Re: RAT Re: Tickets

["Glen-Skip- Newell" <skipworthy@hotmail.com>]

ERIK SAID-
>
>      This is a re-hash from NY, but regarding tickets, consider also .>the 
>option of abandoning them altogether. The difficulties incurred >by the 
>loss of income may be the same or less substantial than the >difficulties 
>attendant upon handling money.

I wonder- I suppose you're speaking here in mostly spiritual/purely artistic 
terms. I have found that the most productive and meaningful periods of my 
life have beent he most destitute materially. Also, the practical side of 
not having to deal with box,house,bank etc etc frees other practical 
resources as well....so far I agree...

<<<<<<<
If theater is having a hard time surviving on the basis of earned income, 
maybe we are not meant to be earning income. Maybe we are meant to be 
darlings of fate or royalty or schools or the state (rising order of peril).

>>>>>

Haven't we already seen the results of  this? Unwelcome censure, Unwelcome 
and frankly undeducated HYPE, catch-22s involving whose ass specifically we 
must kiss to get the check to the bank...I find these unacceptable 
alternatives...

<<<<<


A further possibility: give stuff away in addition to putting on the show 
for free, e.g. bread or soup. While many inside the theater believe that 
theater feeds the soul, many outside (a distinction I don't know that I 
accept, more later) don't get this central concept. Feed the body as an 
emblem of our deeper purpose. If audiences will only value a show if they 
pay for it, accept donations, and then gi!
>ve the donations to another cause. Loyola says what we get for free 
>(inspiration) we should give for free.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yes yes yes yes....SERVE the community, feed it...share our wealth, 
demonstrate our desire, our need to participate in it. All the great 
teachers have operated on this principal-our impact, our influence can be 
measured by the response we get, by the degree to which we are willing to 
SERVE, to wash feet, to spill expensive oil...ONLY THEN  can we 
realistically expect the community to support us.
<<<<<<<<


>
>      Running a theater on the basis of box office can be like using the 
>lottery for a retirement account. A lot of us do... In working through the 
>problem, two tactics: use the system better or find another system. Which 
>assumptions are axiomatic and which are only habitual?
>
>      Loss of box office would mean ruin for some. Improved box office 
>could mean ruin for others.
>
>
>e

>>>>>>>

THAT seems to be the oldest paradox on the list. Without significant support 
of some kind from the 'outside' (institutional grants, state funding etc etc 
etc) selling tickets becomes a business, more so than most of us like. With 
that support comes the obligations of appeasement. To the degree that it 
forces us to balance our vision against economic reality (should we produce 
what noone wants to see?) I feel this is appropriate. I , for one, wouldn't 
trust a politician, a teacher or an artist that did it for the money. When I 
interview Actors and writers for projects, and they seem focused on finance 
rather than the work, the interview is over. I hold myself to the same 
ideal; The worker is worth his wage, but the birds and flowers don't worry 
about food or clothes...

Just my own POV...

S.



>
>
>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com