Theatre Design & Technology - Spring 2002 - 14

And the recession has brought some
troubling storm clouds on the horizon-many
theatres have cut budgets for the current year,
reduced or cut programming, and are rethinking what they can afford next year. In the wake
of September 11th and then the Enron scandal,
corporate, foundation and individual giving is
uncertain. With state governments around the
country in retrenchment over funding for education much less culture, we have good reason to
be anxious. Thomas Friedman, commentator for
The New York Times, may have best stated our
uneasiness when he predicted that the future
will be a time of "cultural Darwinism on steroids"-when cultural organizations must be
useful and adaptable or they will die away.
I don't know if you read the recent report
by the RAND coporation, funded by the Pew
Charitable Trusts. It suggests that there is a
growing trend among performing arts groups
that is troubling. The largest and the smallest
organizations are the most successful. The
largest organizations-based in urban centers
with large facilities, staffs and high visibility-
demand and receive substantial support-
both from ticket sales and contributions.

...we have to make the

best and most capable board members, and
are under-staffed and under-capitalized.
And yet, I don't really believe this pessimism about the state of theatre. From TCG Fiscal Surveys, I know that total attendance at live
professional theatre is up-markedly so in the
past two to three years. And many theatres reported a surge in their audiences within a few
weeks of the September 11th tragedy. People
need, yes, entertainment but also meaning and
connection. And the creation and production of
new plays-new work-continues to increase.
And, thank God, we have a new contract between LORT (essentially the seventy largest
not-for-profit theatres in the country) and the
United Scenic Artists-after a six-year gap.
At ASF I have felt the same pressures to
yield to popular entertainment-produce
what I think will sell to pay the bills, in order
to make the budget break even. There are often extremely good reasons for such an approach-mostly to protect the length and
number of jobs for our staff and company.
But, of course, I have found out that that
way madness lies. When we program simply
for popularity and ticket sales, we end up

theatre

the

"hot" place

to work - the place of imagination and

freedom
means

invention
compensation resources
and

According to the RAND Report, these organizations are increasingly driven by popular programming choices based around stars
or-another form of stars-lavish spectacle.
The smallest theatres have modest budgets,
rely upon a lot of volunteer or part-time workers, and fit into a niche market-such as a
theatre devoted to living playwrights or to cutting edge work. These theatres often produce
the next generation of artists, technicians,
craftspeople. But cannot and often don't want
to grow into mid-size or larger organizations.
RAND suggests that the mid-size, non-urban organizations are feeling serious threats.
They cannot afford to produce star- or spectacle-driven programming, and when they get
lured into trying, cannot always attract the necessary contributions. Often mid-size theatres
compete with larger arts organizations for the

- AND that

and

, too.

attracting an audience that only likes the populist
entertainment, and won't come back to the
Shakespeare. We further blur the boundaries between not-for-profit and commercial theatre.
If Thomas Friedman is correct-if the
next decade is a time of cultural Darwinism,
then I think our most critical tasks are threefold. First, we must exploit what makes the theatre unique-the fact that it's a live event, a
real-time interaction between audience and performers, and often crew. We need to enhance that
visceral connection between performer and audience. Decrease the psychological and perhaps
physical distance between them.
Secondly, we have to make the theatre the
"hot" place to work-the place of imagination
and freedom and invention; and that means
compensation and resources, too. This means
finding new sources of funding for salaries;

but I think it also means taking creative risks
with new forms of theatre. This in turn means
that we have to rely upon the designers, directors and playwrights who are remaking what
we think of as a play or a performance-moving beyond the linear narrative form of playmaking of the last few centuries (yes, that
includes Shakespeare) to something far more
associative, imaginative, intuitive, non-linear.
The kind of work I see in Mary Zimmerman or
Kate Whoriskey or Kia Corthron-and in the
incredible designers and technicians that help
them make it happen.
Third, we need to make our theatre a valued and integral part of our community. We
must be viewed as a necessary component in
the health of our community. That is best
achieved not through numerous educational
programs, presenting more popular work,
building larger edifices, but rather by embracing the mission of theatre as an artform-to
hold the mirror up to nature. In our case, that
encompasses Shakespeare and the South, but I
think the answer will be very different for each
and every theatre. Theatre is ephemeral-you
had to have been there on the night or you
missed it forever, but it's also profoundly local-in a place, if not always a building, in a
community. I would encourage each of you to
explore what your work means for your audience? What is the artistic expression of your
work that directly relates to the life of the community? What story on your stages matters
more because it is happening in this community at this moment.
For if we are to provoke recognition
when we hold the mirror up to nature, we
must make our theatre exciting, illuminating,
affecting, stimulating and relevant. It must matter when people come to the theatre, to our theatres to see something live. It must change their
lives and the way they perceive their lives.
If we can keep that connection to community, that relevance to the human condition,
that palpable electricity of a live performance,
theatre will not dwindle in the twenty-first century-it will thrive.
Have a wonderful conference. And thank
you for your time and consideration. ❖

Kent Thompson, the keynote speaker for
the 2002 USITT conference in New Orleans
and also recipient of the 2002 Thomas
DeGaetani Award, is artistic director of
the Alabama Shakespeare Festival.
TD & T

S P R I N G

2 0 0 2

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Spring 2002