The value of the artist?

Pulled from our intern Julie’s blog:

The necessity of suffering in art.

There is a chapter in Peter Brook's, The Empty Space--- and I'm sorry I can not reference it more directly right now---where he discusses the stigma surrounding artists asking for more financial compensation for their work. How theatre professionals don't feel as if they are "worthy" of or entitled to making money because it is necessary to fill the stereotype of "starving artist."

Wikipedia describes a "starving artist" as one who: sacrifices material well-being in order to focus on their artwork. They typically live on minimum expenses, either for a lack of business or because all their disposable income goes towards art projects. Some starving artists desire mainstream success but have difficulty due to the high barriers in art such as visual arts, the film industry, and THEATRE.

These artists frequently take temporary positions (such as waitering jobs) while they focus their attention on breaking through in their preferred field. Others may find enough satisfaction in living as artists to choose voluntary poverty regardless of prospects of future financial reward or broad recognition.

It is widely known that the theatre is not an extremely lucrative industy and we all have chosen this path with the knowledge that we will not be millionaires, we will not have as easy as a life as those who earn more money. We won't have normal hours, it may be years (if ever) we decide to "settle down," we will have to make sacrafices that people with desk jobs will not. But we make these choices to feed our hunger to create. But if theatre fills our emotional & psychological stomachs why is it so difficult to simultaneously feed our physical ones?

Is it necessary for the artist to suffer? I've talked to many of my friends and know from first hand experience, that we are most inspired to write or act or sing or dance or direct when we are upset or "starved." Theatre becomes a kind of outlet and great work usually comes from great misery.

Many of my theatre friends have experienced tragedy at a very young age: eating disorders, rehab, suicides of friends and family members, arrest, financial disparitiy, etc... and I, thankfully (?) have not. I get along with my family and they support me, I grew up comfortably, I have experienced death, but natural death. Because I've had less tragic experiences does that make me less of an artist? Because I've never tasted the aftershock of, for example, being arrested. Does that give me one less color to paint with?

RESPONSE FROM JODI:


I think Julie raises an important issue about the value of the artist. Here is the comment that I posted in response to her post:

First and foremost - you are quoting my favorite book. I even recommended to one of the other interns (90% sure it was Laura without checking). The book defines clearly in the final section what I think is the crux of the theatrical experience and the true reason to create theatre--that moment when you feel the audience connect with the actors on stage and can SEE them being stirred to response.

But back to your post. I think without question that the arts draw "damaged" or "abused" (society's critical labels not mine) for a reason. There is not a question as to whether these types are drawn to the arts, they are.

But the reason is that they have to find a way to channel the pain, sort through the difficulty and come out on the other side. Most probably don't - I say most because we hear of a lot that do and we see a handful of high profile of stories of those that don't. However these are the ones we hear about. Imagine how many there must be.

Now I am not an advocate of anyone having ANY kind of difficulty in life but that just isn't the reality of life. If people who have experienced these difficult or often horrible experience are able to work through them by exploring them and translating them into art AND they allow us to experience it through their workm they have given us and society a gift. We, the audience, can grow and learn from the artist's work and ideally we will be stirred into some form of action or awareness.

Now do you have to have had a miserable life or experience to be an artist? I don't think so. Espiecally as the interpreter (actor, director, designer) or facilatator (producer, stage manager, markerter, fundraiser). I don't think that even the creator has to have the direct experience, but to be open to the experience.

To be willing to bare one's soul and explore the darker side of life certainly takes courage. Should we therefore suffer for our art? Suffer for providing enlightenment? Should we be underpaid because we love what we do? No to all of the above.

If a doctor said he loved practicing medicine would we say well then he doesn't need to be paid? Absolutely NOT.

The biggest problem is the value we place on the arts in the growth of indiduals and society. They are disposable. They are a luxuary. We have lost perspective by classifying things as "art," rather than championing artistic expression. The artist is not guilt-free in this. For generations many of us thought we were entitled to support simply because we declared our product ART and ourselves ARTISTS. We lost the need to be relevant; to be a part of our community rather thinking ourselves above it; and to be on the frontline of examining changes in our world including new technologies.

Several self proclaimed artists brand those who have found "commerical" successes sell outs - but if you had the chance to reach a world-wide audience wouldn't you? And look at the effect of the world of film and television - yes they produce a lot of crap, but I certainly have seen a lot of bad theatre as well.

Will we or should we be millionaires? I don't know. But we should be able to eat, to pay our bills, and to raise children.

Now, that brings up a really difficult topic, are we talking about living wages for those who have created a career in the arts or those who want a career in the arts? Just like any field there are some who will make it and be successful and those who won't. Sorry to say there are a lot of factors involved in that and the last one is talent. Just like every profession, you can get ahead by who you know, where you grew up, where you go to school, etc. Talent, determination, perservance are a necessity but they actually don't get you to the "top." They just keep you going.

I am going to pull this into my discussion to my blog as well, but Eric as important a conversation as this is for artists, I don't know if it is right for the official website.