weebelly.com

In 1992, according to a report from the National Endowment for the Arts¹, an estimated 13.5% of the U.S. adult population attended a live dramatic theater event.  This was up from 11.9% in 1982. 

In 1992, this estimated 13.5% represented between 24 and 26.2 million adult Americans².  Further, the NEA reported that there was a frequency of attendance of 2.4 times per person, meaning that roughly 60.2 million attendances of a live dramatic theater event were recorded in the United States.  As this study was not repeated for 2002, it is somewhat difficult to gauge the trend, but if the trend has been sustained, 15.1% of the U.S. adult population attended a performance in 2002. With an estimated adult population of 216 million in the United States that means that nearly 33 million Americans attended a theatre event in 2002 and if the same 2.4 frequency of attendance applies, 79.4 million attendances would have been recorded. To put this in perspective, in 2007 Major League Baseball gleefully reported 79 million people attended baseball games in the United States³. The data described above indicates, at the very least, that there is great interest in theatre in the United States, and other factors point to the impact that active and successful theatres have on their communities.  For instance, the June 24th Plain Dealer article presents evidence that successful theatres are a boon to revitalizing neighborhoods and increasing economic development⁴.  A fact further confirmed by the same NEA report mentioned at the outset, which concludes that:

Dynamic forces shape [theater] participation patterns in each community, including characteristics of the resident and nonresident markets, the supply of producing and presenting activity, the availability of suitable performance facilities, as well as local traditions and history."  And further, that vital [theater-going] communities will exist where vital theatre producing communities are active and available. 

The report specifically identifies highest theatre participation rates in "Seattle/King County (WA) where a thriving theatre community was observed, including playwrights, actors, and a plethora of small, experimental ensembles known collectively as ‘Seattle’s fringe theaters.’" 

Cleveland, Ohio, certainly has the potential of becoming one of the most successful theatre communities in the United States.  It has a diverse mixture of urban education centers and populations, interested young artists, and established veteran performers, directors, designers, and technicians combined with an historic economic downturn that has left numerous, low-cost spaces accessible and available for use.  This is to say that established, highly-priced, conservative theaters no longer hold the keys to gates of theater entertainment in the Northeast Ohio community. (A fact pointed out in a recent speech on local theater.)

Still, formal external funding sources seem to be the meat and potatoes of most arts organizations: either government sources (such as the newly created Cuyahoga Arts and Culture grants) or foundation sources.  These constitute one set of external stakeholders. While it is easy to see these sources as not only important but a possible bounty, reliance on these sources does not seem to me overly wise or recommended.  Changes in funding priorities or changes in government policies can bring a drought to stream very quickly.  Additionally, one of the dangers in accepting funding from a foundation is that there is some expectation of programming to go along with it, that an organization might, like one sister in Cinderella, cut off her toes to fit the shoe.  This fact is made poignantly clear by Mike Daisy in his article How Theater Failed America, when he writes:

Better to invest in another "educational" youth program, mashing up Shakespeare until it is a thin, lifeless paste that any reasonable person would reject as disgusting, but garners more grant money.⁵

This may be a cynical viewpoint, but if it weren’t true there wouldn’t be a phrase for it in the nonprofit "biz": mission drift.

But if not foundations or government, what then?  Ticket sales are an important part of revenue, but cannot sustain even basic and continuous organizational function, let alone full employment of an acting troupe–unless prices are terribly high.  One plan that came to me serendipitously in the form of an issue of American Theatre was to reach out to universities to cultivate new stakeholders—universities and their faculties, students, and staff.  The plan works like this: a theater sends vouchers to a college; the college distributes them to students; the students go to the theater with the voucher and get in free; the theater then bills the college for the cost of a reduced ticket–and the college takes the money out of the student life budget.  This astonishingly simple strategy accommodates the stakeholder fulfillment of two different organizations at one time, as many universities have, as a part of their strategic plans, some requirement to support the communities in which they live and operate, as well as supporting their more fundamental academic mission.

1. American Participation in Theater, AMS Planning and Research Corporation, Research Division Report #35, National Endowment for the Arts, Santa Ana, Calif. : Seven Locks Press, 1996

2. Stats based on calculation of 13.5% x the U.S. adult population at the time as reported in the Statistical Abstract of the United States for 1992.

3. Bloom, Barry M. 2008. MLB salary increase lowest since ’04. December 4. http://www.ticketnews.com/Major-League-Baseball-sees-attendance-drop-for-the-first-time-in-five-years10810000. (Accessed online, December 8, 2008).

4. Litt, Steven. 2007. Energizing Detroit-Shoreway; Theater renovations, new building at the heart of neighborhood revitalization. June 24. The Plain Dealer.

Daisey, Mike. 2008. The Empty Spaces: Or, How Theater Failed America. February 5. The Stranger, Seattle’s Only Newspaper. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=503829. (Accessed online December 8, 2008).

Went to a conference on Saturday that was sponsored by Baker-Nord at Case. It was about digital technologies and contemporary art–their merger and the cool things that emerge from it, the challenges facing contemporary art museums, and creating collaborative communities to support art museums. It was a fascinating conference if for no other reason than the presence of all these people collectively contemplating how collaborative communities can be created to support the creation of new approaches to thinking, addressing problems, making art, working regionally, and bringing people from different disciplines or schools of thought together.

Some of the guest speakers included: Ken Goldberg, Director of the Berkeley Center for New Media at UC Berkeley; Anne Balsamo, Professor of Interactive Media in the School of Cinematic Arts at USC; and Anne Murphy, Co-Chair of the Digital Promise Project.

For Ken Goldberg, one of the most fascinating “installations” he showed was this project he worked on that used the tracking of seismic activity of the earth. He noted that the earth is always moving and, of course, an earth quake in Japan can register in vibrations in the crust here in Ohio, etc., so the earth is this living thing that is constantly moving and reverberating right under our feet (even though we often think of it as just dirt, solid, etc). Regardless, it is constantly vibrating and these vibrations are captured by seismic equipment. Well, I’m not sure how it all came about, but he was next working with a musician, who found a way to amplify these vibrations and essentially turn them into music–live music coming from the earth (it makes me think of whale sounds)–and they created this installation in a museum that people could walk into and then lay down and just listen to the music of the earth. Then, a dancer became interested in it and they took the piece to the San Fransisco Ballet and played, live, the music of the earth while a dancer interpreted it physically. It was called Ballet Mori (which makes me think of Memento Mori, which is more gruesome/depressing). But the whole thing is not only fascinating, but demonstrates in New Media terms, how a project can move from a science sphere to a contemporary art sphere and then into a performing art sphere. Very fascinating and cool.

For Anne Balsamo, I was impressed with her “Reading Wall” which is like a plasma display oriented vertically that can slide horizontally along a timeline and as it passes over a point the plasma display brings up events, descriptions, “tombstones” as in art museums, etc. Her work surrounds new technologies and gender and culture.

Anne Murphy’s talk was about Digital Promise which has been re-named the National Center for Research in Advanced Information and Digital Technologies which has received an “authorization” from Congress to exist, but needs an “appropriation” of funds to start. It hopes to be very like what the National Institutes of Health is for health/medicine–only, of course, for Digital Technology–i.e. massive amounts of money to put toward new projects and ideas.

Probably one of the central themes of interest to come out of this day, for me, was the tension between Art and Science. In fact, Goldberg began his talk by drawing attention to the root of each word: Art (ars: Latin, to bring together) and Science (skei: Greek, to cut). I think that is fascinating in and of itself. Nonetheless, this tension that revolves seemingly around the notion that Science is important because it is practical, has utility, has a value that can be concretely demonstrated and felt by all; where as Art deals much more in intangibles and has no perceived practical utility. I have been thinking about this and found myself listening to the moronic ravings of congressional republicans like Duncan Hunter and some other yahoo from Arizona who have been crying about the stimulus package providing $50 million to the National Endowment for the Arts. They all are saying, “what value is this?” They don’t seem to understand that, for instance, in Cleveland, the Cleveland Public Theatre complex on the Detroit Shoreway, in keeping with James Levin’s vision, has re-vitalized an economically depressed neighborhood: arts have the power of economic development. Actors, directors, tech people, writers, musicians, all earn money and pay taxes and buy food and contribute to the economy in other ways, too. The stupidity is staggering.

The confluence of this question and the Cool Fusion conference has me thinking about a play that deals with the issues surrounding Science, Technology, and Art and Jared Bendis and I have started some give and take with ideas. We hope to generate a performance piece this year.