On Closing Theatres
Our company recently closed a theatre same in Manhattan. Within the same year we are also informed that a public space we also used to perform in - an urban space which we converted to a theatre during the summer in the evenings - would no longer be available to our company
to present productions to the public.
It was a disappointing year but the disappointments were not unexpected. Our company was warned in both cases that the end was nigh, as one would warn a renter in your apartment that you are going to sell and they needed to find somewhere else to live. Just how it goes.
Of course the problem for the company is that we had invested specifically in this area - these communities. Arguably the presence of the theatre activity in both areas was positive for both areas. Common American story: the theatre was present during the less than boom times and now that were were moving into boom times the theatre was a casualty of higher rents and development. The theatre had not been able to keep pace.
So the theatre is kicked to the side while higher financial return activity moves in.
So why are we not reaching out to theatre organizations we are displacing and seeing what we can do to find a new home for them? Why are theatre expected to grow roots in a community, connect with a community and then not engender the community support when they decide to move along?
How should art support itself? By dollars the audience brings in at the box office, by dollars every citizen is contributing in taxes, by dollars that corporations contribute for tax write-offs and exposure of their identities or from dollars accrued from philanthropic do-gooders who have a belief in the artists vision and mission and feel their wealth best represented in returning culture back to the community?
Of course the answer is all of the above, but in the answer there is also the question of which is a priori for every organization. Thus we have created in our country a strain between the production of art and the organization of art and artists, and we have a great strain in the conversation of how much, how often and why artists should be paid.
At the root of all of these conversations is how artists should be paid as professionals. Who determines what or who is professional? Is a professional an employee? Do professional artists carry their own tools?
When we began our journey at our former space we were a small group of aspiring artists with some - we believed at the time - clever ideas and some passion for discovering good theatre writing where we could find it.
We needed space to perform.
We needed space to rehearse.
We needed some money for props.
We needed some money for some simple sets.
We created theatre on very low budgets because we had not begun sharing it with the world,
cultivating major press, and creating circumstances where artists could make a semblance of a living. We have grown up as a company in a space in one of the most prosperous zip codes in the United States (we make everyone's Top 100).
So why is there no outrage in such a community over closing a theatre? Why is there not a gross roots campaign with several prominent community leaders seeking a new home for this stalwart artistic venture that has made a go of it for almost 25 years?
The story behind the theatre itself is much sadder underneath that the cover would suggest. The theatre was actually initiated by an artists of some accomplishment who thought is worthy to begin a theatre. His dreams were the dreams of most artists: he believed the artists he was most closely associated with would do fine work at the theatre, gain greater recognition and subsequently have a home for their endeavors. Along the way he realized that "teaching art" was the accepted alternative for artists between engagements to make a living and he began a lucrative teaching career from the space and venue as many before and after have done.
Additionally he found the the capitalist recipe for continuing art in America - fund it with the overflow from a more commercial business. In this case it was a bar/comedy club, able to generate revenuer the bar/club activity to pay market rental rates so the theatre could do experimental work without the pressure of paying the rent.
In this case "experimental" work was primarily defined as doing plays by playwrights who were not already famous with actors who are not already famous.
He and his wife had a family and raised a son.
The son grew in wisdom, as they say, matriculated at one of the finest liberal arts colleges in the country and aged to transform his upbringing in this creative atmosphere to a career in technology with a rising tech giant.
The founder formed a partnership with another artist to manage and continue the artistic output of the space. They began international touring, and had recognition for some off-Broadway production.
The relationship above described endured for approximately fifteen years. During which time smaller companies like our own , with large dreams , came along and began occupying the theatre spaces for rental costs that were for the time very reasonable . The rent would remain reasonable throughout the life of the theatre. The artists felt some commitment to that.
Finally the bar/club activity expanded and needed more room. The managing artist could no longer be accommodated. He moved on and our company began the management of the theatre venue where they had left off.
We found a theatre venue with no vision for the future and how it would continue with the rising fortunes of the community. We were convinced if we were successful the community would see the vision and support the activity of the theatre.
This vision was , obviously simple and naive, and so six years later when we found ourselves making our bags after considerable success , while sad , it could not be described as surprising. It was in fact so unsurprising that it barely merited mentioning in the news that this theatre of almost thirty years was closing on the Upper West Side.
Here was the tragedy: the theatre closed because the founder converted the the theatre back into an apartment for his son (the one he raised) , daughter-in-law and , granddaughter to live in. They could not find a larger three bedroom apartment on the Upper West Side they deemed as affordable and the founder/artist/ now landlord and father had promised his only son that if he ever wanted the space he could have it and now the landlord (previously know in this article as founder) of the the theatre venue, who had begun with that simple, yet clear dream, who had built such a fantastic venue that served the community in so many ways had - in his own mind - no other option but to make the best financial use of the space for his family and cash in on the tremendous value the space now had to the three person family.
It's a tragic story because his daughter-in-law worked for one of the most powerful Wall Street companies in the city, in a high level position and his son - raised in the artistic household and now progressing with the successful tech giant were part of the "struggling" middle class of New York - struggling with six figure incomes from prominent employers. It's a story of a New York family who became very wealthy from a good investment an artist made when the city was on the skids but as the investment matured there was no longer value in returning that investment to future art.
Was the family generous over the years in having the space remain a theatre at reasonable rates. Tremendously. But what was done to see that it would continue for the long term? How did the community that welcome the art reach out to the artist who continued there year after year to formulate a plan that the space could continue?
Plans were never made.
So plans could not succeed.
Our company recently closed a theatre same in Manhattan. Within the same year we are also informed that a public space we also used to perform in - an urban space which we converted to a theatre during the summer in the evenings - would no longer be available to our company
to present productions to the public.
It was a disappointing year but the disappointments were not unexpected. Our company was warned in both cases that the end was nigh, as one would warn a renter in your apartment that you are going to sell and they needed to find somewhere else to live. Just how it goes.
Of course the problem for the company is that we had invested specifically in this area - these communities. Arguably the presence of the theatre activity in both areas was positive for both areas. Common American story: the theatre was present during the less than boom times and now that were were moving into boom times the theatre was a casualty of higher rents and development. The theatre had not been able to keep pace.
So the theatre is kicked to the side while higher financial return activity moves in.
So why are we not reaching out to theatre organizations we are displacing and seeing what we can do to find a new home for them? Why are theatre expected to grow roots in a community, connect with a community and then not engender the community support when they decide to move along?
How should art support itself? By dollars the audience brings in at the box office, by dollars every citizen is contributing in taxes, by dollars that corporations contribute for tax write-offs and exposure of their identities or from dollars accrued from philanthropic do-gooders who have a belief in the artists vision and mission and feel their wealth best represented in returning culture back to the community?
Of course the answer is all of the above, but in the answer there is also the question of which is a priori for every organization. Thus we have created in our country a strain between the production of art and the organization of art and artists, and we have a great strain in the conversation of how much, how often and why artists should be paid.
At the root of all of these conversations is how artists should be paid as professionals. Who determines what or who is professional? Is a professional an employee? Do professional artists carry their own tools?
When we began our journey at our former space we were a small group of aspiring artists with some - we believed at the time - clever ideas and some passion for discovering good theatre writing where we could find it.
We needed space to perform.
We needed space to rehearse.
We needed some money for props.
We needed some money for some simple sets.
We created theatre on very low budgets because we had not begun sharing it with the world,
cultivating major press, and creating circumstances where artists could make a semblance of a living. We have grown up as a company in a space in one of the most prosperous zip codes in the United States (we make everyone's Top 100).
So why is there no outrage in such a community over closing a theatre? Why is there not a gross roots campaign with several prominent community leaders seeking a new home for this stalwart artistic venture that has made a go of it for almost 25 years?
The story behind the theatre itself is much sadder underneath that the cover would suggest. The theatre was actually initiated by an artists of some accomplishment who thought is worthy to begin a theatre. His dreams were the dreams of most artists: he believed the artists he was most closely associated with would do fine work at the theatre, gain greater recognition and subsequently have a home for their endeavors. Along the way he realized that "teaching art" was the accepted alternative for artists between engagements to make a living and he began a lucrative teaching career from the space and venue as many before and after have done.
Additionally he found the the capitalist recipe for continuing art in America - fund it with the overflow from a more commercial business. In this case it was a bar/comedy club, able to generate revenuer the bar/club activity to pay market rental rates so the theatre could do experimental work without the pressure of paying the rent.
In this case "experimental" work was primarily defined as doing plays by playwrights who were not already famous with actors who are not already famous.
He and his wife had a family and raised a son.
The son grew in wisdom, as they say, matriculated at one of the finest liberal arts colleges in the country and aged to transform his upbringing in this creative atmosphere to a career in technology with a rising tech giant.
The founder formed a partnership with another artist to manage and continue the artistic output of the space. They began international touring, and had recognition for some off-Broadway production.
The relationship above described endured for approximately fifteen years. During which time smaller companies like our own , with large dreams , came along and began occupying the theatre spaces for rental costs that were for the time very reasonable . The rent would remain reasonable throughout the life of the theatre. The artists felt some commitment to that.
Finally the bar/club activity expanded and needed more room. The managing artist could no longer be accommodated. He moved on and our company began the management of the theatre venue where they had left off.
We found a theatre venue with no vision for the future and how it would continue with the rising fortunes of the community. We were convinced if we were successful the community would see the vision and support the activity of the theatre.
This vision was , obviously simple and naive, and so six years later when we found ourselves making our bags after considerable success , while sad , it could not be described as surprising. It was in fact so unsurprising that it barely merited mentioning in the news that this theatre of almost thirty years was closing on the Upper West Side.
Here was the tragedy: the theatre closed because the founder converted the the theatre back into an apartment for his son (the one he raised) , daughter-in-law and , granddaughter to live in. They could not find a larger three bedroom apartment on the Upper West Side they deemed as affordable and the founder/artist/ now landlord and father had promised his only son that if he ever wanted the space he could have it and now the landlord (previously know in this article as founder) of the the theatre venue, who had begun with that simple, yet clear dream, who had built such a fantastic venue that served the community in so many ways had - in his own mind - no other option but to make the best financial use of the space for his family and cash in on the tremendous value the space now had to the three person family.
It's a tragic story because his daughter-in-law worked for one of the most powerful Wall Street companies in the city, in a high level position and his son - raised in the artistic household and now progressing with the successful tech giant were part of the "struggling" middle class of New York - struggling with six figure incomes from prominent employers. It's a story of a New York family who became very wealthy from a good investment an artist made when the city was on the skids but as the investment matured there was no longer value in returning that investment to future art.
Was the family generous over the years in having the space remain a theatre at reasonable rates. Tremendously. But what was done to see that it would continue for the long term? How did the community that welcome the art reach out to the artist who continued there year after year to formulate a plan that the space could continue?
Plans were never made.
So plans could not succeed.
posted by Unknown at 7:29 AM
0 comments
