Dougherty Arts Center
Those Who Work in Theatre Should Get Paid
RECEIVED Mon., March 2, 2009
Dear Editor,
In her recent letter to the editor (“Postmarks,” Feb. 27), Andreá Smith rightly points out that artists are undervalued by our communities and governmental entities and that more collaboration is needed within our local theatre scene. Yet she also insinuates that artists should be willing, for the sake of art, to make do without remuneration for their efforts.
Certainly, no one goes into drama to make a ton of cash, and the vast majority of theatre artists have surrendered their dreams of turning stagecraft into a full-time profession. However, I would argue that actors, directors, and designers devalue their own work whenever they choose to forgo any semblance of payment. Why should the government give any money to the theatre when theatre artists have consistently shown that they are willing to work for less and less and less? We typically expect film crewmen and musicians to receive compensation – however slight – for their labor, so why are theatre artists treated differently? And if we completely remove payment from the equation, should we not refrain from calling work in the theatre a craft and henceforth refer to it as a hobby?
In its recent cover story on the Austin theatre scene [“Rocketing Through Hard Times,” Arts, Feb. 20], the Chronicle documented three success stories. One has steadily produced solid theatre over a number of years, another crafts productions unlike anything else in town, and the last found success with two recognized works featuring small casts. The road to success has many avenues, and innovation is often the spark that lights the way. We should continue to celebrate theatre in its many forms. But we should also consider recompense to designers, cast, and crew as a segment of the cost of doing business – even when that business is art.
In her recent letter to the editor (“Postmarks,” Feb. 27), Andreá Smith rightly points out that artists are undervalued by our communities and governmental entities and that more collaboration is needed within our local theatre scene. Yet she also insinuates that artists should be willing, for the sake of art, to make do without remuneration for their efforts.
Certainly, no one goes into drama to make a ton of cash, and the vast majority of theatre artists have surrendered their dreams of turning stagecraft into a full-time profession. However, I would argue that actors, directors, and designers devalue their own work whenever they choose to forgo any semblance of payment. Why should the government give any money to the theatre when theatre artists have consistently shown that they are willing to work for less and less and less? We typically expect film crewmen and musicians to receive compensation – however slight – for their labor, so why are theatre artists treated differently? And if we completely remove payment from the equation, should we not refrain from calling work in the theatre a craft and henceforth refer to it as a hobby?
In its recent cover story on the Austin theatre scene [“Rocketing Through Hard Times,” Arts, Feb. 20], the Chronicle documented three success stories. One has steadily produced solid theatre over a number of years, another crafts productions unlike anything else in town, and the last found success with two recognized works featuring small casts. The road to success has many avenues, and innovation is often the spark that lights the way. We should continue to celebrate theatre in its many forms. But we should also consider recompense to designers, cast, and crew as a segment of the cost of doing business – even when that business is art.
Scott Daigle
