Over at the Nonprofiteer, she makes a typically astute argument for framing the debate over public funding of the arts. (And changes her previously held position against public funding for the arts in the process.)

As she watched this astonishing company perform to an ecstatic crowd in a converted Masonic Temple building, a lightbulb went on over her benighted head.

Of course you’re indifferent to public funding for the arts, you dodo; you live in Chicago, where major performers and exhibitions will show up anyway. Public funding for the arts isn’t for Chicago–it’s for Bloomington.

And she remembered growing up in Baltimore, which is not a small town but which waited for months between visits of major dance companies; and she remembered the thrill of seeing those dance companies for the first time. And she realized (0r remembered) that that’s the real point of public funding for the arts: to make available to everyone the thrill of exposure to first-rate art.

Now here's the real problem with how we talk about arts funding in the US. To my mind, it is much like the downfall of much of the art in the US. It is all about the artists.

No one really cares about why an artist deserves money except for those in the arts. Really no one does. A factory worker who's out of a job and about to lose his or her home couldn't care less about artists getting handouts. Someone trying to get buy on minimum wage working a series of shit jobs probably has very little sympathy for artists also scraping by.

If there argument for arts funding does not include non-artists it will fail every time. So when the inevitable comparisons to the NEA four come up, or the piss christ is referenced etc., there are a few responses you can make. One would be about the importance of artistic expression for the artist. Why the artist works for him/herself and no one should be allowed to censor that work. And they can come right back with the fact that not paying for something is not the same as censorship.

You could argue why the arts are important to NYC, Chicago, LA etc, and they can come right back with the fact that government funding or not, there will still be art in major metropolitan areas.

The same tired arguments about why artists are important will continue to fail for the same reason they always have. It's about us, not them. But they are the ones being asked for money. Shouldn't we be able to say why it would help them, instead of how we mostly talk about how it would help us.

I think of my parents. My father couldn't care less about most contemporary "art"*. My mom could not care less about her tax dollars paying for an artists overpriced Manhattan apartment.

Now Chuck, my father, enjoys a lot of the arts. He does, but he'd never admit it. He likes to listen to classical music, and likes paintings etc. However, the image of the artist is in his mind a four-letter word for someone shitting on a canvas and trying to take his tax dollars for it. And there are more than enough things that need money for him and his wife Lynn to worry about in Leslie, Michigan.

My mother is supportive of the arts. She was even supportive of me choosing the arts as a career. There are more than enough things for her to worry about that need money in Cisco, Texas.

My father hates the government. He will never be supportive of public funding for the arts. If he was to learn that the Piss Christ is not actually representative of most of what is actually being done, he wouldn't tell others not to support the arts. And if there was something nearby for him to see, he's probably actually go.

If there were more artistic events to attend in Cisco, Texas, not only would Patty, my mom, probably go--dragging along my stepfather and step-sister Candace--but she could also probably be swayed to call her congressman to support the arts more.

My stepfather Pat has seen three plays in his life. He liked all three. All three were in Chicago. They live in Texas. If there were plays for them to see that didn't require driving for two hours and paying outrageous ticket prices, they would attend regularly.

We need to shift the debate away from why arts funding matters to arts organizations and artists. We need to talk not about why arts funding matters to artists, but why it matters to Chuck and Lynn, why it matters to Pat and Patty.

*He would use far more colorful language to describe it.

Everyone sees something different in The Other Shore. Only two weekends left to go find out what you see.

"This is Beckett-ish, puzzling, causing astonishment, wonder, and will keep your eyes, ears and brains engaged for the entire 75 minutes. It's a WOW. Great energetic talented young cast." --Lynn B, Audience Member
 

------------
". . .lots of adults hopping aimlessly about the stage. It looks fretfully like playtime or, worse, a first rehearsal."--Christopher Shea, TimeOut Chicago
------------
" . . . My only complaint was that it had me so engrossed that it was over before I knew it."--Jim F. Audience Member
------------
"This was a very interesting production. I'm glad I saw it. My only criticism would be that it took place in a church basement."--Andrew J, Audience Member
-------------
"I'm kinda over plays that make me think too much." -- Julian, Audience Member
------------
"this Halcyon production emerges as more fun for its cheerfully wholesome participants than for its spectators, and as such, offers little of note to American playgoers in 2009 beyond a youth-program lesson on resisting peer pressure." --Mary Shen Barnidge, Windy City Times
-------------
"The best thing about this production is it's an extremely attractive cast. . . The worst thing about it is they're doing unattractive things. . . It is excruciating to watch, it really is very difficult to watch." --Kelly Kleiman, WBEZ's Dueling Critics.
------------
". . .it just seems a little quaint . . . The one true pleasure it offers is the chance to spend 75 minutes with a beautiful, imbued young cast". --Tony Adler, Chicago Reader
--------------
"I was so turned on . . . " --Michael P. Audience Member
------------
"That's the reflection of the playwrights experiences in a Chinese re-education camp . . ."--Jonathan Abarbanel, WBEZ's Dueling Critics.
---------------
"Too abstract to really hang together--lacking a clear story line or theme." --Anonymous Audience Member
------------
"I was amazed by how clearly each episode connected to a different point in the cycle of life. "--Michael, Audience Member
------------
"Just wanted to say again what an incredible job everyone did with The Other Shore. This piece touches upon every aspect of human emotion - from love, brutality, fear, longing... THANK YOU for bringing this piece to Chicago!"--Kara. E, Audience Member
 

Was unloading photos from our camera over the weekend I thought it might be fun to post some more images now and then.

What happens when you lose a designer and a baby sitter in the same cue-to-cue day?

The Other Shore was on Dueling Critics today on Chicago Public Radio's 848. It was interesting to hear their takes. While I don't necessarily agree with their final assessments, I enjoyed the discussion quite a bit.

(One small note I'd make, and it is a tiny one, the music in question is really playing in the scene that was played on air--for better or worse...)

You can download or stream it here. Check it out.

I'll have more of my thoughts on it on Monday. But it is fascinating to me to hear so many different people talk about the show in so many different ways. More when time allows. Including an answer to Kelly and Jonathan's question.

Stay tuned.

People don't burn their leaves anymore because it is socially unacceptable; but women of all economic situations are still victims of violence every day.

Does that say something about us as a society?

Have we just fine tuned our ability to look the other way if something does not directly involve us?

Here is a question for y'all out there.

Juan has just picked up a gig directing a staged-reading of a new work. Juan's directed before, and seen readings before (He often will reference how enjoyable the reading of Massacre was, especially how you could see all the nuances in that reading.)

What advice would you give him as he gets ready to go into directing a staged reading?

We had to record an audio clip of the show. It's the first time we've done that. First time I've done it as well. I've done live mixing for years and have recorded stuff for sound designs for a while too, but this is the first time I've ever attempted to do a clip from a show.

This clip is for an upcoming segment about the show. How do you think it turned out?

-------------------

I know Adam has talked about this before, but is there a point that creating alternate content streams (blogging/twitter/video trailers/podcasting/photos, etc.) take up more time than it is worth? A point at which web tools and new media cancel each other out? Or will it be the next generation of print advertising, where only the largest institutions have the resources to be consistent players ? 

In olden times, the legends go, folks got immediate feedback on a show from a wild chorus of rascally audiences. After all, who else would enter those barbaric bathhouses of filthy lust and wicked whoredom such as the houses of plays?* They would cheer wildly when pleased, throw rotten heads of lettuce and tomatoes if not pleased.

Ok. So the myths aren't always true. The rotting food idea is a bit off, as it is hard to believe that in a time when food was scarce anyone would let their food rot to be taken to a theatre. While performers were considered the dregs of society, we know nobility often took in plays. If wealthy/powerful enough, they would even command performers to entertain them privately in their homes. The poor and rich alike took in entertainments. They didn't sit in the same seating sections of course. (Not much has changed there.)

Before there was really a critical tradition, performers had a pretty easy way to get feedback on what they were doing, they could eat. Then as critics rose in prominence, along with mass media, a few--sometimes one--writer would provide all the feedback that was taken seriously. The Critical voice towered over the rest. (Along the way many performers found more regular sources of feed as well.)

Those days are going/gone. Now anyone can provide feedback if they so choose, online of course. . . The past week was eye opening that regard. Chris Jones has quite the feedback on his review of Desire Under the Elms. Folks are chiming in on Chris Piatt's review as well. (Pretty much everyone at least agrees Bob Falls knows how to throw a budget around.)

Not only can audience members post their thoughts, but artists can respond as well. Some idiot artistic directors may even offer a money back challenge on a blog for folks who agree or disagree with a review.(So far no one's asked for their money back.)

For folks on the lookout, venues for feedback seem to increase daily.

Online ticketer Goldstar shows feedback on their page for each event they list, so someone can read other people's thoughts before buying a ticket. For Other Shore a couple of folks have left feedback.

Someone even started a Yelp Page on their own to give their thoughts on The Other Shore . . .

Now I can think of lots of ways that additional feedback can be useful. But I do wonder, as the number of voices rises, do we listen more? Do we instinctively aggregate what we hear from word of mouth or read online? Or do most of us tune all the additional feedback out, relying even more heavily on one or two voices we really trust?

Are more voices more influential? Or do we segment who we chose to listen to, the way marketers were taught to segment who to talk to?

*Paraphrased, but when's the last time you got this kind of response to a play?

. . .truly for I am persuaded that Satan hath not a more speedie way, and fitter schoole to work and teach his desire, to bring men and women into his snare of concupiscence and filthie lustes of wicked whoredome, than those places, and playes, and theatres are; and therefore necessarie that those places, and players, shoulde be forbidden, and dissolued, and put downe by authoritie, as the brothell houses and stewes are.
 

After taking the press photos, Tom, hung out and just shot as we worked through tech. (See some of my fav's below, and if you're interested, you can find more of them on our Facebook Page.) I think they turned out pretty cool and they're different than most of what we've taken in the past--press photos or production stills.

They are interesting to me because they capture those moments from that particular rehearsal perfectly. I would love to be able to do this with the process as a whole. What I don't know is if that sort of content, which we've talked about in the past, would help get people even more interested in a production--seeing it come together in stills? Or would it just be interesting to me? (To be honest, I tend to blog about what interests me anyway.)

I was thinking about pictures of my kids the other day. They are incredible to me. They are interesting to folks who know me and Jenn (or the kids) pretty well. Folks with no connection are probably bored by being bombarded with kids photos from every parent they know.

I wonder if candids from the production process would have the same types of responses from people with the same levels of connection to a company or production. What do you think?

p.s. If you need new headshots, Tom does great work and has pretty reasonable rates.

Last nights show had a weird energy. I don't know if anyone in the audience noticed, but there was a definitely odd vibe.

May have inadvertently pissed someone off last night also. There's a section where a carnival-y barker type of character is trying to sell "dogskin plasters" that cure all kinds of ailments from internal wounds, to sons who don't listen to their fathers, to impotence. "If the first one doesn't work, the second one will."

Usually the actor takes various lines to the audience. A mid-twenties dude on a date got a chuckle out of the offer to cure impotence for him. One of the ailments it cures is stuttering. I don't think he had any idea who was in the audience, but he managed to take that line directly to someone with a stutter. Haven't gotten any angry emails about that yet, but I do hope she doesn't feel that she was mocked on purpose.

Tonight I'm going to see The Wild Duck. It's probably atypical, but I think it's my favorite of Ibsen's works. We were seriously considering that for our season this year. It would have opened last week. When I heard Court's season, I'll admit I was kinda glad we weren't doing it at the same time as them.

There's a couple of interesting posts about on program notes, here and here. I'll probably have more on that next week. But I'd recommend checking them out if you haven't already.

There's many shows I'll probably be bummed I missed in the next couple of weeks, but in some crazy alternate universe I'd like to go see a show at least every two weeks. I want to see my kids grow up, so I may be missing a lot of stuff I'd like to see for a few years. And doing so will have a benefit for the greater public as my kids (hopefully) won't be robbing you in 15 years. I sure hope the world doesn't end in 2012, 'cause I figure it won't be till at least then I could go out on a regular basis to see shows again.

Happy Friday
----------