I was finally in the middle of writing another Substack post, one I’ve been thinking about for a while now and that I think has some substance, when I read Fergus Morgan’s latest Substack, “Theatre's toxic relationship with Twitter/X is distracting from the industry's real worries.” Good title—I wondered, what are the “industry’s real worries”? Well, apparently everything would be fine if theater people would stop being mean on the interwebs. The quote that set me off was this:
“And, as director Josh Roche tweeted: “Can everyone just stop saying ‘the system is broken’ about every fucking thing? It adds absolutely nothing, provides no solution, and means precisely fuck all.” Why not take after Roche and his fellow director Derek Bond and do something constructive about it instead?
Curious, I clicked the link to find out what constructive contribution was our best alternative. What, I wondered, is the solution that will fix the system? Click. A job site for freelancers. I shit you not. Morgan then went on to deliver the usual call for more government funding (calling Isaac Butler — hey, where’s our half billion dollars, Oskar/Phylicia/Lin-Manuel, Isaac?).
To put it bluntly, this is not the level of discussion we need.
But since having my say about the crashing theater scene this summer, I’ve been trying to stay out of it. It’s better for my peace of mind and my blood pressure. I contented myself with finishing Building a Sustainable Theater as my contribution to an alternative solution. If you want to see my thumbnail analysis, read the Introduction.
But just when I thought I was out…
It’s not worth my time to go point by point through Morgan’s kvetch. Suffice to say that Todd London’s treacly essay “On Field and Fire” (which has apparently become one of the top 10 most read essays on HowlRound this year, which makes me want to pound my head on my desk) would be the perfect wine (or whine) to go with it. Here’s Morgan (once again trying to pre-empt his hackneyed statement with a display of ironic self-awareness—very cool):
“Without wanting to get too Bono about it, the thing that makes the theatre industry great, though, is the passion and compassion of its people. Trust me: I talk to a lot of theatremakers and very few of you are genuine dickheads. If we lose that passion and that compassion, then there is little left that is worth funding.”
Gosh, I got all warm and fuzzy thinking I’m not a “genuine dickhead.” Here’s London’s more erudite version of the same sentiment, by the way:
“So please let’s stop shouting at each other. Let’s create generous space for disagreement, both firm and kind. And let’s celebrate each other’s attempts, even when we think they’re wrong—more bright spots, less Breitbart.”
This kind of fuzzy, unfocused thinking drives me crazy. You don’t fix systemic issues with individual solutions, and you certainly don’t fix things by never mentioning that they are broken. Being more compassionate and supportive has no impact on the fact that the mean annual income from theater for an Actors Equity member is zero-nada-nothing. That doesn’t change by giving intellectual foot rubs.
Morgan, after referring to tweets saying “the system is broken” as “sorry—plain, poor-me whining” (no, Fergus, saying “sorry” doesn’t make your “hot take” any less annoying, it just makes you sound like a 1980s mean girl), Morgan then admits, just a few paragraphs later, that “The system genuinely is broken.” What??? Please stop with all the whining! So what?—we’re supposed to avoid mentioning the dysfunction? Isn’t this a characteristic of abusive relationships?
I just can’t.
We need a level of discussion that reflects the complexity of the problem. I’ve tried to do that a lot—here, here, here, and here for starters, as well as over a decade of blog posts here, and my book offers one alternative that ought to be joined by many more. It’s a waste of my time, however, to repeat myself yet again. Maybe somebody else needs to contribute.
And that’s when I had an idea that was so happening, so now, so this-red-hot second that I coldn’t resist: I’ll ask ChatGPT3! I fired up my free account at OpenAI.com, and asked the great intelligence in the cloud for its insights. Here are the responses I received (which, in toto, took about 1 second of my new friend’s time) — the italics indicate places where I am cheering:
Me (typing into the Message ChatGPT box): What arguments might be made to counter the author's belief that saying "the theater system is broken" is counterproductive?
ChatGPT 3: Counterarguments to the author's belief that saying "the theater system is broken" is counterproductive might include:
Raise Awareness: Critics may argue that stating the system is broken serves as a means to raise awareness about the challenges within the theater industry. By acknowledging the issues openly, it can lead to a broader discussion and potentially attract attention from those in positions to make positive changes.
Pressure for Change: Expressing dissatisfaction with the current state of the theater system can create public pressure for reform. By vocalizing concerns, artists may motivate institutions and policymakers to address issues such as funding, support structures, and inclusivity.
Community Solidarity: Some may contend that sharing frustrations and concerns about the theater system on social media fosters a sense of community among artists and theater enthusiasts. This solidarity could lead to collective efforts to find solutions and support one another during challenging times. [Me: And potentially create a community of like-minded people to provide support for change initiatives.)
Encourage Accountability: Criticism of the theater system may be seen as a way to hold institutions accountable for their actions. By pointing out perceived shortcomings, artists and the public may encourage theaters to be transparent, address problems, and work towards improvements.
Advocacy for Change: Those expressing discontent may argue that stating "the system is broken" is not merely complaining but a call for advocacy. By highlighting issues, artists may be pushing for systemic changes that can benefit the entire theater community.
Promote Discussion: Asserting that the theater system is broken can stimulate discussions that lead to constructive ideas and solutions. Engaging in conversations about the challenges faced by the industry may prompt individuals to brainstorm innovative ways to overcome obstacles.
Expressing Frustration: Some may argue that social media serves as a platform for individuals to vent their frustrations and share experiences. Acknowledging challenges openly does not necessarily negate the passion and compassion within the industry but rather reflects the reality of the difficulties faced.
While the author advocates for a more constructive approach, those in favor of expressing the belief that the system is broken may argue that it is a necessary step towards acknowledging, addressing, and ultimately improving the state of the theater industry.
I blinked. Well, I thought, that’s the most intelligent conversation I’ve had about theater for decades! Feeling that my new best friend was on a roll, I decided to go to the well again:
Me: What arguments might be made against the proposition that the way to repair the theater system is more government funding?
ChatGPT3: Arguments against the proposition that the way to repair the theater system is more government funding may include:
Limited Resources: Opponents might argue that governments face numerous demands for funding across various sectors, such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure. Allocating more resources to the theater system could be seen as a strain on limited budgets, especially during times of economic challenges.
Market Dynamics: Critics may contend that relying on government funding perpetuates a system that might not be responsive to market demands. They argue that theaters should adapt to changing audience preferences and financial models rather than depending heavily on government subsidies.
Risk of Political Influence: Concerns may be raised about the potential for government funding leading to political influence and censorship. If theaters rely heavily on public funds, there might be pressure to align artistic productions with government ideologies, potentially compromising artistic freedom.
Inefficiency and Bureaucracy: Skeptics might argue that increased government funding could lead to bureaucratic inefficiencies, with funds being allocated through complex processes that hinder timely and effective support for the theater industry.
Encouraging Dependency: Opponents may suggest that relying on government funding fosters a culture of dependency within the theater industry. Instead of encouraging innovation, theaters might become complacent, expecting consistent financial support without adapting to changing circumstances.
Private Sector Alternatives: Some argue that exploring private sector funding models, such as partnerships with businesses, philanthropists, or crowd-funding initiatives, could be more sustainable and allow theaters to diversify their revenue streams.
Focus on Economic Viability: Critics may emphasize the importance of theaters demonstrating economic viability and fiscal responsibility. They argue that a healthy theater industry should be able to generate revenue through ticket sales, sponsorships, and other avenues without heavy reliance on government subsidies.
Local Autonomy: Opponents might advocate for local autonomy and self-sufficiency, arguing that theaters should be encouraged to find solutions at the community or regional level without relying on a centralized government for financial support.
Creative Independence: Some critics may argue that increased government funding could come with strings attached, impacting the creative independence of theaters. Artists may feel compelled to conform to certain standards or themes to secure funding, potentially stifling artistic diversity.
Prioritizing Essential Services: In times of economic hardship or crises, opponents may argue that government funds should be directed towards essential services, and the theater industry may need to find alternative ways to sustain itself without relying on public funding.
These arguments highlight concerns about the practicality, potential drawbacks, and alternative approaches to addressing challenges in the theater industry without solely relying on increased government funding.
Admittedly, there’s nothing earth-shattering here (I think I’d need to upgrade my OpenAI account to “Plus” in order to get earth shattering answers), but these are all issues that most theater people refuse to address in any thoughtful way. Instead, they rely on the old hoary argument that the arts contribute lots and lots of money to the economy (so does WWE, but they aren’t asking for government funding), and that the arts make people better human beings (arguable at best, at least given some of the people I’ve met over my career—one of the worst human beings I’ve ever met was an acting teacher I worked with). Neither of these arguments have had any noticeable practical effect—the NEA budget continues to shrink in real monetary terms. But they make for feel-good moments for sure. “Gosh, my production of Dial M for Murder is making the world a better place!”
Then an idea hit me. With my heart in my throat, I asked ChatGPT the following question:
Me: OK, my friend, these are all great. One more question, and this will require some deep thinking: What ideas do you have to suggest to fix the nonprofit theater system?
I held my breath for what seemed like an eternity but what was actually about a second, and this is what ChatGPT had to say:
ChatGPT3: Fixing the nonprofit theater system involves addressing various aspects, from financial sustainability to fostering inclusivity and artistic innovation. Here are several ideas to consider:
Diversifying Revenue Streams:
Encourage theaters to diversify revenue sources beyond ticket sales, including philanthropic donations, sponsorships, merchandise sales, and grants.
Explore partnerships with businesses, community organizations, and educational institutions to create mutually beneficial collaborations.
Community Engagement and Outreach:
Establish strong ties with local communities by developing outreach programs, educational initiatives, and partnerships with schools.
Offer discounted or free tickets to underserved communities to enhance accessibility and inclusivity.
Digital Innovation:
Embrace digital platforms to reach wider audiences, offering virtual performances, workshops, and interactive content.
Implement online fundraising campaigns, subscription models for digital content, and virtual memberships to generate additional revenue.
Artistic Collaboration and Experimentation:
Encourage collaboration among theaters, artists, and cultural institutions to share resources and expertise.
Support experimental and unconventional productions that push artistic boundaries, attracting diverse audiences and fostering creativity.
Flexible Programming:
Create flexible programming that caters to a broad range of audience interests, including classical works, contemporary pieces, and experimental performances.
Offer themed seasons or festivals to attract different demographics and keep programming dynamic.
Inclusivity and Diversity:
Prioritize inclusivity in casting, production teams, and storytelling to reflect diverse perspectives.
Establish mentorship programs and initiatives to support underrepresented groups within the theater community.
Financial Stewardship:
Implement sound financial management practices, including regular financial assessments, budget transparency, and efficient resource allocation.
Develop contingency plans for economic downturns, emergencies, or unexpected challenges.
Audience Development:
Invest in audience development strategies, such as targeted marketing campaigns, audience surveys, and feedback mechanisms.
Leverage social media and digital platforms to engage with audiences and build a loyal following.
Government Advocacy:
Advocate for government policies that support the arts, including tax incentives for donors, grant programs, and initiatives to promote cultural enrichment.
Engage in dialogue with policymakers to highlight the social and economic value of the nonprofit theater sector.
Sustainable Practices:
Implement environmentally sustainable practices in theater operations, reducing waste, energy consumption, and environmental impact.
Explore partnerships with eco-friendly organizations and initiatives to promote sustainability.
Collaboration with Educational Institutions:
Forge partnerships with universities and schools to create training programs, internships, and workshops that contribute to the development of the next generation of theater professionals.
Adaptive Governance:
Foster adaptive governance structures that involve diverse perspectives, including artists, community representatives, and business professionals, to ensure effective decision-making.
Implementing a combination of these ideas tailored to the specific needs and challenges of each nonprofit theater can contribute to a more sustainable, inclusive, and vibrant theater ecosystem.
We should all be comforted that none of these ideas are something nobody has ever thought of before—after all, ChatGPT3 was educated on the contents of the internet. So, our jobs as “innovators” are safe. Nevertheless, we could do a helluva lot worse than using these twelve ideas as the starting point for a discussion of alternatives to the current broken system (yes, there, I said it, so sue me).
Anyway, like climate change, we’ve known that the nonprofit theater system was dysfunctional for a long time. But over and over, those of us sounding the alarm were told we were being negative and annoying—I mean, a total buzzkill. Perhaps this time, instead of putting our fingers in our ears and shouting “blah-blah-BLAH,” people who care about theater ought to actually TALK about the situation we find ourselves in (see ChatGPT’s suggestion #6 in the first section)—and I personally really don’t care whether the discussions are kind, caring, and compassionate as long as they are thoughtful, knowledgeable, and thorough. And no, Twitter/X is NOT the place to do that—I’ll give Fergus that—but it might be a place to start. Perhaps we could then create an online forum where thinkers could share ideas, and eventually have a think tank (you know—a tank where people think), and develop a way to disseminate new ideas throughout the “industry.”
But remaining silent is no longer an option.
Thanks, ChatGPT3. Maybe we can hang out again tomorrow!