Archives do not equal salable creative goods

Reader Richard Ingraham makes a worthwhile point in his comment on my post of  June 19  about the issue of  recording live professional-theater performances. He notes that, though Actors Equity Association does largely prevent  stage plays from being recorded for sale (as do some rights-holders of those plays), most professional productions can be recorded for archival purposes. He writes:    

“… I would add that most contracts allow for archival recordings to be created, this is especially true of original works for theatre. So performances are rarely lost forever, at least the ones that are new works. Most of the original productions I’ve worked on have had some type of archival taping. In fact I’m pretty sure the NYC library has a spot you can go and view the archival video tape of many shows.”

In fact, the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts located at Lincoln Center does provide this service. Here’s the description of the facility from the Lincoln Center site:

About the Library for the Performing Arts

The New York Public Library for the Performing Arts houses the world’s most extensive combination of circulating, reference, and rare archival collections in its field. Its divisions are the Circulating Collections, Jerome Robbins Dance Division, Music Division, Billy Rose Theatre Division, and the Rodgers and Hammerstein Archives of Recorded Sound. The materials in its collections are available free of charge, along with a wide range of special programs including exhibitions, seminars, and performances. An essential resource for everyone with an interest in the arts—whether professional or amateur—the Library is known particularly for its prodigious collections of non-book materials such as historic recordings, videotapes, autograph manuscripts, correspondence, sheet music, stage designs, press clippings, programs, posters and photographs. The Library sponsors orientation programs tailored for graduate school and professional training students each term, and offers internships for museum, library, and archival students.

It’s great that records of live shows survive somewhere. But while the existence of these archives is important and valuable to the public, it’s beside the point that I was trying to make, which is:  The theater companies and artists creating these performances should be able to benefit financially from the sale of their own recorded work. Recordings represent a huge untapped resource for struggling nonprofit and for-profit theater organizations and it seems quite wrong for the union and others to prevent theaters from earning desperately needed income from their own productions. Doesn’t the union exist to ensure that its members earn a decent living? Wouldn’t the rights-holders of plays earn money from recordings, too?  

Yes and yes. Since the film industry has long ago worked out how to provide residual compensation to all the writers, actors, directors, technical staff and lord know how many others who work on film productions, I have to assume that the professional-theater industry could do it, too, if everyone involved just decided to bring about the needed legal changes. It would certainly be a lot of work, as Ingraham rightly stresses, but it could also make an enormous difference to the economic survival rate of stage companies and stage artists.

Wouldn’t that be worth the effort? Ingraham and I agree on that third yes.

If Equity got creative, could stage actors earn a better living?

It seems like a good time to ask this question: Why, when theater companies and stage artists generally have trouble surviving even in the best of economic times, is Actors Equity Association still preventing them from making potentially lots more money off their own work  by selling recorded versions of it?  

It’s an issue that’s bothered me for some time, specifically since the First National Performing Arts Convention that took place in Pittsburgh in 2004. I was there reporting on the convention for a newspaper and, at many of the workshops, heard discussions about how nonprofits were having to explore for-profit-style ways of earning income because  – and this is even more the case now – there were no longer enough private grantors and donors or government funding sources to keep all the organizations alive. 

Many, such as orchestras and opera companies, had been doing this for a long time, making commercial recordings that earned them revenue for years afterward. Dance troupes were beginning to think about it, too.

The only performing discipline that apparently couldn’t plan to take advantage of this source of income was professional theater. And that’s because the stage actors’ and stage managers’ own union forbade the making and distributing of recorded stage performances. 

The original idea behind this, I gather, was to prevent artists and their work from being exploited by the mass media – i.e., denied pay for their own recorded work – and also to protect the vital live quality of stage performance that keeps at least some people buying tickets to theater productions. It seems Equity didn’t want America to be able to see plays performed on TV, because it was thought that if stage shows could be accessed there by everyone for free, no one would come to the theater anymore.

This is a position still held by some professional theater artists, I find. Even the unionized Norwegians subscribe to it. Or did. I have to say I think it’s outmoded. And I don’t think I’m alone: In recent discussions with theater artists around the nation, I’ve detected a rueful kind of resignation – numbers of them really wish they could record and sell their productions, but don’t think Equity is going to budge.   

It was an e-mail I received today from Minneapolis’s Guthrie Theater that got me wondering again why Equity doesn’t change its mind. The message announced that, through the NT Live  broadcast series, a live stage version of Phedre produced by Britain’s National Theatre would be screened twice at the Guthrie as a high-definition re-broadcast on July 8 and 9 (and as a re-broadcast or live simulcast on other dates at other selected stage theaters across the U.S.).

Now, why can the National Theatre do this mass-media thing apparently without danger, but American theaters have to be protected from it? 

National Theatre Director Nicholas Hytner, who is also directing Phedre, says in a release, “The NT Live events are designed to bring what we do on the stages of the National Theatre to a far greater number of people than we would ever be able to reach otherwise. Through high-definition broadcasts, we have the technology at our disposal to present our productions beyond the four walls of the National, to reach passionate theatre-goers all over the world, and to do it really well.”  

Do Equity members disagree with that?

To me, the pros of selling recorded shows appear far greater than the cons. First and most obviously, the better-known theaters could make a lot more money and the lesser-known theaters could make at least a little more money and also raise their profiles. Second, all theaters could reach global markets made up of people who will never be able to get to most of the in-theater performances in faraway places, but might yearn to see the work of companies they’ve heard about – theaters’ followings and paying audiences would grow and their likelihood of survival would increase. Third, safeguards could be put in place to protect theaters from losing audiences that could actually come to see the live shows on stage – how about releasing the DVDs only after the run of the production or tour has ended?  Four, to paraphrase The King and I, might Equity not be protecting actors out of all they own by refusing to adapt contracts so union members could get residuals from recorded work? I mean, the film industry does it – why can’t theater do it, too, and let its artists make better livings? 

And five, a lot more great productions would be preserved instead of lost, providing unique artistic, entertainment and educational experiences to countless numbers of people who otherwise would never get to benefit from them.  

It might be a bit painful for the theater industry to go through the thinking, negotiation and adjustment periods necessary to get a policy and new contracts in place, but unions are adapting to changing member needs and industry circumstances all the time. It took a while, but symphony orchestras and the musicians’ union finally got around to dealing with streaming performances on the Internet. 

Finally and most obviously, if the likes of the National Theatre and New York’s Metropolitan Opera can find ways to get their work to the world through mass media, there has to be a way for American theaters to do the same.

Or does Equity really want most of its members not to be working in their field full time and most theaters to be in constant danger of closing?

A Silver lining

       Ron Silver died Sunday.

Even for an actor, he had an unusual range. In his art, he stretched from Broadway productions of gritty David Mamet plays to silly TV sitcoms such as “Rhoda” and from film versions of true-life characters such as ferocious lawyer Alan Dershowitz and learned Secretary of State Henry Kissinger on one end to showoff tennis champ Bobby Riggs and ’60s rock-concert promoter Bill Graham on the other. In his active political life, he headed the stage union Actors Equity Association and helped out on Council on Foreign Relations committees. Supported Democrats Bill Clinton and Barack Obama … and Republicans Ronald Reagan and Rudy Giuliani.

So it maybe it makes sense that he also co-founded The Creative Coalition, a nonprofit social and political advocacy group dedicated to educating arts-community leaders on public issues related to First-Amendment rights, arts advocacy and education - and mobilizing them.

Actors know that creative people  need to speak the truth, no matter which side of the political line or what unnerving  human experience it comes from. They know it because they play all of us – all the tangled, dark, bright and blithe characters that we humans are - and find something that matters in every one of them.

So I hope they and the rest of us can carry on Silver’s work and keep creatively crossing the lines between opposites until we find we have linked the encampments with our daring steps.

How Obama can help America create a better civilization

The most important word in that title? ”Create.” It’s the key to our success. And the United States needs to be more successful in many ways.

That’s why at this moment – with a president in office who embodies the nation’s new attitude toward difference and change – I think America is, at long last, ready to begin the creative revolution it must go through to become the thriving, peaceful, stimulating, wise, caring and accomplished society that its citizens have always hoped it would turn out to be. 

I call it a revolution because a culture of creativity will turn the U.S. completely around, away from narrow, outmoded perspectives and failed ways of operating and toward a broader view that encourages people in every field of endeavor to imagine and experiment, discuss and collaborate – and then innovate. When we can embrace fresh ideas and support each other’s efforts, we will be able to solve a lot more of our problems.

How can President Obama lead us through this fundamental makeover? Americans for the Arts has made official recommendations to the new administration; what follow are the suggestions of other arts leaders, as well as some of my own. 

Education. As with any lasting change, education matters most.  But our educational system itself – what it teaches and how it teaches - desperately needs the same transformation as the rest of our culture. So it must be both the agent and the subject of change.

Like the military-style, 19th-century factories and workforces on which they were modeled, U.S. public schools still aim to turn out masses of identical products through a rote process. They largely emphasize conformity and uniformity - children stand in line, sit in rows, raise their hands to speak and are made to repress their natural inclinations to move around, explore and question.  They generally learn identical lessons in large groups, take identical standardized tests and are often strongly discouraged from deviating in any way from a predetermined norm. 

That may have been effective learning in an age when most people ended up working on assembly lines for rigidly structured corporations, but it doesn’t prepare today’s students for the flexible and adventurous thinking demanded by our 21st-century’information and service economy, where competition requires constant  reinvention of complex processes and products.  Even more important, a tool-and-die schooling makes most people bored, restless and miserable.

Our system ignores “the fundamental truth about how young people learn,” says Steven Tepper, associate director of The Curb Center for Art, Enterprise, and Public Policy at Vanderbilt University.  “Clearly, refocusing U.S. education around creativity and creative engagement is central” to improving educational results.  

Studies, including the RAND Corporation’s significant 2004 Gifts of the Muse report, have shown that creative teaching methods and creative subjects help people learn better, enjoy themselves more, stay in school longer and develop the creative skills they need to lead successful, productive lives including, but not limited to, better employment. Creative disciplines such as the arts can provide the inspiration, stimulus and opportunities for discovery and self-expression that students often miss in standard curricula. Arts-related teaching methods - movement, building, illustration, composition, acting a role – can also help students better understand the concepts of their academic subjects.

In just one example cited by the Cleveland-based Community Partnership for Arts and Culture (CPAC), young people attending Cleveland’s School of the Arts  – part of an extremely troubled public-school system – last year scored higher than Ohio statewide averages in eight types of Ohio proficiency tests; 100 percent of them passed their Ohio graduation tests. (Full disclosure: I work with CPAC as a free-lance writer and editor.) 

America needs more arts in its schools and more creative teaching methods. We also need better teachers.  Here’s what Obama could do to help:

•  As Robert Lynch of Americans for the Arts suggests, create a Secretary of Arts and Culture position, or the equivalent, to oversee and coordinate U.S. arts and creativity policy and initiatives
• Direct that official to work with the U.S. Department of Education on a task force to develop what Tepper sees as needed curriculum standards for creative instruction, to give state education departments guidelines for what methods to use, what to achieve and how to measure success 
• Fund and foster teacher training in creative classroom methods through community consortiums of arts, science, technology and arts-education organizations similar to Cleveland’s annual Summer Teacher Institute  
• Encourage, through Department of Education funding for teacher salary enhancements, the abandonment of tenure and the adoption of merit-based pay determined by administrative, peer, parent and student review 
• Establish an Artists Corps, as Lynch recommends, to provide jobs and job-training to artists of all ages in the effort to improve America’s infrastructure – but make it one section of a permanent  Service Corps offering environmental, technological, educational and entrepreneurial services to communities, and jobs and job-training for retirees, students between high school graduation and college enrollment and adults in career or life transitions in need or desire of employment, new skills or contributing to society. Coordinate the different sections’ initiatives to encourage collaborative programs, such as having artists and environmental workers provide creative and green-practices training to businesses

Which brings us to the next area of change …

Organizational culture. Like our schools, our other organizations – from bureaus and agencies to companies and unions - tend be structured like the  Army: highly regimented, top-down outfits with their own strict class systems, ingrained operational methods and culture of absolute power at the top and absolute obedience everywhere else.

The Army is not known for its creativity. Neither is the Navy, where insiders describe their institution as “over 200 years of tradition unimpeded by progress.”  But they have missions vastly different from civilian groups, which must use the imagination and knowledge resources of all their members or risk being ineffective, inefficient, outmoded and – in the case of business enterprises – uncompetitive and eventually bankrupt. 

If American education becomes more creative and sends more inventive, unrepressed people into the world, chances are that our other organizational structures will change, too. But with all this bailout money being handed to dangerously flawed corporations and the president reevaluating the usefulness of government entities and programs, now seems a good time for Obama to urge some new organizational creativity by:

• Making a bailout contingent on the internal restructuring of receiving companies, to allow greater employee input, eliminate reprisals against whistleblowers and create transparency in communications and reporting
• Ditto for government departments and agencies, which can be made more creative and open while being streamlined to reduce spending and waste 
• Making creativity a goal for all government departments by directing them to work with the new Secretary for Arts and Culture and/or an expanded National Endowment for the Arts on incorporating arts, design and cultural heritage components into U.S. transportation infrastructure, health and human services programs and education, as Americans for the Arts director Lynch and CPAC president Tom Schorgl recommend (for more on the NEA, see Matt Charboneau’s Geniocity blog)
• Capitalizing on the unions’ delight at being included in the national agenda once more by urging a creative modernization of their missions and rules, especially as regards teacher tenure and arts unions’ restrictions on the ways their members’ work can be used. Theater companies, for instance, would be able to support themselves more effectively if Actors Equity Association permitted to them record their own professional stage performances for sale as CDs and DVDs       

Which leads to a final creative area …

Entrepreneurship. This country will never get anywhere if creative individuals and their endeavors don’t get more support of all kinds. As things stand now, people with ideas that will innovate society and the economy face a desperate struggle to get noticed and encouraged with advice, seed money and start-up resources. Whether they’re one-person projects, nonprofit organizations or for-profits, smaller enterprises generate billions of dollars in economic impact, create jobs, provide needed services and products and inject fresh energy and ideas into communities. But only if they don’t die a-borning.

To help, Obama should:

• Encourage public-private partnerships among banks, credit unions, foundations, industry associations and private investors to seek out creatively promising individuals and embryonic projects and provide them with grants, loans, mentoring, resources or combinations of all four. These services should not be open to the high-growth-potential tech start-ups exclusively favored by venture capitalists and incubators (See Will Limkemann’s Geniocity blog for more on this)
• Change any tax restrictions preventing nonprofits, including arts groups, from supporting themselves by selling products derived from, or related to, their own work and missions
• Support revisions to intellectual property law, especially copyrights, which can discourage creativity by preventing entrepreneurs, artists and others from sharing ideas and work, Tepper suggests (See Peter Friedman’s Geniocity blog for more on this)
• And because creativity depends on the even bigger and wider flow of ideas that comes from intermixing peoples, Tepper says, change American immigration policy to permit greater freedom of cultural exchange and increase entrepreneurship

We and our president have a big job ahead of us, revolutionizing America. It’ll be hard. But because it’s creative, it’ll be fun, too.