State of the Arts

The Talk

by

Drew McManus at Adaptistration links to an article on The Partial Observer today on a familiar topic which author Holly Mulcahy terms, “The Talk.” You know, the one that goes “When a young man or woman grows up and falls in love with the arts, their thoughts turn to making a career of it. They impulsively jump into a passionate embrace with family, friends and faculty whispering sweet words of encouragement in their ears. They throw themselves into their art without reservation and without thought of cultivating alternative skills. But an arts career is a lot of responsibility and takes commitment and not the subject of a mere fling or dalliance. Even so, those who invest a lot of time and effort don’t always succeed.”

Mulcahy observes that most young artists aren’t given this warning during their studies even if they are too optimistic about their talent to believe they might fail.

I have seen some evidence that students are receiving warnings about job prospects from their professors and teacher more frequently of late. Tom Loughlin who teaches theatre at the State University of NY-Fredonia recently posted a survey of graduates of his program on his blog, A Poor Player. While the survey was not completely scientific and only applies to the graduates of the SUNY-Fredonia program, the 80 responses he received show enough of a trend to be sobering.

When asked how much of their income over the past year was derived from working on a entertainment related project, 30.6% said zero percent and 30.6% said one hundred percent. The rest fell in between. Although all told, 54% of the respondents made between 0% and 25% of their income so the results skewed fairly low. Working in the industry is a veritable all or nothing prospect. Half the respondents graduated between 1990 and 2000 so they have had some time to work on establishing themselves.

The following is excerpted from the conclusions of his survey. (DTD=Dept. of Theatre and Dance)

Technicians and administrators have the highest probability of earning any money in the business. Because the probabilities which follow combine the data for all types of entertainment/arts employment, it can be safely assumed that all the probabilities following are lower for performers….

…• There is about a 33% probability, or about a 1 in 3 chance, that a DTD graduate will make as much as 50% of their income from the business in any one year. All other income will come from “day jobs.”

• There is a 31% probability, or slightly less than 1 in 3 chance, that a DTD graduate will earn no money at all in the entertainment business in any one year (and thus drop out), and a 47% probability (roughly 50-50 chance) that a DTD graduate will make no money at all in live theatre after graduation in any one
year…

…• There is no direct correlation between membership in a union and earning significant income among DTD graduates. 2 out of 3 DTD graduates will not be successful in joining a union, and given the reality of multiple memberships those odds may be slightly higher.

• The probability of earning a salary which exceeds $50K in any one year in the arts/entertainment field for a DTD graduate is slightly better than 1 in 3, or 36.5%. [N.B. I suspect this statistic might be better stated as applying to only those graduates who are working in the field.]

In conclusion, the statistics seem to bear out the reality that full-time undergraduate students who major in theatre are, in all probability, preparing themselves for, at best, a part-time career. They will have to face the reality that, most likely, in any one given year they will make two-thirds of their income from a source outside the arts/entertainment field… They should enter the field with an intelligent combination of aspirations and practical planning, and with an understanding that all their hard work and preparation will be for a part-time career.

As always, your experience and mileage may vary according to your degree, experience and network of contacts. Actually, these statistics should motivate people to develop an extensive network of contacts. Having a wide network of people who think highly of your work becomes increasingly important the tougher it is to find meaningful paid work.

Succession Expectations

by

The cultivation of young, emerging arts leaders is a topic of growing importance these days. Two weeks ago, Andrew Taylor quoted as speech by Ben Cameron of the Doris Duke Foundation in which Cameron noted

“….expectations from young people around higher compensation, shorter hours, in essence less patience for the sacrificed lives of dignity and the financial masochism that were the givens for so many in my own generation — this conversation brought to my ears, at least, a new strand: the unwillingness of emerging leaders to be mere custodians of organizations they inherit.

“There are plenty of us eager to give ourselves to the arts.” they said, “But unless we are given the same authority to reinvent and reshape organizations as you yourselves were given, we are not interested.”

The current issue of Inside Arts magazine addresses the same topic. (free registration required) The article, Leading into the Future, starts out talking about a young woman who becomes involved with an arts organization, ends up working 90 hour weeks and finally quits and starts working for a finance firm because the pay and opportunities to pursue her musical interests are much better. Fortunately, the story has a happy ending as the woman ends up working for the Future of Music Coalition.

The general theme of the piece is that arts organizations need to recognize what the interests and goals of young people in the arts are. While the arts can’t offer good pay, the industry can provide people with a means of expressing themselves. Only, they need to be allowed the time to do so.

The article quotes Andrew Taylor in his role as head of the Arts Management program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

“We have an astounding resource in terms of the value and power of the work, but we’ve created rigid structures that are not the kind of places young people want to work. My students are passionate, skilled and trained, but when they get into a place with an apprentice mindset, and they don’t get meaningful work for the first three to five years, it’s a waste on both sides.”

and later is quoted as saying

“Some experienced leaders say there aren’t people ready to step up, but that’s because they don’t see people exactly like them,” Taylor said. “The perception is that the younger generation is not as committed . . . [but] there are young people all over the place who are passionate and ready to lead.”

This is definitely an area to keep an eye on. As arts leadership approach retirement age, succession issues are going to come to the fore. Questions will emerge about not only who will take over but how these new leaders expect their organizations to operate in relation to employees.

Prepare to Lose Your Shirt

by

So the stagehands strike on Broadway is going so poorly, the producers canceled the entire next week of shows because they don’t believe there will be a resolution any time soon. I read somewhere that the folks who own and manage the theatres had been building up a war chest for a number of years so they could weather the next big strike.

Unfortunately, none of that hoarded money will go toward paying off the investors in the shows that have shut down. As far as they are concerned, everything is going to hell.

But investing in Broadway shows has always been a risky proposition. The expectation is that you will lose all your money and it is a shock when you actually see some return whereas most investments operate on the opposite assumption. The only thing you are generally guaranteed as an investor are tickets to opening night and an invitation to the opening night party. (Unless things go south before the show opens.)

If you have ever wondered about the mechanics of investing in a Broadway show, the Franklin Weinrib Rudell & Vassallo law firm website has an article on the subject. While the law doesn’t protect you from losing your shirt, it does limit losing ones shirt to those who won’t be left destitute by the loss. New York State has very stringent laws regulating investments in Broadway shows. If the total investment being solicited is in excess of $5 million, which most are these days, the show is subject to Federal Securities law. Since compliance with NY State laws can be very expensive due to all the legal fees involved, it is preferable to be subject to the Federal statutes.

Even if the total investment sought is under $5 million, a production can avoid being subject to the stringent NY State laws if “potential investors must be furnished with a thorough disclosure document (unless all the investors are accredited, in which event no particular type of information is stipulated); and there may be no more than 35 unaccredited investors, all of whom must demonstrate that alone, or together with a purchaser representative, they have the financial knowledge and experience necessary to evaluate the merits and risks of the offering.”

An accredited investor is “defined as an individual with a net worth in excess of $1 million, or who, in each of the last two years, has earned income in excess of $200,000 per year (or $300,000 with spouse), with a reasonable expectation of reaching that amount in the current year.”

Investing in Broadway shows is not for the risk averse or financially insolvent. The article discusses many of the financing structures that are used when investing in productions. The more money one brings to the table, the better deal one can negotiate–including a percentage of the producers profits above the normal investor’s cut. So if you are interested in the intricacies of funding a Broadway show, give the piece a read.

Sport Isn’t Art

by

Today on NPR, commentator Frank Deford talked about the flak he got from listeners for a story he did a few weeks ago about Princeton Athletic Director, Gary Walters, belief that sports should be viewed with the same prestige as the arts.

What was interesting to me was that in his original piece a few weeks ago, Deford spoke of college sports in terms like “…dismissed as something lesser — even something rather more vulgar…”, “Its corruption in college diminishes it so and makes it all seem so grubby.” The title of the piece online even compares sports to Rodney Dangerfield.

He puts forth Walters’ argument that “Is it time, for the educational-athletic experience on our playing fields be accorded the same … academic respect as the arts?” and “Athletic competition nourishes our collective souls and contributes to the holistic education of the total person in the same manner as the arts.”

He wonders if there isn’t a double standard in that “a young musician major in music, a young actor major in drama, but a young football player can’t major in football?”

However, in his piece today, sports don’t seem to have it so bad in colleges and universities. “I’m afraid the game is over. In our American academia, the arts must be satisfied with the leftovers,” Deford says. He goes on to quote John V. Lombardi, the president of the Louisiana State University System: ”

“Mega college athletics … prospers because for the most part we (our faculty, our staff, our alumni, our trustees) want it. We could easily change it, if most of us wanted to change it. All protestations to the contrary, we … do not want to change it.”

What sums the situation up for me is Deford’s line that “sports in our schools and colleges are not only ascendant, but greedier and more invulnerable than ever.” While it is true that his first piece is about academic prestige and the second is more about which programs get better funding and a comparison of the two is apples and oranges. It seems to me that athletics have prestige and funding and seeing that they lack only recognition as a worthy academic pursuit are greedy to acquire that as well.

I have never been terribly put out by the inequities in sports and arts funding in schools. I make grumbling noises about funding decisions that favor sports over arts and the hardwood flooring and office suites athletics officials have at my school. But after a few moments, I move on and don’t dwell upon it.

I am a bit concerned though that people would be thinking that an activity that has always been adjunct to the academic experience should be an academic experience. There are already too many exceptions made for athletes academically as it is. When a dance or theatre major is failing history or missing classes because they were in rehearsal the night before, their academic career is in jeopardy. Not so with the college athlete.

Now people want to give them academic credit for playing sports? In the context of all the scandals that have emerged, how can a degree based on sports credits be viewed as credible? How can a big sports university that grants the degree maintain its credibility even? If anything, I would agree with the argument that often comes up that schools should drop the pretext that the students aren’t there primarily to perform athletically rather than academically. Better to emulate the G.I. Bill and guarantee them an education at the end of 4 years of service.

I will admit that art and sport are joined in so many discussions that in some respects their existence seems intertwined like two planetary bodies orbiting each other. In terms of aspects of each that qualify as academic pursuits, they are quite different. While there are some like Tony Kushner who believe that undergraduate art majors should be abolished, there are elements to arts training which are more dependent upon instruction in other subjects than athletics are. An artist’s understanding of their craft is enhanced far more by studying literature, history, physics, language, material sciences than for an athlete. That is, in fact, what Kushner suggests an artist study as an undergrad rather than majoring in the arts. At no time does he feel the arts are not worthy of academic study.

Which is not to say that arts majors are taking advantage of these opportunities to the extent they should any more than the athletes are. It would be great if artists were feted and recruited in the manner athletes are, but that isn’t the world we live in. Perhaps athletes should be renumerated in accordance with the financial benefit their performance has for their school, but those activities should not be equated with academic achievement.