'Tis it nobler?
I was witness to a blog exchange the other day regarding the debate between "starving artist" and "corporate sellout." Ironically, the defender of the starving commented that there's nothing noble about being a theatre artist, while the corporate fella maintained that maybe there was - just nothing particularly ennobling about starving.
I didn't think much of the general exchange, but the question of nobility got lodged in my head. Are theatre artists noble? Are any artists?
Theatre in America (and Europe) is generally subsidized. That means we fall into the same sociopolitical and legal categories as groups that feed the hungry and defend civil rights. Let's take it as a given that feeding the hungry and defending civil rights are noble callings.
Is art a noble calling? In The Gift, Lewis Hyde talks about the difference between "work" and "labor." Work is intentional, commodified, and performed in exchange for remuneration. Labor, says Hyde, "can be intended but only to the extent of doing the groundwork, or of not doing things that will clearly prevent the labor." He speaks of labor in terms of creating art, but also in terms of social work, nursing and teaching - tasks in which emotional availability and patience are as much a part of the task as anything.
To the extent that our society has consented that it's useful to set aside some of our common proceeds to allow for the creation of art - including theatre - we have agreed that the products of that labor are, as Hyde puts it, "not things we easily price or willingly alienate." Artists can't be evaluated "on a pure cost-benefit basis because their products are not commodities."
Nobility is an elevation of character, or refers to some exemplary behavior. I don't know if that's the right term to describe artists, but neither do I think of art or theatre as simply a commodity that can't support itself in the market - nor of artists as wayward widgeteers who are especially bad at math and marketing.
Noble, maybe not. Giving, visionary, expressive, shamanistic - maybe. Perhaps those qualities taken together consitute some kind of nobility. Dulce et decorum est pro humanae laborare.
Arts administrators are always going to be in a difficult position of bringing a non-commodity to market. That's the job. Let's concern ourselves with whether giving is noble, and whether the gift is of quality, rather than ferreting out the character and motives of the giver (however well nourished).
I didn't think much of the general exchange, but the question of nobility got lodged in my head. Are theatre artists noble? Are any artists?
Theatre in America (and Europe) is generally subsidized. That means we fall into the same sociopolitical and legal categories as groups that feed the hungry and defend civil rights. Let's take it as a given that feeding the hungry and defending civil rights are noble callings.
Is art a noble calling? In The Gift, Lewis Hyde talks about the difference between "work" and "labor." Work is intentional, commodified, and performed in exchange for remuneration. Labor, says Hyde, "can be intended but only to the extent of doing the groundwork, or of not doing things that will clearly prevent the labor." He speaks of labor in terms of creating art, but also in terms of social work, nursing and teaching - tasks in which emotional availability and patience are as much a part of the task as anything.
To the extent that our society has consented that it's useful to set aside some of our common proceeds to allow for the creation of art - including theatre - we have agreed that the products of that labor are, as Hyde puts it, "not things we easily price or willingly alienate." Artists can't be evaluated "on a pure cost-benefit basis because their products are not commodities."
Nobility is an elevation of character, or refers to some exemplary behavior. I don't know if that's the right term to describe artists, but neither do I think of art or theatre as simply a commodity that can't support itself in the market - nor of artists as wayward widgeteers who are especially bad at math and marketing.
Noble, maybe not. Giving, visionary, expressive, shamanistic - maybe. Perhaps those qualities taken together consitute some kind of nobility. Dulce et decorum est pro humanae laborare.
Arts administrators are always going to be in a difficult position of bringing a non-commodity to market. That's the job. Let's concern ourselves with whether giving is noble, and whether the gift is of quality, rather than ferreting out the character and motives of the giver (however well nourished).
Comments
Post a Comment