Recently, the FringeArts blog of Philadelphia interviewed the critically successful performer-producer Charlotte Ford about her decision to take a leave the arts scene to pursue a more formal career in speech pathology.
In her interview, “The Untenable Career of a Successful Philadelphia Theater Artist”, she candidly laid out the economic pitfalls of being a working artist: relying on grants or sponsors for funding, putting in 60+ hour weeks for scant pay, working tirelessly on increasingly successful projects only to struggle, still, with filling the calendar with work to pay rent. She felt that between the funders rejecting her grant requests for “doing it wrong” and an increasingly expensive environment, there was just no benefit to remaining a full-time artist.
Like Charlotte, I have wrestled with questions like these, but one point that her interview skirts and does not confront is the devaluation of artists by artists. We are conditioned to think that we must struggle and remain poor and hungry in order to produce art well. I, like you, have considered taking on a show for significantly less than my worth. When I agree to do that, however, I take value away from myself and my fellow artists. I’m telling the producer that my time and talent are negotiable, and that yours are, too. It’s about supply and demand. You are the only YOU. If they want YOU, then hiring you should benefit them for having you and benefit you by supporting your life as an artist.
Starting out as an artist in DC was hard. Very hard. I don’t believe I made more than $500 for a show in my first year as a designer. That’s hardly a livable wage, so I had to supplement my income by working part time at Starbucks, on overhire crew calls, and – finally – by taking a staff job at an opera company in Detroit for part of the year. I was afraid to push back and ask for more because I could lose that show to someone else in the ranks who would not ask for more money. That fear doesn’t go away, either.
Later in my career, after joining the designers’ union USA829, I was put in an awkward position by a particular theatre company. As we discussed contracts, I uncomfortably asked for my fee to be raised to meet a more legitimate rate given the workload I was being asked to do for this particular production. Their producer’s response was to tell me that they could get another designer who wasn’t in the union for less than their original offer. I invited them to do so if that was their decision and ended the discussion. The next day they offered me the show at the fee I’d requested. It was then that I began to value myself more, and to negotiate for myself better.
It’s not just myself I value, either. I value my fellow artists. If I am willing to take a lower fee as the lighting designer, then I have lowered the value of the projections and sound designers, as well, as their fees are usually comparable to mine. Similarly, if a set or costume designer – typically the highest paid designers on any particular production – is not willing to negotiate their worth, they then set the precedent for the rest of us. I cannot speak to other disciplines’ pay scales, but I have to imagine that the time they put into each production should be compensated at a wage that should allow them to flourish – not just survive on the bare minimum – and there is a ripple effect when one of us places our art below our worth.
Another company I’d worked with for years didn’t exactly push back when I asked for a higher fee, but they couldn’t raise it by much, either. Instead of simply rejecting me, though, they were open to a discussion about artist pay structure. With no one pushing, even as the company grew in distinction, there was no incentive for them to raise their fees. Several artists grew a voice when they heard that this company was willing to listen, and they’ve since re-structured their pay scale for artists in every discipline. I wish that more producers, managers, and sponsors were open to discussion about what it takes to create art on the professional level.
At the rate this company originally offered me, I would have to design at least 80 shows in a year to match their producer’s salary – a modest living wage itself. If I had to design 80 actual shows in a year (and if I were hypothetically able to book that), I would be constantly split between projects with none of them ever having my full attention. I would have to be in too many places at once – focusing Theatre A’s show while plotting Theatre B’s while cueing in a 10 out of 12 at Theatre C while attending a production meeting at Theatre D while generating paperwork for Theatre E while researching new technology and techniques in my field in my “spare” time. Even if I was a fleet of people by myself, the work I could produce to support myself at that rate would be shoddy – not to mention that I would be completely unhealthy and unable to grow as an artist.
Similarly: were I to get a “day job,” my focus would have to be split between doing that and whatever shows I was still able to book around my available time. Given that so many productions require more than a full-time job does, could I still be considered a professional lighting designer? The distinction is not between making a dollar or not, it’s between focusing completely on my work or having my focus split.
If even one of us is unwilling to participate in a movement towards a living wage, then we will all continue to be overworked and underpaid.
Professional theatre companies can pay their staff a living wage to focus on their work, yet have stagnant and unsupportable fees for the artists who are giving just as much time per week to each of their productions. If you want to hire professionals, pay them at a professional rate – one which supports their livelihood and allows them to thrive for the duration of their work on that production. If the company cannot provide that for their artists, if the artists cannot afford not to have alternate sources of income during these periods that are not related to their work, then perhaps we must draw a line as they do in the sports world and represent those productions and companies as semi-professional. No less valuable to the artistic community, but more representative of the company’s level.
I recognize that many of these statements may be incendiary, but I think it’s a necessary conversation we need to have as artists, producers, and audience. Ms. Ford stated that “live performance is expensive to create,” and she’s right. Live people are expensive because our lives are valuable, and we cannot neglect that for ourselves. Ask for more. Don’t work for less than you’re worth. Even when you do that favor for a friend, at the very least be sure you’re not doing it at a cost to yourself. Remind your collaborators and producers that you have a worth. I know we can do this at every level of production because all of the theatre companies I have worked with really do care about their artists.
This is a conversation we need to have as a collective – not as individuals. Working together is the best way to create change. If even one of us is unwilling to participate in a movement towards a living wage, then we will all continue to be overworked and underpaid. This is why I think artist guilds and unions are so important. Imagine if artists of every discipline met to set minimums and conditions so no one would be afraid to be undercut. It’s time we artists started taking control of our livelihood. We have to stop competing in a race to the bottom to win by providing the most product for the least money. Our time and talent is more valuable than that.
——————–
Guest writer: Andrew F. Griffin is a Helen Hayes Award winning freelance lighting designer.
See his work at AFGLighting.com
This is a great article and well said. I do not find it incendiary that artists charge what is a living wage for their work. As a visual and theater artist, director and artistic director, I find that this is a fundamental problem in theater. For everyone. As someone trying to start a small theater company, the lack of funding, the grant chasing, begging patrons, the need to make theater accessible to everyone not just those who can pay upwards of $50 per ticket, the dilemma of paying living wages and finding sources for that money is enigma. While I am committed to living wages, we no longer seem to have the financial support to make production of work viable for the small companies. Small companies are the art makers. Professionally. Art makers should not have to choose, sometimes after a lifetime of making art professionally to take semi-status because funding is challenging. Nor should they be able to avoid paying the artists who make them possible. So then what? I believe we must restructure how we pay for art and all arts, including theater arts so that the art makers can afford to live and continue making art. Not to lessen their viability by making their professional art making less than professional.
Thanks for this article Andrew. Those who are on the design side likely won’t find this incendiary, but many admin may.
Just thinking of the business model of arts organizations, one concern I’ve had is that shouldn’t the entire process start with fundraising and operating a company based off of money you have in the bank, instead of (what I found many in DC to do) hoping to be able to pay your designers and actors out of ticket revenue?
Many small professional theatres go into production without funds available to cover more than the venue and some of the set and wardrobe, but not actually cover their staff? They simply hope the show sells well, and if not, too bad? And to some, they’re ok with offering really low rates because they choose to accept that they’re just not good at fundraising and it’ll all be ok in the end. even if its not. Because someone else new will come along for cheap. Because that’s the way they’ve always done it.
Fantastic Gaia!
I hope you realize that not everyone chooses to live that way, though I commend you for your commitment and achievement in all of your crafts!
First off Charlie – I am glad you agree with me. It means that we can be open with each other and have a conversation and not a hard headed debate.
I would first like to respond to your point of my reaching the enviable place I am in. You make it seem as if the only way to make a living is to work at those top tier theatres, of the ones you list, I only worked at one of them….once in my entire seven years in DC before moving on. It is possible to make very near a living wage not working at the theatres you listed.
Now back to your first point, supply and demand. The way you describe supply and demand of artist refers to us as cattle and frankly is something I find diminuitive. By all means, are there lots of us, yes, but the people who are right for a production in any aspect make that pool smaller. I made a living by learning what I did best, marketing myself for those jobs, and then asking for what I was worth. Supply and demand as artists is a revolving door, and I find it more honorable to think of artists as a single supply. There is only ONE of every artist. Everyone is unique. If you want an artist you want them and should pay them as such.
And now, to your union busting. I would have to ask what it is exactly that makes unions so oppressive to you. You only mention IATSE, but what about the other out there? USA, AEA, SSDC, AGMA, etc. What is it about those unions that makes them so prohibitive. Most times when I talk to people about this issue I find they have been told and not done the research and found that they break you financially. I encourage you to do the homework, and I will be happy to help. Unions want their people to work and can work with you. As I said to Kevin, I am not looking for 100% membership, I am looking for 100% accountability in a city. For artists to talk to eachother and to work as a collective to hold companies accountable.
There are ways we can reach this point.
Mordecai – I hear you and we want to work together to change the standards of living for all artists. Please keep fighting the good fight
Kevin – First I would like to respond to your quibble with Unions and Guilds. I would have to ask why it is you think that productions cannot happen because of the unions? I know my union very well, and I don’t think USA make my work, even on a small scale prohibitive. While I know AEA can pump the brakes a little harder, what is it exactly that makes it impossible to use AEA actors to the point of failure of a production? Is it hours for pay? Is it span of day? Is it a day off? I understand that there needs to be a portion of our pool that is non unionized, and what I am not calling for is 100% unionization. What the article asks for is outside of the unions for their to be a collective that keeps artists working together on the same pay scale to help keep wages, hours, and the like fair and balanced.
I am not begrudging small companies, and I think, if any thing, I am asking companies that aren’t pocketing millions, and that can’t pay their artists a full living wage to consider changing their labeling from professional, to semi professional. I don’t see anything wrong with that because as I said before in my article it works in professional athletics, why can’t we look at that in this case?
I’m right there with you, Andrew, and I have been since before I joined Equity in 1989. The other comments here about “reality” make sense, but even so, I am still pro-union for actors. In the past 25 years, I have had exactly two Equity contracts. I have refused to give up the card and I refuse to work as an actor in a non-Equity show. That’s how strongly I feel in general about artists sticking up for what we are worth, and specifically about the value of my time and work. (Full disclosure: the state in which I live had only two Equity theaters when I first joined the union many years ago and local work was scarce. Now there are more pro companies and I have recently started auditioning again.)
I’ve focused instead on singing in performances and media outside of Equity’s jurisdiction, and I’ve had a day job. Musicians also have the same issues. Many places want to “audition” you first before paying you (would you insist on getting the first service/visit free with a doctor, plumber, housekeeper, CPA, acupuncturist, hair stylist, etc?), or they want you to play for the door or for free for the “exposure.” It’s been mentioned in the other comments: if someone performs for free or for under his/her value, then the value of the service goes down for all of us in the market.
These are the same issues artists have had for years and it seems difficult to solve. We can start by making the distinction between those who work for free as “non- or semi-professional,” and those who require payment commensurate for their value as “professional.” And theater companies can label themselves as either professional or amateur, making it loud and clear in their advertising, online presence and programs.
Wild ideas: Theater companies could list what each actor is paid in their programs, for the purpose of transparency and to build public awareness. They could also have collections in the lobby where after the show, audience members could put money into a secure box–one box for each actor–for the amount they think each actor earned for that audience member’s seat that night. Yeah, that may be difficult to manage re income taxes…
Doing anything professionally requires looking at it as a business and working it like a business. And as we all know, business is about making money.
I am a speech-language pathologist for 22 years and a writer/artist. The speech therapist part of my life has greatly enriched my art and writing. It has freed me to do whatever I want to do artistically since I didn’t have to worry about making the rent money. I write about the creative process and how the strands of my various “lives” weave together in my blog gaiamouse.wordpress.com.
Oh, yes. I’m not a theater artist, but my degree is in theater, and I’m a professional writer who often writes about theater and all the arts. How many times do you hear that a writing career just is not tenable? How many times are people going to ask me when am I getting a real job? It’s endless — partly because the world is full of people who will agree to write articles for a $5 or $10 fee and call themselves writers. You can’t make a living that way, and you devalue the entire field in the meantime when you train companies and organizations to believe that they can get a decent article or piece of copy written for literally a few dollars, or worse, but tragically common, “for the exposure.” A majority of “jobs” listed for writers out there, in my experience, say you won’t be compensated in money, but with a byline, “experience,” and “exposure.” Bullshit. (Excuse my language.) Do that if you want to, but don’t call yourself a professional. Value yourself and others will too.
This could only happen if the supply of artists, designers, and performers were smaller than the demand, and if the audience was willing to pay Broadway ticket prices for even the smallest productions. I suppose a billionaire could show up and give an enormous grant to each small company to underwrite the costs of paying each artist on each show 1000s of dollars more. We all know none of these things are ever going to happen. The best chance for someone to reach the enviable place you’re in, Andrew, making a living wage, is to work on these smaller productions and get enough experience, credits and awards to compete with you for jobs at the top tier theaters (KC, Arena, Signature, etc.) that pay a living wage. If you were to create a new union or expand the existing one (IATSE, which covers the theaters cited above) all you’d succeed in doing is putting a lot of smaller, up and coming theater companies out of business, and a lot of artists out of work (albeit work that requires they have a day job). Nonetheless because they’re artists, they’ll find a way to work anyway, even if it means working in someone’s living room to avoid the reach of your oppressive work-killing union. The reality is artistic directors spend most of their time raising money to pay the best people the most they can to do the most ambitious shows they can to attract a bigger audience, mentions, and donations. But, if we don’t figure in reality, I agree with you 1000%: all artists, and not just theater artists, deserve to make a living wage. I wish this were the case. We’d be living in a better world.
And the even uncomfortable truth is, that even at the 80-shows-a-year rate you were being offered, you and others on the technical/operational side are still leagues ahead of what the actual performers are given in most major cities in the U.S. I’ve had financial backers of a local company I was involved in for years literally LAUGH IN MY FACE when I suggested that some day they might even consider paying their actors an honorarium. I’ve worked with companies that don’t even give their performers a single comp ticket to the show they have devoted every scrap of free time to for the last 2 months. And when confronted they just shrug and say, “that’s not how we do things here.” I swear to God that came out of the company director’s mouth. And responses like that are far more the norm than they should be.
Fantastic article, Andrew.
I wonder how much of this is “what the market bears.” American society, as a whole, values the arts, but not enough to prioritize them. Try getting a business loan to start a theatre: it’s much harder than if you want to start a restaurant, or a bar, or a law firm.
My only quibble is your support of the unions and guilds. I think of the important work that’s happening in DC outside of the “big seven” and while I want all of these “mid level” companies to be successful and to appropriately compensate their artists, I’ve seen too many shows that would fail (or wouldn’t be possible in the first place) if held up to Equity standards.
I think the conversation has to encompass more than just artists. Because there will always be companies that pay a percentage, or a small stipend, to their artists. As long as those companies exist, there will be artists who want to work. And as long as there are artists who will are willing to play for that pay, those companies will continue to exist. But these companies aren’t pocketing millions while their artists get shafted.
I’ll never begrudge an artist for not wanting to work with me because of what I can afford to pay them. As a growing company, the goal IS to get to the point where artists are paid a living wage. That takes time, a seemingly never-ending process.