UPDATE (12 July): In the below comment, David Dower responds to a few of these concerns, and passes along his formal title: He is the director of artistic programs for ArtsEmerson and a cofounder of the Center for the Theater Commons, both of which are located in the Office of the Arts at Emerson College.
UPDATE: For an example of an alternative production model for contemporary dramatists — though, designed to be impermanent, it is shutting down shortly — see Ben Gassman’s recent article for The Brooklyn Rail, “The Imminent Implosion of 13P.” Two things about the article are especially interesting. First, that the number of playwrights involved gave it something of a “critical mass” for organization, publicity, and fundraising; and second, that it is an example of institutional planned obsolescence. One size, of course, does not fit all, but it does provide an alternative organizational structure.
In a post at his blog Adaptistration today, Drew McManus extends a few notes he offered here yesterday in “The only thing we have to fear is each other.” It is particularly interesting given David Dower’s response to my comment at Diane Ragsdale’s post:
I hear your questions about the mysteries inside the walls of the institutions. It’s a thing we’ve been working on around the #newplay discussion — transparency. So, here: what we, (and it is “we” because I am still the salaried employee of an institution), what we talk about in the hallways and at the water coolers is largely this same stuff — there are people in every organization asking the questions about efficacy and access and artistic homes. And we debate them, often passionately. And yes, sometimes the artistic priorities lose out to the financial realities of keeping the lights on and meeting payroll. And we wonder — sometimes out loud — is that the right outcome? And sometimes the primary concern of our discussions is the security and welfare of our staff, not of the artists nor of the community we are chartered to serve. And we have different opinions about that. But somehow, all we are comfortable presenting to the world are “institutional talking points” — what John Frisbee called above “the rah-rah” — that say that this institutional model is absolutely the best model for achieving the full potential of theater that can possibly exist — has been since the start of “our movement” and ever shall be, no matter the changing social context of our work — and anyone who says otherwise is bullshit.
David Dower is a “leader” (I’m having trouble finding his precise title; no snark is intended by those quotation marks) of the recently established “Center for the Theater Commons” at Emerson College.
I agree with him that less “rah-rah,” fewer institutional “talking points” (especially those that can be summarized in a Powerpoint slide or two) would be appropriate. Perhaps fewer rah-rah, self-congratulatory presentations from DJ Spooky and more blunt, honest, public representations of these discussions (including viewpoints from those outside the organization) could be folded into the next TCG conference. What the American theatre needs for its continued health is a halt to roundabout, endless discussions about models, whatever they might be (especially from those who depend for their existence and well-being on the current one) and movements (with that implied market-speak dynamism) — it needs more public self-critique and less public self-love.
George: I’m glad the discussion is moving in a more constructive direction, but I feel compelled to say that while it’s easy to pooh-pooh the bits of rah-rah you’ve heard from the conference, it also happens to be the place (every year, and this year was no exception) where the discussions, arguments, tensions, and exchanges among theaters of all sizes and individual artists of all kinds are animated by exactly the concerns/challenges you’ve mentioned–the uncertain future of the field, who the audience is going to be and how to engage it, what models are actually working that can be learned from (and which aren’t working and should be discarded). To pretend that this discussion and self-examination is not going on, or that theater folks think everything is rosy just the way it is (have you ever spent time with theater folks?), is a little disingenuous, with all due respect. Diane’s piece and the responses are extremely valuable, and I read them as a continuation of the dialogue begun at TCG (because indeed, that’s we all were talking about). I would also encourage you to read the speeches of Michael Maso and in particular Howard Shalwitz, which TCG is planning to make available soon. Admittedly, the discourse can always be better and wider, and it’s welcome from all quarters; I just hope you can acknowledge it when it’s actually happening. (And look for a piece on 13P in the Sept. issue of American Theatre.)
My argument has not been that it hasn’t been happening, but that it’s been happening behind closed doors (and an annual industry conference is a closed door for many who might have a contribution to make). I am looking forward, as you say, to a more constructive direction. If Drew says that “The sort of open admission to shortcomings and problems is difficult to come by outside the confines of rancorous public debate. … [It] would be lovely to see groups admit these problems and work toward removing mistrust, but don’t hold your breath,” and even David admits that “all we are comfortable presenting to the world are ‘institutional talking points,’” then clearly I’m not alone in bearing misgivings about the ultimate results of these conversations. It reminds me of the Arena Stage conference about new plays last November, which was closed to both the public and press:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/arena-stage-bans-media-public-from-new-play-conference/2011/11/02/gIQAqAhOmM_story.html
I mean, what’s to be afraid of? It’s not like they’re handing out the ICBM codes or anything.
By the way, I’d like to read the “white paper” that Diane Ragsdale prepared for the conference according to the fifth paragraph of Peter’s story; a pointer from anyone would be appreciated.
George,
I’m glad you’ve been finding what perspective I have to offer useful and I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not nearly as familiar with TCG as I am with their music oriented service organization peers; but if the organziation is anything like the latter, Rob’s statement that service orgs are having the sorts of critical future-centric discussions is quite apt.
In fact, I would be surprised if there was much disagreement about identifying the most pressing issues (many of which Rob listed); but from the perspective of someone on the outside looking in, the angst over all of this seems to focused not so much on *what* is being discussed so much as *who* is having the conversation and *how* it is unfolding.
Best,
Drew
Hello, George–
Believe me I sympathize with the challenge of trying to find my current title. Everything is in transition, including websites and offices. But, I am officially the director of artistic programs for ArtsEmerson and a cofounder of the Center for the Theater Commons, both of which are located in the Office of the Arts at Emerson College.
The paper you are looking for is currently making its way through the review process and we hope to be able to release it very soon. It will be released via the HowlRound website, so stay tuned there.
A couple other points to clarify my personal concerns with respect to the conversations in our field in the current environment. (I appreciate that Michael Maso has also taken the time to clarify his own comments as well…)
First, it is entirely accurate for Rob to say that the conversations at the TCG Conference go in many directions. In my experience, they run the gamut from cheerleading to transparent self-criticism to soul-crushing whining. And they take place both inside the formal agenda and in the hallways, bars, and lunch breaks. So this can be a very engaged and productive gathering for the people that attend. As an example, Polly Carl and I hatched the plan for HowlRound (her idea– as in most things related to this adventure, I’m just the guy who says “Yes, let’s do that!” to some really creative people) over lunch at the TCG Conference in Chicago in 2010 and it was up and running by November of that year.
At the same time, it is also entirely accurate to say that the TCG Conference is a bit of a rarified atmosphere in the sense that it can be expensive to attend, it is a member-based event, and the circles of conversation there can frequently feel more like parallel play than mash-up. TCG has worked very hard over many years to lower the barriers to participation and to broaden the representation at the conference, and took a bigger step this year with the launch of their new social media platform (http://www.tcg.org/events/conference/index.cfm) yet it is true that the 1000 people who gathered this year in Boston barely scratched the surface of the stakeholders in the community of the nonprofit American theater. So, while it is an important, productive, and highly influential (and very well run) environment for discourse, it obviously cannot be the space where everybody has a chance to be heard. And as long as we are comfortable with a range of opinions and approaches playing out publicly it doesn’t have to be. As we are seeing in this example, Mr. Maso had his say at the microphone in the conference, and then others responding from their own points of access make for a conversation.
Thank you for taking the time to respond, David. Yes — and quite a conversation it is.