Parts of the Art Form

[Keith Dahlgren]

Okay, in my ongoing attempt to raise pointless discussion to a higher plane, I would like to ask this existential question:  Is a production successful on an artistic level if the ticket sales are lower than expected, or it loses money, or the theatre can't stay afloat? 

In other words, if you create and perform a show, and nobody comes to see it, is it Art?

Because of a recent article in a local newspaper, in which a local theatre was disparaged for its attempts on the grounds that they were performing too many Mainstream plays to be considered Highly Artistic, I have been thinking about the state of Theatre as Art. Live Theatre is a unique, immediate, and unfortunately hobbled, art form, in that it needs an audience to even exist.  Painters can paint without an audience, sculptors can sculpt, I might even suggest that dancers can dance without an audience (but that's pushing it.)  But theateers (it's a new word, I can't think of another) cannot create their art without an audience. Yes, one can do a show to an empty house, but it's too expensive, it takes too many people, and, as there is in painting or sculpting, there is nothing to show for your efforts. No painting or statue to gain huge respect and value after the artists dies a lonely death in poverty.  And when a tree falls in a forest,  etc.
 
Anyway, bringing in and pleasing an audience, challenging an audience, getting people off their couches and out of the house, is as much a part of the whole ART form as lighting design, sets, costumes.  And if you don't do that right, then you're not succeeding in your Theatre Art. So is a show successful as Art if there is no audience?  And how do we judge that?  Is it because the Marketeers haven't done their work (or there are no Marketeers?)  Is it because the public is jaded or uneducated? Is it because the theatre has not considered the audience in its play selection? I think it's probably a combination of the three, but I think I could point out evidence of the results of any one here in our Pugetopolis community.

Of course, I expect that some people consider the actual Show as the be-all and end-all of the Artistic Endeavor, and that the audience doesn't matter.  But I submit, that as Theatre needs a larger amount of audience input (both intellectual and financial) to actually survive, that input needs to be part of the Artistic Equation. If a Play falls in an auditorium, and there is no one to experience it, it didn't make any noise.

So...that's my sick mind wandering down the highways of the state of the Art.  Any thoughts?
 

[Ken Holmes]

Keith, good topic.... and nice picture
 
As far as theater as art, I agree and disagree with you.
 
Here is how “art” is defined by the dictionary-ers:
 
*snip*
    1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
    2. 
        a. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
        b. The study of these activities.
        c. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
        d. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
*snip*
 
I like those definitions. “Art” is the product and/or the process. Which I agree with. I don’t think a third party (audience) is necessarily required for the art to exist.
 
It doesn’t matter whether anyone sees a production of a play for it to be art. The audience affects not the art, but the success of the art. Example (since you compare theater and painting): countless painters and sculptors have died and NOT gone on to "gain huge respect and value", but we would still consider them artists, and their work art. Ie: a painter works their whole life creating art, never succeeds and all their works are destroyed, doesn’t mean they weren’t an artist and didn’t create art.

Art is the process and product of an artist. Some artists even create art that naturally self destructs; Andy Goldsworthy's peices melt back into nature and some are only seen by him, but it is considered art nonetheless.

A production of a play is art no matter what, but an audience IS needed to make the play successful. Just as a painter needs an audience of some kind to be considered successful (even posthumously).
 
You say "bringing in and pleasing an audience, challenging an audience, getting people off their couches and out of the house, is as much a part of the whole ART form as lighting design, sets, costumes." I say no, that's the business side of theater: entertainment. If we were talking about painting, the art would be art whether or not the gallery it hangs in gets visited, so it is with theater.

I feel very strongly that keeping a clearly defined boundary between the artistic and business side of theater is very important for survival. How many artists have driven theaters into the ground because they have no business sense? It shouldn't be up to the artists to sell the show, they should be creating the art.

Yes, we need to figure out how to get people off their couches and into the theaters. I think it’s possible. I also believe that everyone likes theater, but many of them don’t know it. They don’t think of theater as a viable form of entertainment because it’s not thrust down their throat with advertising. It’s all in getting the word out. The plays with a bigger budget can afford more advertising and therefore get bigger audiences. An actor in a play can do very little artistically to affect box office revenue if nobody knows about the show.

So how do we get the word out? Most theater companies have small budgets and can’t afford much more than press releases to advertise their shows. And the major papers don’t do much in the way of covering theater. With only one or two pages (at most) in the Times and PI devoted to theater, they can’t cover much. So how do we get them to cover more theater, get more reviewers out there, more stories about theater, and more pages in the paper? Asking for it ourselves won’t work since we are the beneficiaries of extra coverage. BUT, the papers do respond to their readers. I encourage all theaters to encourage all their audience members to contact the editors and let them know they want more theater coverage. Maybe if enough normal everyday folk start telling the media what they want to read about, instead of just accepting what they get, things will change. 

[Keith Dahlgren]

Ken, you're right.  It's a fine photo.  I wonder who took it?  Oh, yeah, you did! I always like standing next to pretty people.

I agree with all of your points, but I think that there is a gray area, a No Person's Land as it were, between art and business. Theatre is such a unique art form that it needs a certain amount of business savvy to even survive.  I like your separation between Entertainment and Art, but once again, the lines are blurry.  Art can be Entertainment, and Entertainment Art.  Just because it doesn't happen often enough, doesn't mean it shouldn't.  In fact, the best of all possible worlds, both, is the best art.  I don't agree that Art should be left to Artists, and Business to Businessists.  I think the best artists understand business, and the best Businessists appreciate Art. 

The trouble with art that no one sees is it does not affect anyone except the artist.  That's great for the artist, but it seems like a form of masturbation at that point. And iIf art is merely in the process, then is the writing, designing and rehearsing a show the art, and it's over when the show opens? 

My original question was a business one at its core, I admit.  If a professional theatre is creating shows that pleases its artists, but no one is watching, are they better 'artists' than the (here are those badly defined terms I always curse) 'unprofessional', 'non-equity', or 'community' theatre that does good solid work that may be less edgy, but brings in the audience?  Do they (the 'pros') deserve more kudos (in terms of financial and other support) than the non-pros?

I guess it's all part of the continuing saga of 'Art vs Commerce', but I feel Theatre has a singular place in that discussion, because of its need for an audience.

There are fringe shows that are indeed exercises in masturbatory presentation, and on the other end of the scale there are the big-budget musicals that suck and succeed.  There are fringe shows that are brilliant (but no one sees, more's the pity) and Professional productions that are wonderful (and plenty of people see.)  I just hate to see assumptions made, that the more money and union affiliations you throw at a production or theatre, the 'better' it is.  This was my take on the newspaper article I mentioned.

I just like the discussion.

[Meghan Arnette]

Where is the article you are talking about?

[Keith Dahlgren]

I don't really want to say, because it was more my meanderings on the subject that started me pontificating, rather than the actual article itself.  Suffice it to say it was a preview article for a show I'm involved in.  The actual content is not important.  Nor is anything I have to say, really, I just felt like opening up a topic and seeing what anyone else had to say on the subject.

[Kent Phillips]

I like your picture too Keith!  An interesting topic considering the economic trials of several local theatre companies.  The fastest growing
theatre companies in the past ten years are: Village (especially with the expansion to Everett less than a decade ago), Bellevue Civic (with attendance jumping 20% a year), TAG has rebounded with a 10-20% jump in attendance, but is decidedly more mainstream.  SecondStory Rep and Driftwood continue with steady increases.
These are healthy companies, yet sometimes get the criticism that they "pander" to the audience with their show selection.  I remember laughter at a dinner with actors when it was announced Village would be doing South Pacific and Sound of Music a couple of seasons ago.
Bellevue Civic (where I work) is generally referred to in the PI, and Times as the "mainstream theatre company" thanks to our annual dose of Neil Simon and such.  Does that mean what we do is not ART?  Guess it depends on who you talk too.  I think it is ART, I happen to enjoy mainstream plays...theatre is certainly not BUSINESS, even successful companies scramble to break even.

I also feel that fringe theatre and small shows that attract 10-20 people a night are ART as well.  ART is a creative process, whether it is good or bad, packed houses or empty houses, mainstream or fringe, Sound Of Music or Durang, it is still the art of performing!

I also have noted in the last few years the declining impact of critics.  Last season the show I produced that got the most critical acclaim, drew no one.  The show that was most trashed sold out.  Both shows were ART, both shows had good moments and both provided work and a creative process for the actors, directors and designers.  Theatre folk spend way to much time worrying what critics or others say about their work.  Just enjoy the work and keep creating.  Mainstream or fringe it is ART!

[Lantz Wagner]

Wow, what a great topic. I just wanted to throw in my two bits and say that everyone has some really valid points. In my mind, art is art no matter what way you slice it. Yes, there are "mainstream" shows and there are fringe shows and everything else in between, but should that categorization take away from the creative impact of a piece just because of its pre-conceived genre? Am I going to be less entertained or moved by a well-known piece because it's been done countless times before? My answer is that I'll be entertained and moved if the piece is done well. If it isn't, I'll be disappointed. No matter what, though, it is still 'art' in my opinion, because there is an attempt at being creative within a given form. 
As far as audience numbers and response go, that's a stronger indication of business and marketing. If people really want to see theater, they'll see it regardless of what the piece is or what the critics say about it. But that's a small group of people for the most part. People are either uneducated about theater, can't afford ticket prices or they don't see theater as a viable enough art form to invest their time in. I personally don't feel we have a particularly strong theater culture; I think we're much more of a film culture but that's just my opinion. So getting butts in theatre seats could forever be a problem given those factors alone.
Businesswise, a theater company can be losing money and try to make some money by choosing to produce a mainstream show to get audiences, but it's still a gamble as to whether the strategy will succeed.  Sometimes people don't always want to see a Neil Simon play or the Sound of Music, but they are still artistic pieces open for exploration (and therefore it is still art).
Bottom line: If you perform a show and nobody comes to see it, you're still creating art since it will mean something to those performing it. You're just in danger of having a failing theater.

Ok, so my two bits turned into War and Peace. Just some thoughts:)

--Lantzelot       

[Keith Dahlgren]

Lantz, here's a joke:

What do you call performing a show in front of no audience?



A rehearsal.

I'm sorry, but the finished product is as important as the process.  What's the purpose of it all?  To create a piece?  And then what?  Why show it at all if there's no one to show it TO? Isn't the ultimate reason we do this (other than whatever selfish reasons you have for strutting your stuff) to try and communicate an idea of some sort?  To whom?  Creating theatre for no one isn't creating theatre. It's merely exercise.  You might as well go to the gym instead.

This is where it bleeds into business and marketing.  And I still reiterate my opinion that in order to succeed as ART. theatre has to succeed (to a point in some cases...there are no absolutes, probably even this one) as an organization.  So the Marketeers and Financers are as much a part of the creative team as the costume designers and the director. This particular art cannot exist in a vacuum.

And following that, in the successful artistic organization, the artistic part of the team MUST listen to the business part of the team, in order to keep the organization healthy, in order to keep an audience and to keep creating art.  It is certainly a legitimate question as to whether that includes compromising an artistic vision...but if a director wants a $100,000 show on a $10,000 budget, isn't he or she asking to compromise the financial vision?  If the artistic team ignores the financial team and continues to create art that doesn't pay the bills, isn't that compromising the whole artistic vision by destroying the company?

Okay, so I'm on a soapbox. At least I know it's not art, cuz no one's listening.

[Louise Penberthy]

Oh, I'm sorry, Keith, were you saying something?


 

A lot of art doesn't "pay the bills," if by pay the bills you mean support the theater through ticket sales alone.  It's ticket sales, and it's people who work for nothing or next to nothing, volunteers, supporters, even some grants.

I don't make money on most of the workshops I produce, in fact often I lose money.  But I can afford it (knock on wood), and I do it to help the community I'm a part of.

[Douglas Moening]

I did a play from a few years back that nobody saw (sigh) but I had a line in it that seems appropriate to the discussion...

"You put a piece of art out there Arthur, you don't get to decide what people think of it.  That's the way the game is played."

While acknowledging Keith's fiscal points, I must side with the belief that it is the process of creation that makes it ART.  If nobody sees it then it becomes obscure art. If people come to see it in large numbers, then it's considered a hit.  If they come in really large numbers and cause an extension of the run... well, then I guess you have a cash cow on your hands and maybe that allows you to do the other, perhaps less mainstream pieces that might help you feel more like the artist you want to be.

It's a difficult hump to get over sometimes and here I sit, years later, and I'm still bugged by the fact that we were so poorly attended.  We worked very hard on that show and I can't dismiss it as "nothing" simply because it was only seen by a handfull of ex-lovers and shirt-tail relatives.  It's still art to me.

[Maria Glanz]

There seems to me one little point worth making that I have not yet read...

I do believe that an audience is required for theatre to exist. If there's no audience, it's a rehearsal - and while that is a part of the art, it doesn't strike me as the whole deal.

The thing is - the audience doesn't have to be big. Or formally organized, for that matter. The act of witnessing can take place by one or two or four people. New City did several salon performances a few years back, and from what I heard they were most definitely art. I assume (maybe incorrectly) they didn't make a lot of money - but neither did they spend a lot. Someone acted out some fine words and some people came to watch them.

And that's what I think theatre is. Someone or someone(s) plural act out some words or actions or songs or movements, or just sit there on stage and think or something, and someone comes to watch. It doesn't have anything to do with whether tickets were purchased.

And I'm not speaking at all to the question of success, be it monetary or critical, or to the question of "good" or "bad" art for that matter - I just wanted to get at the simplicity of our actual art form.

My 2 cents at the end of a long Monday...

[Ken Holmes]

Excellent points Maria!  Just what I was trying to get to by making a distiction between art and business. Whether a show succeeds financially has no bearing on whether it is art.

But what Keith is saying about the business side being art... I have to disagree some more. A business-type deciding whether a play should or should not be produced based on it's potential success is not an artistic decision in the least. It's just running some numbers and taking a guess. Deciding to do a warhorse popular play because you know it will sell is not an artistic decision either. Marketing a show (while it could be argued to be an artistic endeavor) has as a sole purpose getting butts in seats. These things are not the production, nor do they have any real impact on the artistic merit or direction of the play. They are completely seperate from the work of the artist(s). And that is ok.

Smart artists have to understand that the business side of art is crucial to being successful. I heard a bit on KUOW today about Michelangelo, and how he thought only of sculpture as his ART. His paintings (which are obviously also great art) were something he did to literally survive.  "I cannot live under pressures from patrons, let alone paint."  In theater as well we have to do the tried and true art in order to survive to do the art we love.

The joke about performing a show with no audience being a rehearsal is cute, but has nothing to do with whether the performance/rehearsal is art. I would say it is. If an actor creates a beautiful moment all by him/her self in a closet, OR in front of a thousand people, it is still art.

[Lantz Wagner]

Amazing how the discussion heats up. I love it! And Doug looks so cute as a demon/goblin (smooch)

The toughest thing with this whole question of whether art is art if an audience sees it, is that you're asking art and business to merge--and that's like mixing fire and water. I deeply admire anyone who runs a theater and keeps it going strong fiscally, and picks the "right" plays and gets the audience in show after show. But all of this in my opinion stays in the realm of business, and like Ken said it's a game of chance and numbers.

Art, all by itself, doesn't exist for a need for profit. If that were the case, we would all be making boatloads of money as artists (sigh). You do it because you don't feel fulfilled doing anything else. And if it only affects the people doing it (either self-indulgent or not) and causes them to grow as artists, that's okay. If an audience sees it (whether they are large or not, or paid money or not) and is moved by what is created, that's the goods.

Yes, the success of theater and whether its doors can stay open is a collaborative process with everyone involved. I just don't think art (or its validity) is defined by whether it sells or if x amount of people see it, but rather if it causes you to think and feel something. Most people sell something people need like food or car tires, but actors sell the intangible product of emotion and that's hard to put a price on. 

Cheers, -L

[Rik Deskin]

Is a production successful on an artistic level if the ticket sales are lower than expected, or it loses money, or the theatre can't stay afloat?

In other words, if you create and perform a show, and nobody comes to see it, is it Art?

A production is successful artistically if your objective is artistic and through the process the theatre artist succeeds at interpreting the objective relative to the collaboration. Theatre is a collaborative art: between writers, directors, actors & designers. Ticket sales, losing money and keeping the theater afloat is business management.

"Disclaimer":This is going to sound harsh.

 Deep back in my first artistic endeavors, I worked at a "community theater". It was run by a clique of school teachers and misfits, that at the time as a punked-out twenty-something, I felt like there was no artistic intention happening. It was rehash produced by this group of self-important conservatives that wanted to relish in playing at being actors and directors. It was flat. Souless. Mainly because there was scripted art by the likes of Neil Simon, Alan Aykbourne, etc. being badly interpreted by wannabes. In the mix of all of this production, shows would sell-out or sell well. Some better than others. When I look back on it, there was art happening. For some of us. For myself. Though I had no training, I was cutting my teeth as an actor, growing as a performer and director and learning what I could through on the job training. As an artist I experienced personal growth and insight. And love. For the art of theatre.

In more recent years, I have experienced having 2 people in the audience for a play that had 8 cast members. Successful artistically? Yes. Financially. No. But again I gained from it in the experience and insight.

My point is that while the audience is an important component in the business of theatre, and can contribute to the art of theatre, the Art is happening from the moment the writer begins. And it is Art if you as the individual believes that it is. We as the artists create or interpret the work and it is up to the management to do everything they can to get people in to see it. Sometimes we may wear both artist and business hats and thereby feel the pain on both levels when seats are empty. That is not our fault unless we did not try. Even then, the honus is on our current society values.

When I was in high school, we had a 4-year theater program run by a theater department. Taught by an actual theater grad. This in a public school in Houston, Texas. Of course it was never considered as important as the sports programs, but there was enough community, faculty and student interest and support to sustain it. For the 50 or so students in the theater program, it was a no-brainer to go to the theater on a regular basis. Our teacher/director instilled this in us as a good habit. My 16 year-old son is working on a play at his high school that is happening because they have a drama club after school. Their director is a teacher on staff in the english department. They do not have a theater program, department or even a class that we know of.I even approached them last year with a proposal to restart a program that they had shut down for some reason. They do have a recently renovated large theater space. 

Meanwhile across the district is a high school that his girlfriend is performing in a musical at that has a combined middle school and high school program theater program. I don't have all of the statistics here but after visiting a high school in Seattle last week that has a student run drama club, I am deeply disturbed by the lack of funding and intitutional/community support for high school theater programs. Certainly we have extracurricular opportunities for students, but where are the drama electives in our high schools? Where are the trained theater professionals that are leading these programs? How can our art continue to survive and thrive when so many 21st century students (exceptions noted) don't have the good habit of integrating theatre as a component of their lives? Am I ranting? Maybe? Have you heard this before? Probably. 

[Keith Dahlgren]

Hurrah!  An actual discussion!  I was beginning to think that this sort of thing didn't exist anymore!  Come on! I can take you all on! With one hand tied behind my back!

And before anyone dismisses me as a money-grubbing Philistine I want to make it clear that I consider myself an artist, in the general sense.  I act, I direct, I write, I perform...as many of you can hold your nose and grudgingly attest.

But I so often see and hear the snobbishness of theatre artists (myself included) dismiss yet another production of The Sound of Music (shudder) or The Odd Couple, preferring to see something current and edgy or fringe and wild.  I hear critics complain that a theatre is 'pandering' to its audience by producing Driving Miss Daisy again, knowing all the Q-Tips will pack the house.  "We need to challenge our audiences!" I hear over and over. I agree, but we need to please them as well.

I'm one of those guys who has had to deal with a lot of audience members, a lot of subscribers, a lot of complaints (I could tell you some stories!  How can people get so pissed off about a theatre seat? I been Spat on, I tell you) and a lot of input. And I have come to a conclusion...many theatres and theateers exist in an insulated world (that vacuum I was talking about) where they don't know what their audience wants or likes.  Or they don't care. They're Artists!  They know about the Art! More than some old lady who actually buys tickets (or doesn't, as the case may be.) What does she know?!

I just want to put in a good word for our audiences.  And not just the friends, the ex-lovers, the shirt-tail relatives (God bless 'em, Doug) or even the small rotating Theatre community audience (we're all insured at least one audience member, or at least until Joe B. moves to Indiana.) I'm talking about the people who actually pay full price for a theatre ticket, doesn't have a sibling in the show, doesn't work in the Biz, just wants to see live theatre.  

Some of them actually *want* to see Maria singing about the lonely goatheard once in a while (shudder).  And some of them are surprised that they enjoyed the new piece they had never heard of.

So okay, I will grudgingly concede that our art practiced alone in a room is still Art, but I'm gonna still say that Doug's remark is right...it's obscure, and more importantly, useless art.  I want to give some credit to the Marketeers and Financials, and I think they would be insulted, Ken, to be told they are not part of the creative process.  Without them, we would have obscure, useless art.  Besides, most of them are dedicated to the theatre...they could (in many cases) be making much better money doing the same thing in the civilian world.

And again, if the Financials don't speak up and question Artistic choices, or the Audience isn't listened to (to whatever extent), or if the Marketeers aren't interested in the process, then the audience drops, and the income slows, and the debt stacks up, and the grants don't come in, and the theatre fails, and Poof! no more art.

It's not about profit, Lantz, or making a living.  It's my considered opinion that anyone who thinks they can make a living in this business (I'm speaking of Live Theatre specifically), they're nuts, bonkers, bats, ca-razy.  Or they really, really love Kraft Mac and Cheese, Top Ramen, and poor living conditions.  It's about insuring that theatre continues, a space continues in which to perform, an audience to be affected by our Art, in whatever form it takes.

Would you rather see a theatre perform The Sound of Music (shudder) once in a while so they can stay healthy?  Would you work in or support that organization? Or would you rather see a LORT level theatre fail because of no audience, poor choices, or bad management?  Is the choice to do The Sound of Music (this IS an extreme example, you know) a good artistic choice, or one at all, if it keeps the theatre alive?  Running a theatre IS part of the Art. Ken. Otherwise, you got nothin' and nowhere to do it.

Yow!  Haven't I got better things to do?