Bullock Texas State History Museum
A More Collaborative Attitude Would Be Good for the Theatre Community
RECEIVED Wed., Feb. 25, 2009
Dear Editor,
While I agree with much of what Mr. Daigle writes [“Postmarks,” Feb. 20] regarding paying artists for their work, I violently disagree with the notion that "There are too many theatre companies producing mediocre work, thereby scaring off potential long-term patrons. A purge, followed by a better consolidation of talents and effort, would improve the health and viability of the scene."
Not only is that an elitist point of view; it’s flat wrong. To say you are an artist and in the same breath call for a "purge" within the artistic community is counterproductive in its reasoning. The incredible gift of art comes from its subjectivity, whether one is paid or it’s done for free. Why is it necessary to “purge” artists within this community so a select few receive the funding and recognition they feel they deserve?
We are all suffering financial disappointments, but art in any variety is already viewed as dispensable by communities, school districts, and even our local, state, and national governments. One look at government funding for the arts (abysmal) and the number of fine-arts teachers out of work (reprehensible) illustrates how art and artists are already vastly undervalued.
I serve on a committee which affords me the opportunity to see all Austin theatre has to offer, from large Equity houses with million-dollar budgets to tiny theatre companies skimming by on a shoestring, and I can tell you: Good work is good work, regardless of how much money is invested. Money, marketing capability, and reputation do not necessarily a good production make.
I agree the Austin arts community is splintered, and I believe a more collaborative effort should permeate the theatre scene. I believe the intent of Karen Sneed’s initial letter [“Postmarks,” Feb. 13] was to foster a more collaborative attitude within Austin theatre, which, quite obviously, is needed.
While I agree with much of what Mr. Daigle writes [“Postmarks,” Feb. 20] regarding paying artists for their work, I violently disagree with the notion that "There are too many theatre companies producing mediocre work, thereby scaring off potential long-term patrons. A purge, followed by a better consolidation of talents and effort, would improve the health and viability of the scene."
Not only is that an elitist point of view; it’s flat wrong. To say you are an artist and in the same breath call for a "purge" within the artistic community is counterproductive in its reasoning. The incredible gift of art comes from its subjectivity, whether one is paid or it’s done for free. Why is it necessary to “purge” artists within this community so a select few receive the funding and recognition they feel they deserve?
We are all suffering financial disappointments, but art in any variety is already viewed as dispensable by communities, school districts, and even our local, state, and national governments. One look at government funding for the arts (abysmal) and the number of fine-arts teachers out of work (reprehensible) illustrates how art and artists are already vastly undervalued.
I serve on a committee which affords me the opportunity to see all Austin theatre has to offer, from large Equity houses with million-dollar budgets to tiny theatre companies skimming by on a shoestring, and I can tell you: Good work is good work, regardless of how much money is invested. Money, marketing capability, and reputation do not necessarily a good production make.
I agree the Austin arts community is splintered, and I believe a more collaborative effort should permeate the theatre scene. I believe the intent of Karen Sneed’s initial letter [“Postmarks,” Feb. 13] was to foster a more collaborative attitude within Austin theatre, which, quite obviously, is needed.
Andreá Smith
