Sounds Simple, Doesn't It?

Mike Daisey Starts the Debate Then Excuses Himself from the Table

Ooh...lots going on this past week in the theatrosopheriums...I've been absolutely busted ass tired with regular work combined with the intensive every night Metaluna rehearsals, so pardon me if my response has been delayed...

After some back and forth about Daisey's original post in The Stranger and his ubiquitous monologue performances, the cats at Theatreforte try to get him to get specific about some sort of agenda aside from the "Theatre Failed to Provide a Living for the Artists" POV Daisey got rustled up. Daisey responds:

I've already created a work that speaks and resonates about these issues, that engenders discussion, foments real discourse and has been lauded by many. I may CHOOSE to work on policy issues in my free time (of which I have vanishingly little) but I am certainly not CHARGED to do so. I have a calling, which I fulfill through my work. I do my part and more. I am an artist—I will nurture, hone, and refine it, and that is what I am responsible for because that is what I am.

All fair as far as I'm concerned. I suspect that almost every artist on the map will state pretty much the same thing, which is, in essence, "I'm too busy doing some art - let the administrators whose salaries I'm questioning make those decisions."

Oh.

I guess that that may not be the solution Daisey is looking for. You know - because the administrators are already benefiting from the status quo and thus there isn't really any incentive...

But the Prof wants us all to share the burden:

I don't think Daisey is proposing a complete overhaul of the regional theatre movement, but rather a re-commitment to its original values and intents. For instance, if regional theatres committed to some form of ensemble structure that would provide more than a one-and-done contract for artists, it would help a great deal. This requires little more than a rearrangement of priorities. An even simpler improvement that would leave artists better off would be if Actor's Equity, SAG, and AFTRA joined forces, so that weeks of work in any of those unions contributed toward the minimum number needed for health insurance. Obviously, most actors currently piece together theatre, film, television, and commercials, yet these are disconnected as far as health insurance is concerned. I'm certain there are other solutions -- Daisey proposes, for instance, fundraising for the creation of "endowed chairs" for performers, much like endowed chairs in academia -- that can make substantive contributions to providing a more humane and stable life for theatre artists.

Little more than a rearrangement of priorities? Really?

Having started an ensemble-based theater and moving to a company with open auditions, I'd say it isn't really as simple as our academic friend would suppose. AND he runs into the self same difficulty that Daisey presents (if, indeed, change is the point). Namely, those priorities that need to be simply rearranged are being rearranged (or not) by the arts administrators that currently run the system.

It's all kind of like arguing about Congressional Salaries: Congress gets to vote on their own salaries and benefits, so leaving it up to them to regulate themselves is like hoping desperately that the pedophile babysitting your kid will restrain himself.

In fact, once again, Professor Walters indicates a pretty low opinion of artists in general: That said, Mike Daisey's piece is about a subject that he knows best, and is a work of art, not an academic study. If it were an academic study, most artists wouldn't read it because they'd think it was "too boring." And this is the cat that gets pissy when anyone so much as insinuates that those in the rural areas might be artistically less enlightened than those in the cities. Jeesh!

Earlier on, our actor-dissing friend in North Carolina exudes:

You are asking a work of art to do the work of research, scholarship, and leadership. As Chekhov said, art doesn't provide the right answers, but the right questions. Rather than ask that Daisey "define his terms," my suggestion for you and for the rest of the theatrosphere is to make the next step yourself. Don't quibble about definitions when the woods are burning. Acknowledge there is a Big Problem, that Daisey has hit on some of it, and start trying to think of how to improve the situation.

In a word, stop being so damn passive!

Is the "passive" accusation one thrown at Daisey? I mean, because I can do a show about how shitty the "Artist's Livelihood" is right now, put it on YouTube and then I guess I'm off the hook, huh? I'm also uncertain how it is quibbling when we're all trying to figure out the source of the fire. Throwing effort into change when you aren't certain what exactly needs to be changed is just lots and lots of effort.

OK, Smartass. What do YOU suggest? And what about that Off-Loop Theater Charter? And how are YOU changing things? Fucker...

Well said, straw man.

First, before any economic model can be created, a philosophical model must be shifted. Our paradigm is skewed by a view of the past and the financial successes of today. The constant push to "make a living" in the arts is sort of like making a living as a professional gambler and I don't hear anyone supporting an ethical model to provide blackjack players health insurance. And when it comes to philosophical stances, the idea that everyone is going to leap on board any one particular viewpoint is lunacy.

Second, the Off-Loop Freedom Charter. Yup, it's going to happen - I, like Daisey, am a practicing artist doing shows. I'm building the cathedral by carving stones, one at a time. The OLFC is an attempt to get a bunch of like-minded theater folk in the same room and start defining a common philosophy that we're all comfortable promoting without having it get in the way of our day-to-day artistic output. And, whether it is a good thing or not, that involves a lot of quibbling.

Third, I am, indeed, a fucker. Thanks for noticing.