Jonathan Berry in The State of Chicago
There is a new facebook page which everyone must add to their friends, or like, or whatever. It's called "The State of Chicago" and it is, "about building and strengthening the Chicago community in the areas of entrepreneurship, the arts, poverty, and education." http://www.facebook.com/StateOfChicago
Chicago theater director Jonathan Berry posted this the other day:
"Having worked in Chicago as a theater artist for 15 years, I feel like the community and the work that is being presented is second to none in the states. While New York certainly has more financial opportunity, I believe the quality of the work here, in particular the quality of the acting, is to my taste more consistently high.
And, what's more, the gap between store front and the major equit
Chicago theater director Jonathan Berry posted this the other day:
"Having worked in Chicago as a theater artist for 15 years, I feel like the community and the work that is being presented is second to none in the states. While New York certainly has more financial opportunity, I believe the quality of the work here, in particular the quality of the acting, is to my taste more consistently high.
And, what's more, the gap between store front and the major equit
y houses feels primarily financial. You can see a brilliantly staged and acted work in a small basement just as easily as you can by going downtown and buying a more high-priced ticket for one of the major institutions. I think, a lot of that comes, sadly, from the wage disparity. It's very hard for anyone, but actors in particular, to make a living in Chicago, particularly in the store front scene. Directing and design fees rarely go beyond $1,000 for six weeks of work, and actors are consistently the last people to receive remuneration for their work, despite their extended presence in the process.
This lack of ability to make a living at the work has, in some ways, created a more hearty culture, where it is truly only the most passionate, the most driven, those doing it the most out of love that stick with it and achieve success. And I believe you feel that vitality in the work. It also promotes within the community more mutual support and less anti-productive competition. There is a level of support that is conducive to better work, as it becomes less about the financial ends and more about the actual artistic work at hand.
There is in the Chicago theater scene room for risk. Because the financial stakes are lower than they are in New York, a company has the ability to be braver and bolder in its artistic choices without the risk of alienating the public. It's exciting to see when the more established institutions, which are beholden a bit more to keeping their subscribers happy, are willing to take a brave artistic risk. For my taste, it doesn't happen enough but there are certainly some exciting examples of how an established institution can use its position to support new, or daring, or innovative work that ends up being rewarding for the artists, the audience, and the institution itself.
In terms of the amount of work that the community produces, we are certainly thriving. There is, at any one moment, upwards of 20 to 30 theatrical productions being mounted by a wide range of companies. There is diversity in the work and a high level of production quality that you can count on. If there is a drawback to this, I'd say that the theatrical market can, at times, feel a bit saturated; the number of consistent theater goers in the city of Chicago is a relatively finite number, and at times the competition for their attention is too great and many excellent shows cannot find an audience due to lack of advertising or the damaging power of a single review.
But the work itself remains strong and the number of thrilling performances is often too many for me to see. I feel I am constantly regretting having missed an opportunity to see a show that I truly wanted to see, because I had to see something else. That is, I suppose, a good problem for a city to have.
As to what I think could be improved, I'd say the biggest problem that we have is the ability for the community to grow and cultivate its artists. There is a divide between the more established equity houses and the store front community that is, I think, unhealthy. There is very little upward mobility possible for directors or designers, as there are so few opportunities that can actually pay a living wage, that the people who have those jobs generally hang on to them.
I think this causes a two-fold problem. First, you are losing the talent of young artists who have strong potential who eventually either give up the work or seek out another city (either New York or Los Angeles, generally) where they can receive adequate compensation for their labors.
And second, the work that is being presented at some of the major institutions is being presented by aging artists who are not producing work that speaks to a new generation of theatergoers. There is a constant cry from large institutions about how to reach a younger audience, but then the playwrights and directors and designers that are being presented on their stages are all middle-aged and above. How can you expect to produce art that is speaking to a younger generation, when the artists aren't a part of that generation?
Chicago needs to become better at opening up the two theatrical markets – the equity houses and the store fronts – so that artists can move more freely between the two venues. Large institutions with the financial wherewithal need to nurture and support and provide opportunity, on a large scale to the younger up-and-coming artists who have proven themselves. And older, more established actors and directors and designers need to be able to go back into the small, low-budget work that gave most of them their start. I think that both the large and small organizations would benefit from the exchange and the work in the community would become more rich, with the young institutions and artists gaining the wisdom of experience, and the older institutions gaining the fresh and exciting vitality of the next generation.
Related to this, I think that larger institutions need to be judicious about giving away prime opportunities to non-Chicago based artists. We continue to be plagued by the “second city” status, and seem to give opportunities to New York-based directors, designers, and actors in order to appear more legitimate on the national stage. I would argue that very rarely have I seen work from one of these visiting artists that a Chicago-based artist couldn't do as well or better.
The New York community very rarely reaches outside itself to fill an artistic position, and until that exchange becomes more equitable, I believe strongly that we should support and nurture our own artists. We are, theatrically speaking, second to none and while I don't want to be isolated from the rest of the country, I'd like for our hiring practices to better reflect that so that our community can continue to grow and become even stronger."
-- Jonathan Berry, theater director
This lack of ability to make a living at the work has, in some ways, created a more hearty culture, where it is truly only the most passionate, the most driven, those doing it the most out of love that stick with it and achieve success. And I believe you feel that vitality in the work. It also promotes within the community more mutual support and less anti-productive competition. There is a level of support that is conducive to better work, as it becomes less about the financial ends and more about the actual artistic work at hand.
There is in the Chicago theater scene room for risk. Because the financial stakes are lower than they are in New York, a company has the ability to be braver and bolder in its artistic choices without the risk of alienating the public. It's exciting to see when the more established institutions, which are beholden a bit more to keeping their subscribers happy, are willing to take a brave artistic risk. For my taste, it doesn't happen enough but there are certainly some exciting examples of how an established institution can use its position to support new, or daring, or innovative work that ends up being rewarding for the artists, the audience, and the institution itself.
In terms of the amount of work that the community produces, we are certainly thriving. There is, at any one moment, upwards of 20 to 30 theatrical productions being mounted by a wide range of companies. There is diversity in the work and a high level of production quality that you can count on. If there is a drawback to this, I'd say that the theatrical market can, at times, feel a bit saturated; the number of consistent theater goers in the city of Chicago is a relatively finite number, and at times the competition for their attention is too great and many excellent shows cannot find an audience due to lack of advertising or the damaging power of a single review.
But the work itself remains strong and the number of thrilling performances is often too many for me to see. I feel I am constantly regretting having missed an opportunity to see a show that I truly wanted to see, because I had to see something else. That is, I suppose, a good problem for a city to have.
As to what I think could be improved, I'd say the biggest problem that we have is the ability for the community to grow and cultivate its artists. There is a divide between the more established equity houses and the store front community that is, I think, unhealthy. There is very little upward mobility possible for directors or designers, as there are so few opportunities that can actually pay a living wage, that the people who have those jobs generally hang on to them.
I think this causes a two-fold problem. First, you are losing the talent of young artists who have strong potential who eventually either give up the work or seek out another city (either New York or Los Angeles, generally) where they can receive adequate compensation for their labors.
And second, the work that is being presented at some of the major institutions is being presented by aging artists who are not producing work that speaks to a new generation of theatergoers. There is a constant cry from large institutions about how to reach a younger audience, but then the playwrights and directors and designers that are being presented on their stages are all middle-aged and above. How can you expect to produce art that is speaking to a younger generation, when the artists aren't a part of that generation?
Chicago needs to become better at opening up the two theatrical markets – the equity houses and the store fronts – so that artists can move more freely between the two venues. Large institutions with the financial wherewithal need to nurture and support and provide opportunity, on a large scale to the younger up-and-coming artists who have proven themselves. And older, more established actors and directors and designers need to be able to go back into the small, low-budget work that gave most of them their start. I think that both the large and small organizations would benefit from the exchange and the work in the community would become more rich, with the young institutions and artists gaining the wisdom of experience, and the older institutions gaining the fresh and exciting vitality of the next generation.
Related to this, I think that larger institutions need to be judicious about giving away prime opportunities to non-Chicago based artists. We continue to be plagued by the “second city” status, and seem to give opportunities to New York-based directors, designers, and actors in order to appear more legitimate on the national stage. I would argue that very rarely have I seen work from one of these visiting artists that a Chicago-based artist couldn't do as well or better.
The New York community very rarely reaches outside itself to fill an artistic position, and until that exchange becomes more equitable, I believe strongly that we should support and nurture our own artists. We are, theatrically speaking, second to none and while I don't want to be isolated from the rest of the country, I'd like for our hiring practices to better reflect that so that our community can continue to grow and become even stronger."
-- Jonathan Berry, theater director
Comments
Post a Comment