It was a big building around 2nd ave and 23rd st. Empty. Some construction permits on the boarded up windows. Peeked inside through a tiny crack in one of the boards. Big empty space inside. Graffiti. High ceilings.
I actually tracked down the owner. He didn't really want to talk to me at all. Said they were turning it into apartments.
Would have been a good space for a theatre.
But the weird thing was that it wasn't the empty unused space that caught my attention.
It was a big engraving on the side of the building that caught my attention.
"A House of Prayer for all People"
Of course my religious upbringing responded to this.
But beyond that resonance, what a beautiful sentiment. A place where everyone could come and pray.
The building used to be a synagogue, turns out they moved downtown about 6 blocks to a new facility.
What I liked most about that verse was that it didn't mention God or a specific religion. Rather it was religiously unspecific completely except that it was specifically open and welcome to all.
That's what made me take a close look at that building. That idea. A holy place for everyone.
I've always been partial to churches converted into theaters.
SO.....
That's part why the idea of making theatre accessible to everyone is so important to me.
Unlike movies, music, and fine art, theater just doesn't have the same level of access to everyone.
Movies can be rented for far insanely cheap prices these days, downloaded for even less, and checked out from the public library. There are free screenings and plenty of cable and non-cable channels on TV that show recent movies. Fine art is seen not just in public museums, but in photographs, prints, re-prints, and shows open to the public. And even online in virtual tours.
Music is virtually free online or at the very least economically accessible to nearly everyone.
These art forms are vastly more accessible to more people in every way to theater.
As I said two posts ago, I lamented all of this to Dan in MY AWESOME CONVERSATION WITH DAN KITROSSER (all caps used again to indicate the high level of awesomeness), and I said I was afraid that this fact was going to further weaken theatre or turn it into another pastime for the rich and upper middle class.
That's Dan brought up an idea so simple and obvious it dropped my jaw.
Pay What You Want.
His friend Rebecca Wallace-Segall runs a writing lab for young writers. They operate on a sliding pay scale that operates on the honor system. It works.
Fast forward through 3 days of furious internet research by yours truly, and now I believe that this is direction that things are headed.
I think that this is a big key to making theatre accessible.
It's not the whole solution, and it's a non-profit solution in many ways--this model doesn't work for expensive products, like Broadway shows--but I think it's part of what I want to do.
Again, just like doing non-proscenium theater, it's not new. It's being done in a lot of places, in theaters and in other business (even regular for profit business) and it's making money. In fact it's helping people make more money than they were. In the restaurant business it's actually proving to be an effective way to expand and improve profits.
People respond to the fairness of it. While the average price paid goes down a little bit, the amount of people buying goes way up. And no one wants to be the asshole who doesn't pay what it's worth.
Would this work for theater that costs a lot to produce? No.
But can this work for theater with non-extraordinary costs? Theater that doesn't rely on spectacle or big salary film/tv stars to succeed?
I think so.
This only part of making theater accessible to everyone.
It also requires actually reaching out to non-typical audience members.
It also means artistically creating art that is not just an inside joke for the in-crowd.
It means that we must hold ourselves again to the idea that people must connect to and experience what we are trying to communicate.
Last night I was talking to my good friend Alex Smith in LA--by the way Pay What You Want is being done more and more by theaters on the west coast--He reminded me that everything I am saying now was said by Brook, Grotowski, and countless others in the 60's and earlier. They too decried competing with film and tv. They created experiences.
I think what I am talking about is a convergence of all these qualities.
I want to take what works--what is effective--from experimental theater and use it to empower more traditional--more accessible--theater to become something new and wonderful.
Not new in its individual parts, but new in the convergence of these qualities.
Some questions I'd like to pose:
What's the difference between a grand scale Opera, a Las Vegas Show, the Circus and so called "real" theater?
Who is theater produced for?
Why does theater cost so much?
Is that cost fixed?
Since Broadway makes and loses millions of dollars in a high risk environment, and it succeeds most often with big spectacles, broad comedies, and star vehicles, why should we expect it to change?
Here's a final question that pertains to the basis of the Pay What You Want model:
If we want audiences to entrust us with 2 hours of their time, a chunk of their hard earned money, their respectful patronage, their focus and interest in what we're doing--why shouldn't we trust them to do right by us?
We ask that they give us money, the results of their best efforts as workers, in exchange for the results of our best efforts as artists. What are we afraid of? That they won't appreciate it for what it costs? That they won't value it as it should be valued? That they won't appreciate the so-called "higher" nature of our art?
Well why would that happen?
Is that because our values are better than theirs?
(get ready for the cheesy metaphor moment)
Our "gods" and our "religions" are better then theirs? Our "people" are "better"--more educated, refined, aware--then those people that would not appreciate our art fully?
Why can't we trust them in the way that we ask them to trust us?
This idea must be right, because it scares the hell out of me. And it makes me absolutely giddy with hope and fear.
But it relies on trust, community, accessibility, and an equal understanding and exchange of value between artists and their audience.
It cuts right to the heart of what is different about non-profit and for profit theater.
It relies on the same idea that a church, a synagogue, or a temple would.
A temple for everyone to pray at.
Cue the inspirational quote.
"And I've come to meet the legendary takers
I've only come to ask them for a lot
Oh they say I come with less
Than I should rightfully possess
I say the more I buy the more I am bought
And the more I'm bought the less I cost"
Joe Pug, HYMN #101
Posts
One thing that we can't throw out the window with all of this is professionalism. And so, as the risk goes up because the ticket price has gone down, we have to make sure we are doing theatre that is more than accessable, but is wanted--if nothing else, than to sustain an environment where people are being compensated.
ReplyDeletenow it's hard to predict what kind of piece will be a hit--and it's even harder to assess whether or not a hit is a worthwhile project--but I think one of the more provocative things you've said has been about the 'in-crowd' of the theatre world. We need to shake that up, break it apart, otherwise, the in-crowd is going to be very VERY small.
peace
Absolutely right Dan. Can't feel like a charity or amatuer hour. This is a professional venture, through and through. I think profit sharing--like a royalty pool--is similar to how it needs to work. People work for a percentage of the net profit. We may need to set some floors and ceilings on how that works though. Lot's of details to iron out.
ReplyDelete