By Kitoko Chargois
PearlArts Studios
Welcome to our new blog series! Every two weeks, we’ll be picking topics pertaining to movement, sound, art, and current events and discussing them! We invite you to join the discussion in the comments below. This week, we will be discussing an article from The Conversation by Caitlin Vincent: Giving it away for free – why the performing arts risks making the same mistake newspapers did. As COVID-19 continues to force the necessity of social distancing and bans on large gatherings, the dance and theater world is still scrambling to adjust. When Allegheny County went into lockdown in early March, the move was sudden and unexpected. All of our live engagements with STAYCEE PEARL dance project & Soy Sos and planned events at PearlArts Studios were cancelled or postponed. It’s been 5 months since that lockdown, and while the county went to green phase and cautiously began reopening, it was not long before we slid back into the yellow phase due to rising cases of Coronavirus. It has been important to us to keep moving, creating, and setting the groundwork for the future. With social distancing, utilizing outdoor spaces, masking up, and running admin remotely, we have been able to make space to adapt to a digital reality. In this week’s in RE: our team weighs in on Caitlin Vincent’s article on how offering digital content for free is affecting our industry.
Staycee Pearl (Co-executive/Artistic Director)
It's extremely short-sighted for large arts organizations to lay off artists who are employees at the first inclination of difficult times and work stoppages. We have no clue when we will be able to get back into the theaters and studios again, but we will, and at that point we, as arts organizations, will need our staff and artists more than ever. On one hand, there will always be amazing artists for hire, but on the other hand, there are too many reasons to be good to the artists you have and who are willing to stick with you through these crazy times. I could see if arts organizations were solely funded by the performances they present but alas, that hasn't been the case in a very long time! Most organizations get a substantial amount of funding from local/regional and national foundations and donations from philanthropic individuals and private corporations. These entities are interested in continuing the work of the arts orgs, and while the artists are being laid off, the orgs are still receiving the funding in many cases—though, I'm sure not in all cases.
What makes it hard is envisioning what is going to happen in the long run as we see ourselves at home for an unforeseeable amount of time. How do we pick up the pieces to continue once the COVID-19 funding runs out? Will we still be able to rely on the foundation and donation support? Will the presenters be able to make good on the contracts that were cancelled? The longer this stretches into the future without any sense of a plan or end-date, the more precarious our futures become.
As for the virtual world of performance, the reason we have issues with value and payment is because we've always had issues with value and payment. The arts are undervalued in general. Also, virtual technology was developed to be mass consumed. That's mostly a good thing, but it has been something to grapple with forever. The music industry, newspapers... Ask anyone who ever made dance remixes for a living back in the early 90s what happened to their livelihood after 2000. If I thought that we would never occupy a live stage again, I don't think I would continue this work. I believe we will be back!
Chandler Bingham (Company Dancer)
As both an artist and art enthusiast, I could understand the importance of making sure the specific art form stays relevant during this hectic moment in time. On the other hand, it is unfair to the few artist that are expected to work for charity in fear of not being hired for projects in the near future. I believe that everyone should be held accountable for providing some sort of funds to the artist. I am fan of the Melbourne Digital Concert Hall’s way of compensating the artist through tickets sales. In my opinion, that is a prime example and should be the standard for digital content in art organizations.
Herman “Soy Sos” Pearl (Co-executive/Artistic Director | Sound Engineer)
Another angle to consider is the transposition of the work into this new format and whether it even has the same power. In our rush to get "our content online" does it even bring a fraction of the thrill of the live and in person experience? Think of the history of the film medium: just over a hundred years old, so carefully sculpted to give the audience a curated presentation. Artists and arts organizations are scrambling to convert their works to "something" that can be viewed online, but it seems to often pale in comparison to the original work.
Kitoko Chargois (Communications Director | Program Coordinator)
Super interesting article and something we've been discussing organizationally. Creating art is not cheap at all and archival content is not a bottomless well. At first, I feel like everyone was giving away content as a way to help each other cope with sudden isolation and to keep connecting with their audiences. Now, we need to figure out how to keep the lights on and how to do the thing that gives us life: create, while not losing our audiences in an oversaturated platform. I’m daunted by the prospect, but at the same time excited. As we climb out of the “oh shit” daze created by COVID, I think we will let technology guide us to new ways of creating and sharing work. My background is in journalism and I appreciate the parallels being drawn to the newspaper industry. When I was writing my capstone and completing news internships, new media was still relatively new. Now, entire worlds/businesses/communities exist online. I think of influencers who give out a lot of content online, but through audience building are able to monetize on that content with sponsors and subscriptions. Like Caitlin says, we “must develop new business models for online platforms.” We can’t operate like brick and mortars here.
Katie Kulasa (Company Dancer)
Super interesting article. I agree, I think this article is undoubtedly relevant to today and where the arts future may lie. As the article states, artists can/will work for free given their love for the work however, for myself, it can’t help but spark interest in where the system will compensate and “pay” them back moving forward. I notice the article touched on the facts regarding theaters and their potential to eventually reopen. With the likelihood that sales will be cut down given the need to reduce capacity, it may be “more convenient” to stay closed? In my opinion that runs full circle with the idea that compensating artists will always remain a matter of convenience.
Ally Ricarte (Production Manager | Marketing Associate | Director of Education)
I feel this article strikes a lot of great points regarding "the system". I totally agree with the fact that most artists will agree to do something for free because they love their job. However, we must be cognizant of what impact that has on both the artist and the funder. In my perspective, I feel that selling one's services way below their actual value devalues its weight and convinces the funder of this too.
Additionally (and this point frustrates me the most), we need to consider the inequity of support between white-run organizations versus organizations run by BIPOC. This article states "The arts are important, and artists should be compensated … but only when it’s financially convenient." It's never convenient because of the demand for the white narratives that have been perpetuated in culture. White-run organizations can bolster their prices because there are wallets that can do that, but for other organizations creating an affordable pricing system, it is more common and convenient to the audiences that share their narratives. I don't think it's necessarily a mistake to create something affordable. The arts should be affordable for everyone's individual narratives to be valued and shared.
LaTrea Derome (Company Dancer)
This article got me thinking a lot about the audience. I understand that we have to adjust to digital means, but how do we ensure that we can get patrons to purchase our content? Do we utilize sources such as Patreon to get a more tangible sense of who our subscribers are? Similar to season ticket subscriptions for theatre companies, this could also be a way to provide incentives to get more people to support us and to keep their support. I do agree that free/reduced content may lower that value but in the virtual world, are we trying to access more people which could [potentially] recoup what the content is worth? Just some things that came to mind.
Jessica Marino (Company Dancer | Artist Manager | Jamdancer.com)
To echo and spin off of the comments already stated, whether out of need or convenience, the digital ecosystem is here and I believe it is here to stay. Some artists will be authentically interested in developing ways to work within this arm of presentation and some may decide their work is to be experienced live only. This is their prerogative, but either way, art is being consumed online and labor needs to be compensated. I firmly believe effort towards developing tools to monetize digital performing arts offerings will need to be established for the industry to thrive in a continuum. And while we are at it ... transparency in industry standards would be a healthy practice.
I am interested in how we increase the visibility and access of virtual platforms designed to pay artists and also build revenue for the platform. How do we get people to value these resources and encourage them to take action on subscription or "pay per view" models. In a society that continues to prioritize technology, I feel both live performance and digital platforms can thrive but at what point will dance be valued to the degree that folks will spend their money as they do any other entertainment facet of their lifestyle? The average American will spend $55 a month on cable TV or over $300 a year on streaming platforms alone.
Marquee.tv (on-demand access to critically acclaimed dance, opera and theatre performances from across the globe) advertises plans for 89.00 a YEAR, 8.99/month, or for artists and industry professionals $53.00 a year. Their curatorial practice and how an artist becomes presented and paid by this platform is something I will be doing more research on, but from what I can tell, as one of the only established "pay per view" models for the performing arts we might want to consider using their model as a launching pad for continued research and development.
Thank you for joining us in this discussion! What do you think? Comment below!
In RE: is a bi-weekly conversation series where as a team we dissect and discuss current news, trends, art, and media.