And then there's the possibility that (at least in New York) we're totally fucked, that it's just too expensive to do work here and live here. That real estate is out of control, and people will always see your work as second, third or fourth rate when you do it on a lower level. That supply so overwhelms demand that to some extent there's no point in your putting on a show, because only your friends will see it. Etc.

I use to laugh off these concerns, but having seen more theatre and talked to more people outside of New York, I actually think they are very much worth considering. It's important to remember exactly how fast NYC has become a playground of the rich, and that we're still feeling the effects of the Giuliani era in ways that we probably don't even understand.

TO some extent, there is no business model for theatre that makes any sense whatsoever. Only one out of five Broadway shows even recoups. That's less of a success rate than restaurants. Off-Broadway commercial theatre is very hard to make work, there are fewer houses, and the ratio of labor costs to ticket pricepoint doesn't make much sense. Outside of the commercial world, we have a world of theatre whose very nature is admitting that as a business model it doesn't make sense traditionally. We admit this by calling it non-profit. Below that we have the smaller, indie theatre companies and artists who face serious hurdles to growing and advancing. Most sources of non-out-of-pocket funding are eaten up by larger companies, and most sources of increased audiences are eaten up by all the other shows happening simultaneously.

Of course, theatre has rarely made sense as a business throughout time. As I've said many times on this blog, even the Athenians had government sponsorship for the arts (in the form of ticket price subsidies) and of course by Shakespeare's time, heavy patronage helped make everything possible.

I think that the landscape of theatre here in NYC has gone through very very rapid change, and things are at a very chaotic point right now. And a lot of that chaos is reflected in business issues, like that the price of a show at Playwrights Horizons is $65, or the fact that a week's exclusive rental at a cheap theatre is generally over a thousand dollars. I'm not even going to pretend to know how all of this is going to shake out, but I think it's worth looking at the different aesthetic reactions to this business reality, and what their plusses or minusses are.

First, I'm not sure the landscape of theatre in NYC has gone through a very rapid change, or any more evolution than usual. Yes, it used to be a lot cheaper to mount an Equity Showcase in NYC, but everything was a lot cheaper. The problem is wages have not kept up with inflation, and not only that real estate has spun out of control, but that Guiliani and especially Bloomberg have not devised any legislative cushion for artists (performing, visual, etc.) adversely affected by the city's ongoing gentrification.

The question of whether people will always see OB and OOB work as "second, third or fourth rate" is about the successful branding of Broadway, which as a notion is about 100 years old. Isaac may forget -- and, actually, I think a lot of people have forgotten -- what happened right after 9/11: the League of American Theatres and Producers, together with the mayor, began a very loud, concerted campaign to encourage people to come back to the theatre, to return to Broadway. In other words, Broadway used its financial and political clout to make the case that nothing else exists in terms of the theater in New York City. You'd think that OB commercial producers might be angered by that, but most OB commercial producers have their fingers in the Broadway pie, anyway, so no, that didn't happen, and the nonprofits were too terrified and economically messed up to do much about it anyway. OOB and some OB work is seen as lesser because other forces control the message, and they continue to control the message. The only way to reassert control over the message is to look at what must be done to brand such work more thoroughly and positively.

And why ask OB and OOB to compete with Broadway glitz, anyway?

NYC has always been the playground of the rich; the problem of one out of five shows recouping isn't new. What's interesting to me, though, is observing Isaac figure out what Zach Mannheimer figured out -- that there's too much theater in NYC; too much supply and not enough demand. And everybody's so busy doing their thing that there's no cohesiveness in the community and thus it is an uphill battle to address the branding question. Maybe Zach was right to leave for Iowa or wherever.

Sphere: Related Content

Two Openings

Went to the opening of The Farnsworth Invention last night, and went to the opening of August: Osage County tonight. The reviews are out on Farnsworth and the more genuinely critical critics have had their say -- and it's really a mixed bag. Now, I don't particularly agree with that -- I think Aaron Sorkin covers his behind in the sense that he acknowledges that the play is largely NOT based on fact, but based on personalities around a set of generally known facts. I also noticed a number of reviews talk about so-called "weaknesses" in the play, but they don't really get to the heart of the play's one real weakness: the fact that so much is told, not shown. You know, the sort of thing that would make Tina Howe jump off a building, or so I once learned. If you believe that narrators are the lifeline of the desperate, then The Farnsworth Invention is uninventive, among other things. But I differ. I would argue that there is something almost primal about a good narrator -- not a narrator that tells you where the drama is, or tells you even what the drama is, but rather leads you to the drama, shepherding you to the oasis where you may drink the drama, if you will.

But the counterargument can be easily located by August: Osage County. Or, to put it even more bluntly, I hereby predict that the play will win the Tony for Best Play and will almost surely, surely win the 2008 Pulitzer Prize. Mark my words. Mark my words. And not a narrator in sight. Beautiful shown, not told, and some of the most scorching acting I've seen in years. Go see it. Spend the money and go see it. American playwriting should always be this good.

Sphere: Related Content

Cherry Lane Mentor Project Announces...Mentees

Got this press release today...

Cherry Lane Theatre's Highly Acclaimed Playwright Development Series
Mentor Project 2008

Cherry Lane Theatre is proud to present the 10th year anniversary of the acclaimed Mentor Project with the announcement of this year's Finalists and Mentors for Mentor Project 2008 as follows: Mentor Michael Weller chose Deirdre O'Connor and her play Jailbait; Mentor Gretchen Cryer chose Gregory Keller and his play The Young Left; And Mentor Charles Fuller chose Samuel Brett Williams and his play The Woodpecker.

The announcement was made on Monday, December 3rd, 2007. The announcement and reception was held at the Cherry Lane Theatre located at 38 Commerce Street off of 7th Ave. For more information, visit www.cherrylanetheatre.org.

Mentor Project 1 - THE WOODPECKER By Samuel Brett Williams, Mentored by Charles Fuller is a tale of two worlds: the small town of Arkadelphia, Arkansas, and the grim reality of an all too familiar military prison. It's Jimmy's last day before going to war. He's addicted to glue, his mom is seeing visions of the sweet potato casserole, and his wheelchair-bound dad can kick his ass. He turns to God for answers, and finds…an Ivory-Billed Woodpecker. Playwright Samuel Brett Williams explores family, faith and freedom in a dark comedy that blurs the lines between black and white and right and wrong. First reading, January 7th at 7 PM; showcase production: March 25th – April 5th, 2008

Mentor Project 2: THE YOUNG LEFT By Greg Keller, Mentored by Gretchen Cryer is about the story of Ben and Jonah who have been friends since they were little. Jonah wants to move to a more progressive community and live his beliefs. Ben is concerned. Mandy wants to marry Ben. Jill is Jonah's girlfriend, but also Troy's girlfriend. Troy wants to change the world. Melody isn't sure what she wants, but is a pretty good dancer. The Young Left is about love, melancholy, politics, getting old-ish, and why our friends' decisions make us anxious. First reading, January 14th at 7 PM; showcase production: April 15th- 26th, 2008

Mentor Project 3: JAILBAIT By Deirdre O'Connor, Mentored by Michael Weller is the story of two fifteen year old girls who spend a night at a Boston club posing as college students. When the girls cross paths with two thirty-something men they must decide how far they are willing to go while playing at adulthood. First reading, January 28th at 7 PM; showcase production: May 6th – 17th, 2008

Sphere: Related Content

New Review: Queens Boulevard

Here is my Back Stage review of Queens Boulevard. Honk, honk.

Sphere: Related Content

New Review: Cymbeline

Here is my Back Stage review of Cymbeline. Fear no more...

Sphere: Related Content

Summer Play Festival Goes to the Public

Got this press release yesterday. Just thought y'all should know:

Summer Play Festival Forms Alliance With Public Theater
SPF's Fifth Season Will Run July 1 to July 27, 2008
at The Public on Lafayette Street

Following the leadership of founder Arielle Tepper Madover, the highly-regarded Summer Play Festival (SPF) will return in the Summer of 2008 for a fifth year forming a new alliance with The Public Theater, running Tuesday, July 1 to Sunday, July 27, 2008.

Under the umbrella of The Living Room for Artists, SPF plans to launch new productions at The Public and establish collaborations with other not-for-profit theatre companies in New York City and around the country, so that emerging writers , producers, directors and designers can benefit from those relationships.

Since 2004, SPF has provided a much-needed opportunity for hundreds of writers, directors and producers to present their material and craft in a protected environment, guided by established professionals, with full financial support. Through a low ticket price of only $10, SPF has brought in new audience members and given many people the opportunity to experience new theatre.

On the announcement that SPF would be staged at The Public next year, Mrs. Madover commented, "This is an extraordinary and exciting development for the festival. The history and reputation of The Public, not to mention the dynamic presence and leadership of Oskar Eustis, make this a perfect new home for us. I cannot imagine a more supportive environment to allow new theatre talent to present their fully staged work for the first time."

“The Summer Play Festival is a wonderful and inspiring institution,” said Public Theater Artistic Director Oskar Eustis. “It shares our core values and in a short five years has become an integral part of The New York theater scene. Arielle is an inspired, generous, spirited and endlessly enthusiastic producer, and we are delighted to form this partnership. Together we can do even more to support new writers for the theater.”

Under founder Arielle Tepper Madover, the non-profit organization The Living Room for Artists Inc./Summer Play Festival provides emerging writers, directors, designers and producers an opportunity to work on their material and their craft in a protected environment, guided by established professionals at no cost to them. Tickets to all SPF shows are $10 each.

Sphere: Related Content

Busker Alley -- on the Queen Mary II

I was away for a bit -- had a busy 3-4 days. Mostly it involved me going to DC to see and review the repertory of Marlowe plays at the Shakespeare Theater, and the official score is: Edward II, thumbs up; Tamburlaine, thumbs down. And waaaaaaaaaaaaay too much declaiming all around. That said, the Harman Theater is a gorgeous new space, and I love being in DC as I always do. And swanky hotel rooms help, plus hanging out for a day and night with Becky Kemper, artistic director of Maryland Shakespeare Festival. Becky is one of my closest and dearest friends on earth, my best friend from college (and beyond).

But before I left for DC (8am train out of Penn Station...yuck), I attend a press junket on Friday aboard the Queen Mary 2, which docks in Brooklyn. The occasion was the launch of the CD for the musical Busker Alley, which announced (while we were sipping our bubbly) that a Broadway production with Jim Dale will be coming in next season. I ended up having a quick if lovely chat with Jim, who I interviewed when he did Threepenny for Roundabout.

The event itself was a little too long, but great fun. There were about six or seven speeches, including a hearty greeting from Captain Christopher Rynd (yes, the captain of the ship); James Morgan, producing artistic director of the York Theater Company (which produced the concert version of the musical last year that was recorded on the CD by...); John Yap, president of Jay Records; Margot Astrachan, who is the lead producer on the Broadway production; Gregg Sherman, son of one of the Sherman brothers who wrote the Busker Alley score; director Tony Walton, who will also design the Broadway run; Dick Sherman, co-composer-lyricist of Busker Alley, who also played some favorite Sherman brothers songs, -- "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious," "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang," "A Spoonful of Sugar," "Winnie the Pooh," and "It's a Small World After All," which I didn't realize they had written; the aforementioned Jim Dale...and then there was an hourlong presentation of highlights from the show. Like I said, a little too long, but great fun.

And gosh, what a ship! I was ready to stow away. (And wouldn't the blogosphere be so happy to have me gone!) I ended up having a great chat over lunch with my friends Harry Haun and Charles Nelson, became acquainted with Louise Kerz Hirschfeld, Al Hirschfeld's widow, and caught up with Joe Trentacosta and Shane Marshall Brown of Springer & Associates.

I won't, however, discuss the nightmare of getting from the Midtown to the ship and back. There's got to be an easier way of making such things happen. We were almost two-and-a-half hours late getting back to Midtown. But let's talk of happy things...

Sphere: Related Content

Arts Advocacy Update XXI

The content below is from Americans for the Arts' Cultural Policy Listserv.

After Katrina, Louisiana's Film Industry Flourishes
CNN Money.com - Dow Jones, 11/23/2007
"While it isn't exactly pirating away thousands of jobs and making Southern California economists nervous, the boom in Louisiana's film industry is raising hopes it can be a catalyst for recovery from economic devastation wrought by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. According to state officials, Louisiana now ranks behind only California and New York in U.S. film production. It's adding film-related jobs at a rate of 23% a year, the strongest growth rate in the industry throughout the U.S, officials say."
If true, that's a staggering statement: "Louisiana now ranks behind only California and New York in U.S. film production." This strikes me as rather an unreported story (even if it's on CNN Money). The question I have is who -- or what -- is driving this activity? Is it possible that it is now so cheap to work in Louisiana that it has effectively priced every other region out of the market? I am all in favor of anything that prevents so-called runaway production, but I'd also like to know whether this boom in Louisiana is increasing major (i.e. studio) production or more indie work, or both. Both would be very encouraging for writers, it seems to me.


Richard Florida
Globe and Mail (Canada), 11/24/2007
Richard Florida complains that the "most overlooked — but most important" element of his creative class theory "is that every human being is creative. . . . our society continues to encourage the creative talents of a privileged minority. We systematically neglect the creative potential of the 60 to 70 per cent of the population that lies outside a narrow view of the creative class. There are fewer and fewer rewarding jobs for people without college degrees. This amounts to a huge inefficiency in our system for harnessing creative energy and turning it into wealth and productivity capacity. The great challenge of society is to tap the creativity of much larger segments of the work force."
This is a very provocative essay. I would argue that while Florida's point is, well, sort of obvious and certainly unassailable, I don't think that absolutely anybody can be a playwright or director or artist -- at least professionally. I think there have to be standards and practices and qualitative threshholds to be met. That said, I agree that everyone has a creative side and an absolute right to express it -- a need, a desire, an imperative to do so, in fact. I'm copying a little bit of Florida's essay because I think it really should stir up some discussion.

"In North America, people who are employed in fields considered part of the creative class — science, technology, arts, culture, entertainment and professions — account for 35 to 40 per cent of the work force and produce more than half of all wages and salaries. But here's the rub: It's not enough to try to boost this creative economy just by increasing the pool of engineers and scientists, filmmakers, entertainers, media types, financial professionals and scientists.

The most overlooked — but most important — element of my theory and of the creative economy itself is that every human being is creative.

One of the great fallacies of modern times is the idea that creativity is limited to a small group. Most people, the belief goes, don't want to be creative, couldn't do it if asked and would be uncomfortable in an environment where creativity was expected of them.

This is false. Creativity is a virtually limitless resource that defies social status..."

Michael Kaiser And the Quest For a New Global Theater
Washington Post, 11/22/2007
Arts management as cultural diplomacy: Kennedy Center President Michael Kaiser "has developed an almost messianic urge to teach the art of arts management to struggling cultural institutions around the globe." He recently traveled to Ramallah to help an ambitious but challenged theater, following a Kennedy Center-sponsored symposium in Cairo last March "at which he presented a workshop to 140 arts administrators from 17 Arab nations."
Headline is a little misleading on this one. Kaiser's work is much-admired in many corners of the globe, and rightly so.


The Nation's Mayors to Join Arts Leaders in New Hampshire During Presidential Candidate Forum
PR Newswire, 11/27/2007
"The United States Conference of Mayors will join Americans for the Arts Action Fund and ArtsVoteNH, an initiative of New Hampshire Citizens for the Arts, in a Presidential Candidate Forum to hear from presidential hopefuls on their support for the arts. With over 85% of people in the United States living in our nation's cities and metro areas, mayors clearly understand how urban issues impact everyday Americans and have included the arts as part of the Conference's 10 Point Plan that will be unveiled during the forum."
So who, other than Mike Huckabee (if he's smart) is going to show up? What is John McCain going to do, talk about how there shouldn't be torture in the arts? (Clearly he's never worked Off-Off-Broadway.) Or maybe Mitt Romney will talk about how he was for the arts before he was against it. Or maybe Ron Paul, who is making me think about giving him money (seriously!) will plead for us to get the arts out of our lives.


Where Are All the Charitable Bequests?
Christian Science Monitor, 11/19/2007
"Americans are very generous in life, with two-thirds giving to charity. But only 8 percent remember charities in their wills. One reason: federal tax cuts."
The moral? Don't drop dead.

Sphere: Related Content

Nick of Rat Sass Socks it to George Hunka (Who Doesn't Notice, Nick Says, Because George is Busy 'Brownnosing' British and Australian Critics)

Whew, good for you, Nick -- about time someone else called out George Hunka yet again. I'm gonna just sit back and watch the sparks fly -- until I'm ready to comment.

Sphere: Related Content

Yet Another Shameless Plug for Punch 59

Here's the press release:

PUNCH 59 Sketch Comedy presents
The Rev. Bill and Betty Holland’s Interfaith Christmas Show

10:30 p.m.
Thursday, December 6th
Friday, December 7th
Saturday, December 8th

45th Street Theatre
354 W. 45th Street

Tickets $15
No Drink Minimum
Buy tickets at www.punch59comedy.com

With:
Punch 59 Sketch Comedy
The music of Sudden Death (Dr. Demento’s Funny #1 of the Year)
Leybia Rodgers (a.k.a. Mindy Raf)

PUNCH 59 SKETCH COMEDY is proud to present Rev. Bill and Betty Holland and their timeless message of intolerance and misunderstanding with an INTERFAITH CHRISTMAS SHOW.

Bill and Betty’s “Interfaith Understandings” give a twisted, satirical, ultra-right-wing take on an array of topics, including Passover (“it seems like the Jews aren’t even trying to be Christian”), Rock 'n' Roll (“Mick Jagger and Satan are Mexicans who have come to steal American jobs”), and Mormons (who are “singlehandedly ruining the American institution of starter wives and trophy wives”).

Rev. Bill and Betty Holland are the creation of PUNCH 59’s founder, Marty Hill, and have been a staple of the sketch comedy troupe since 1995.

Punch 59 and Sudden Death ask that everyone attending the show bring a new, unwrapped toy to benefit the U.S. Marine Corps’ annual “TOYS FOR TOTS” campaign (www.toysfortots.com)

Sudden Death is a comedy rap trio from New Jersey and they have twice been Dr. Demento’s “Funny #1” of the year. They are currently the top contender for Dr. Demento's Funny #1 of 2007, with the two most popular comedy hits of the year (“Getting Old Sucks”and “Pillagers #1”).

Leybia Rodgers (a.k.a. Mindy Raf) is glad to be bringing her sexy tofu nipples back to Punch 59! Mindy writes a weekly advice column on Collegehumor.com and has been featured in the New Yorker. www.mindyraf.com

Sphere: Related Content

New Reviews: The Constant Couple

Here's my New York Press review of The Constant Couple.

Sphere: Related Content

Please Watch This Totally Shameless Commercial for Punch 59

My favorite sketch comedy group.

Sphere: Related Content

Bull's Eye on the Strike...and a Miss

Jeremy Gerard, whose previous piece on the Broadway strike struck me as petty, has written what I think is the definitive post-mortem on the strike -- assuming there is a post-mortem to be written as of tonight. Read it here. I take back what I wrote before.

Meanwhile, I just read Terry Teachout's think piece on whether, in terms of dollars and cents, Broadway is worth it as compared to 1968 -- in other words, whether we really should give a damn about the strike, or about Broadway and its demanding denizens. I have a few problems with his piece. He pegs his comparison year, 1968, to the year Peter Brook wrote The Empty Space, which is as much a totem for me as I guess it is for Terry.

(As a side note, I'd have preferred Terry focus on the more provocative part of Brook's book, in which Brook said that critics should be "part of the whole, and whether he writes his notices fast or slow, short or long, is not really important. Has he an image of how a theatre could be in his community and is he revising this image around each experience he receives? How many critics see their job this way?....It is for this reason that the more the critic becomes an insider, the better. I see nothing but good in a critic plunging into our lives, meeting actors, talking, discussing, watching, intervening. I would welcome his putting his hands on the medium and attempting to work it himself." This idea, however fraught with contradictions and problems, is my idea of what a critic should be, and how I have tried to conduct my career.)

Anyway, Terry noted that the top ticket price on Broadway in 1968 was $11, or "$64 in today's dollars. Nowadays it will cost you anywhere between $51.50 and $121.50 to see 'Young Frankenstein' --unless you're prepared to fork out $450 for a premium-priced weekend seat." So the point of his essay is to ask whether Broadway is worth roughly twice what it was worth 40 years ago. It's the old "Let's quantify art through economics" trope. I mean, a Picasso that sold for $20 million three years ago just sold for $80 million -- is it really worth four times what it was worth before? Well, a conservative would say yes -- that's what the market would bear. But is the intrinsic value four times than it was before? No, of course not. When you consider the behemoth that is Broadway -- the branding, the history, the marketing -- it's a little too easy to try to boil everything down to 40 years ago versus now. You can pick any date, do all the math, and ask the same question, using a different multiple.

Even in 1968, Terry writes, "the curious, intelligent, nonconforming middle-class New Yorkers celebrated in 'The Empty Stage' could still afford -- just -- to visit Broadway often enough to feel that they were keeping up with American theater. Now they're more likely to go once or twice a year, if that. Broadway is no longer a meaningful part of their cultural lives."

This paragraph implies that Broadway's economics are to blame for people visiting the Great White Way once or twice a year. What Terry leaves out, conveniently, is that there are millions more people visiting Broadway than were sitting in those seats 40 years ago (and there were more theatres then). And speaking of the Great White Way, it is also important to note that it is less white (if less great) than it was 40 years ago as well. Indeed, if Broadway's demographics have a long way to go before we can consider attendance representative of the nation's citizens, I see no evidence that theatregoing habits have changed drastically since 1968. Certainly there are more options on the cultural palate. But it's hard for me to see how the numbers are alone to blame for shifting cultural tides.

I'm glad Terry wrote the piece. It should stir conversation. These are very large sociological issues we're dealing with. And with the strike perhaps ending tonight, it's worth asking whether ticket prices are going to come down. We all know the answer to that.

Sphere: Related Content

A Call from Kings County

Still hearing the siren song of Brooklyn ringing through your head? Oh, how Oedipal.

Well, if you are, it's still not too late to take advantage of the Downtown Brooklyn Partnership's announcement of an open call to cultural organizations that are interested in finding a real, live, permanent home in the up-and-coming BAM Cultural District.

The deadline for all inquiries regarding projects for consideration is 5 pm on Friday, Dec. 14.

For information and guidelines, visit www.dbpartnership.org/opencall.

Sphere: Related Content

Arts Advocacy Update XX

The content below is from Americans for the Arts' Cultural Policy Listserv.


Expert: Md. Tourism Looks Solid for Next Year
WTOP (Washington, DC), 11/20/2007
"While some indicators show that the national economy could slide into a recession sometime next year," Maryland's tourism industry should remain solid in 2008, -- thanks in part to arts tourism, says one expert. Between August 2005 and August 2006, "[o]ne of the strongest areas of growth for the state was in arts tourism." According to the Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development, "more than 13 million people attended arts events in Maryland in 2006, generating over $1 billion in economic impact, up from $970 million the previous year. . . . Arts tourism generated an estimated $37.3 million in state and local taxes, up from $35 million."
Hoping some of that is going to the Maryland Shakespeare Festival, run by my dear friend Becky Kemper.


Art & Innovation: An Evolutionary Economic View of the Creative Industries
Unesco Observatory, The University of Melbourne Refereed E-Journal, 2007
"This paper explores the economic and cultural contribution of the arts and its effect on economic growth and evolution. The crucial connection is supplied by an innovation systems perspective on the creative industries. In this view, the creative industries contribute not just to value-added and jobs, but more importantly, to the evolutionary process by which economic systems grow. This paper thus offers a new view of the economics of the arts and creative industries re-conceptualised as part of the innovation system of an evolving economic order. Analytic and policy implications are then outlined in terms of an evolutionary approach to the economics of the arts."
Heady stuff, but interesting reading if you're into economic theory. For example:

I shall seek to explain in this paper how arts, education and cultural researchers may benefit by closer engagement with the analysis of economic dynamics (as open system processes of change and re-coordination) than by continuing with increasingly futile attempts to defend (static) cultural value against (equally static) economic value. The value of the arts and culture are dynamic. By connecting with the evolutionary framework of economic dynamics, and specifically the creative systems model, a more coherent, interesting and possibly even more powerful analytic framework for arts and humanities research may result.

Artist Colonies, `Heat Shield' From Critics, May Get U.S. Funds
Bloomberg News, 11/19/2007
"Twelve years after Congress ended most funding to individual artists, the National Endowment for the Arts may reopen the flow of money to poets, musicians, writers and painters through artist colonies. The NEA, which is in line for a budget increase of as much as 28 percent next year, plans to direct some of the additional money to the hundreds of U.S. colonies and communities that provide artists with residencies, funding and, above all, creative freedom."
Very exciting, I think. Read the story for the specifics.


Arts groups get $6-million boost
Detroit Free Press, 11/14/2007
"These are tough times for local arts institutions. Corporate, individual and state funding is down, deficits are up, competition for dollars is fierce and Michigan's stubborn economy isn't showing much sign of improvement. That's why metro Detroit arts groups are greeting the Kresge Foundation of Troy's $6 million in new grants like drought-stricken farmers welcoming a rain storm. The grants, which go to 53 nonprofit organizations in southeast Michigan, underscore the increasing importance of philanthropic foundations in the local fund-raising ecosystem for arts."
I pray people don't get shot on their way to the gallery, though. Yikes.


Small Companies Put Charity Into Their Business Plan
Wall Street Journal, 11/20/2007
"Large companies -- and entrepreneurs -- often make philanthropy part of the company once they have become successful. But it is rarer for owners of small businesses to build a company with a philanthropic bent right from the start -- when resources are scant and each move made is supposed to assure that the bottom line grows. While such a mission adds to the financial burden many start-ups often face, in the long run it may help the company's bottom line more than it hurts."
Would love to see someone develop of list of companies in New York that would fit this bill.


The content below is from Americans for the Arts' Cultural Policy Listserv.

Sphere: Related Content

From Local One

Just received this from the spokesperson for Local One. Any thoughts?

Dear Brothers and Sisters of Actors Equity and all the people of Broadway:

"Either we all hang together, or we will most certainly hang separately." said Benjamin Franklin.

As the work stoppage on Broadway makes headlines around the world, we must note that the whole world is watching. The League of American Theatres and Producers, now known to the media for their great communications inaccuracies, has sent one more letter around the Rialto designed to divide and conquer us.

Local One deplores the vain attempt to splinter the unions, especially the recent one directed at Actors Equity, the first and foremost union of performers in America. The first strike on Broadway for fair wages and benefits was by actors demanding equity. The current strike on Broadway continues in that tradition.

The League's intention in driving Local One to the picket line is not about art, but money. Less for us is more for them. A few years ago they stood ready to replace musicians with canned music. If they can chalk up a win against Local One, the next people in the producers' gun sight will be actors. Then they'll pick off the other unions one by one.

The eloquent and elegant words of Actors Equity's new executive director are still echoing throughout the canyons of the Great White Way. All of Broadway stood up to cheer John Connolly. All working people who heard his oration knows he speaks for them.

Local One truly appreciates the support that all our brothers and sisters working on Broadway have shown for us in this difficult time. Our membership deeply regrets the hardships you are enduring.

The talents of stagehands differ from that of actors, musicians, press agents, designers or make-up artists. But it is the merging of all of our many talents, skills and craftsmanship that makes the magic of Broadway. Front of house, back of house or back office, we are all Broadway, and that is what brings us together.

This fight, with Local One now at the fore and Actors Equity and other unions honoring our picket lines and joining us out in the cold, will long be remembered - not just for how we all suffered, not for what we won and lost, preserved and discarded, but for the unity we showed.

The firmer we stand together now to defend one union's wages, benefits, jobs and jurisdiction, the more the league will respect each union when its turn is taken at the negotiating table. The League only respects power, strength, force and, above all, solidarity. After all, it is The League's hope to hang us all separately.

If there is anything that all of us can agree on, it is the imperative for both sides to meet and negotiate a fair and equitable contract and return the magic to Broadway.

In Solidarity,

Your Brothers and Sisters of Local One, IATSE

Sphere: Related Content