I want to thank my friends and colleagues for their vigorous advocacy of non-Equity theatre makers – performers, producers, or both – during the discussion of theatreWashington’s new minimum pay requirements. I applaud the dialogue on all sides for remaining informed, erudite and civil.
I can only speak for myself, and I realize that having left DC (where, it should be noted, out of all the markets I’ve ever worked in, non-Equity actors are paid the best), I have no skin in this game and no professional associations to risk. I’m also in a much more comfortable situation than many colleagues, so the debate about adequate non-Equity compensation isn’t as immediately relevant to me as it is to others.
Unacknowledged in this discussion are the thousands of non-Equity theatre makers all over the country who already earn a living wage elsewhere. Indeed, virtually every non-Equity theatre structures their creative process around the assumption that virtually everyone involved has a day job; that’s why rehearsals are nights and weekends, for a start.
The related and far more fanciful discussion about living wages for non-Equity actors seems based on the flawed assumption that we have no other income sources, as if we stave off starvation by stringing together $400 acting gigs. Of course $12.50 per rehearsal would barely cover subway fare and a meal. But how many people count on it to?
I certainly wouldn’t turn down a larger paycheck – heck, who would? – but if I wanted a living wage from pursuing my art to the exclusion of all else, didn’t have a more lucrative skill set, or felt exploited or underpaid or otherwise mistreated, I’d join Equity.
Some people are non-Equity because they’re building up their resumé before joining. Some remain non-Equity because for various reasons they’re more marketable. But others are non-Equity because they’re already financially independent or have a day job and, having the option, prefer to work on small scale productions that are typically riskier, experimental, or focused on more artistic than commercial goals. These artists quite often have extensive training and experience, BAs, BFAs, even MFAs. Some were Equity but left. They love what they do – some have been doing it longer than I’ve been alive – they just don’t do it for a living.
I’m non-Equity by choice. I’m content with the money I earn from acting, which at best never exceeded $5,000 a year. I’m content with the resumé I’ve accumulated with local, summer stock, semi-pro, fringe, and Equity regional theatres. I’ve had opportunities I’d never have as an Equity actor. I’ve done shows that would bankrupt an Equity company; ironically, the most ardent living wage advocates worked on some of them with me.
Granted, I’m past forty years of age, and as such, many of the choices and sacrifices I made for my art in my comparatively bohemian youth – scraping together temp work and odd jobs, quitting full-time jobs for summer internships, no health insurance or savings, accepting parental charity – are no longer feasible, especially in this economy. I have a day job that pays better than the LORT-A minimum. If I quit that job and worked for fifty weeks a year with a NEAT contract, I’d be lucky to make half of my current income. I’m happy right where I am, thanks.
Don’t get me wrong. I value my skill set, experience, and training enough that I expect compensation. I rarely work for nothing, unless it’s my own theatre company, or the right role. But the choice to work for free or demand fair compensation is mine.
So, after twenty-plus years (and counting) of making theatre, having made all those sacrifices, with my training, my MFA, having done about 100 plays since undergrad, receiving a regional Best Actor award in which I was nominated alongside Equity actors, having enough EMC points that I can turn Equity virtually at will, what am I? Professional? Semi-pro? Mostly Professional? Independent Freelance? Over-trained Dilettante?
It’s a relevant question, because if theatreWashington is trying to define what constitutes professional theatre, then by extension they’re trying to define what constitutes professional theatre makers. So what makes one a professional? Training and degrees? Union affiliation? Income percentage? Or something less tangible?
Through the Helen Hayes Awards and the “Helen Hayes Recommended” marketing tag, theatreWashington has helped make it possible for small and emerging companies to grow their audiences and budgets to the point where many can offer Equity guest contracts, or pay the newly mandated non-Equity minimum. tW’s influence has helped shape and strengthen DC’s theatre scene into the national powerhouse it is today.
But these new requirements make it far more difficult for the newest batch of theatre makers to become the next Forum, or Keegan, or Constellation. And with so many venues closing over the past five years (H Street, Playbill, Warehouse, Clark Street, Artisphere, etc), do we really want to intentionally make it harder? Arguably the theatre scene is overpopulated, but is the solution to smother our own children?
I remain convinced tW’s guidelines will produce negative unintended consequences. Some small theatres might be able to absorb the increase in budget without a ripple, but the rest will start doing small-cast shows, do fewer productions, or eschew Helen Hayes eligibility altogether, reducing opportunities for emerging artists. Rehearsals will be fewer but longer, compromising the quality of the productions as well as the work-life balance for actors with full-time jobs. And do we want to give DC’s Equity companies the option to lower their non-Equity pay rates to tW’s minimum?
Ultimately the pivotal question is why theatreWashington has announced these new minimums. Is it because non-Equity theatre makers are crying out for better pay? Then tW should perhaps let them do their own advocacy. Or is it a means to focus tW’s finite resources on a smaller pool of theatre makers? If so, it’s a pity, because it benefits those who need tW the least at the expense of those who need them the most.
John Geoffrion is an actor, director and producer who received his MFA from Catholic University and worked in DC-area theatre from 2004-10.
He is now the co-founder and Artistic Director of the Hub Theatre Company of Boston.
Amen!
Well stated. Time for an OBIE type award in DC for small budget, small venue capacity, low ticket prices, etc… tW is throwing in the towel on serving the whole community with an award, that is fine and understandable. No need to brand small theatre as nonprofessional – a professional can choose to donate his/her time for a labor of love type endeavor and not as a hobby.
I’m late to the party here – and have chosen not to engage in this debate up until now – but my name has been invoked as a proof point that professional artists don’t need to make a living from their art, so I feel compelled to respond and set the record straight. Professional theatre has always been a profession and a career for me and not a pastime or hobby. I made a very conscious decision at an early age that I would not do it part-time or rely on another job to support my chosen vocation. And when – even though I was working consistently in professional theatre – I found it difficult to do others things that I wanted to be able to afford to do on my own speed (travel more, have a mortgage, etc) I chose to explore a different career. It was a difficult choice, and a personal one, but it was not intended to subsidize a theatre hobby in which I made next to nothing. It was a choice to pursue – with equal passion and energy – another career. And now, when I do shows (once or twice a year), I do them on a full-time basis, taking vacation time from my other career as needed, working as many hours as needed, and at times being conservative about the size of the roles I accept (supporting rather than leads) if I feel I can’t give a leading role a full-time commitment. What’s more, I expect to be compensated commensurately for that full-time effort. I don’t work for free or a pittance, unless I’m deliberating donating my time to a charity benefit or an organization I want to support. But if I am working – and I consider my acting work to require just as much energy, focus and effort (if not more at times) as my other career – then I choose to do it for a professional salary, and I see no problem in an organization using honorary awards they have created to encourage theatres to meet a minimum standard for compensating those professional efforts. That doesn’t stop anyone from doing the scrappiest theatre they want to. Hell, I might well choose to do some black-box-bare-bones labor of love production for minimal (or negative) profit at some point as well. But I wouldn’t expect a Helen Hayes nom out of it. And given the new (modest) salary standard, I would do my best to budget for it and meet it for those artists I chose to employ if I could. I also think the non-equity theatre work I did off-off-broadway in NYC right after school afforded me a good opportunity to learn and grow at a time when I was willing to accept a travel stipend (or SmartCard) for the experience. But I also didn’t expect to be eligible for a Tony Award for having done it.
Thank you David, this can’t be said any better.
I’m not an artist but I’m a longtime supporter of DC theatre, financially and otherwise, and was on the board of one theatre as it transitioned to an Equity contract. What strikes me as most paradoxical about some of the arguments here are the assertions that artists have no right to expect to be paid fairly, and yet they and the theatres that employ them do have a right to be considered for one organization’s awards. And even more, theatres that are not eligible for said awards in the future will never be able to pay their artists the amounts that they’re not paying now, when they have been eligible.
The fact is, it’s a question of priorities. Some theatres pay actors a small stipend while building expensive, elaborate sets. Others have committed to Equity status knowing that that means production values will need to be artfully spare. There is “risk” in spending money on any production, any time, and the myth that unpaid means riskier and more artistic is an old one– but it’s still a myth. There’s good, bad, and indifferent theatre at every level of professionalism.
The basic fact is that theatreWashington felt the need to pare down the number of eligible theatres in order to make the judging process viable, which it’s barely been for a long time. I wish (and I’ll bet they wish, now) they hadn’t used the word”professional” in describing their standards for inclusion, but since linking inclusion to actor compensation has always been a part of HH Awards eligibility, it probably seemed to be the best justification. And frankly, I don’t know what other term would have served.
I’m sorry you found my original post to be condescending. It definitely had a ” tone”. Please know the term ” over trained dilettante” was the author’s, not mine.
I’m glad you have an interest in the arts. We need everyone to have an interest in the arts. But please do not confuse the author’s interest with the stakes a professional has in the field. We are all in. To think that you are somehow more artistic and therefore as professional because you do not do it for a living is very silly. Not disparaging the theatre John is creating. I have no doubt he’s a talented dude, doing interesting stuff.
Thanks, Sam. It is nice to hear that the people behind the scenes are respected for their work. I feel like pay rates are an important issue for all the artisans and artists in the DC Arts community. Equity, IATSE or not everyone should be able to pay rent and buy groceries.
Katie stack,
Everyone knows that you are the bomb. No seriously, I’m not sure we’ve ever met. But I know that you craft like a boss. That’s all.
I’ll flatly admit I am not an actor, I’ve never been an actor and so my opinions may not count for much. When I started in “professional” theatre about a dozen years ago, costume designers were (and likely still are) paid a $100-$500 stiped to design, shop, build, alter, paint etc etc etc all of the costumes for a show. I quit designing when I realized this was NEVER going to pay my rent. I started working as a crafts artisan -a less glam title- but a much better chance of making a living wage. I worked on productions many of you acted in, designed lights for and likely directed or produced. My work was pretty well respected. I worked at one of the big theaters for a number of years until it became clear that I was never going to get a raise again. Later, that theatre stopped paying into my retirement account. So I quit. Now I work for myself in my own little shop, putting my skills to work making a living wage for myself. A few people call that selling out. A few people call that abandoning the ship. I call it looking after my best interests when no one else was.
In reality- you CANNOT pay your rent, or retirement, or buy groceries on the love of a craft. If theatres in DC want to refuse to pay working professionals what works out to be LESS THAN MINIMUM WAGE, they should be excluded from the awards. Let me assure you, the building the show is performed in isn’t rent free, and the rent the actors pay to their landlords isn’t $000. You cannot eat “love of the craft” and you cannot sell “artistic fulfillment”. People must be, at minimum, lightly compensated for their efforts.
It is offensive to equate the desire to earn a living wage with “not loving the work.” Look – I’m not in the DC theater scene, so I have no personal stakes in this argument – but as a professional opera singer and AGMA member, I can say that I would not have been able to pursue my craft without the union to protect my compensation for my time. This does NOT make me mercenary, this does not mean that I am not passionate about my art, this does not make me a greedy sellout – I mean, even working regularly at an AGMA house I still live on a rather meager income anyhow. The fact that this author has a day job that pays all his bills is all well and good for him – not all of us have that luxury. Before becoming a union member, I was working minimum wage in a convenience store – and in the current job market, even that position was hard to come by – with a Master’s Degree! I became a singer because I wanted to dedicate my life to that craft – and that means making a living through it, because that is the only way I can have the time to truly live my art. I didn’t become a singer so I can sit behind a desk in order to allow me to support a hobby. I know he says in this article “then go join equity” if that’s what you want. Sure, I agree. But don’t imply that being passionate and loving the art requires not being adequately compensated for your time
That’s all good. Have fun creating whatever work you want. So why do the Helen Hayes awards matter to you then? If you don’t want to pay professionals for their work and you are doing it for the sake of the work, then a professional award shouldn’t matter. Employees should be payed fairly no matter the work.
TB: It IS a small community. So it didn’t take very long for us to figure out who you are. There will be no “outing”- as we know you’ve seen in the comments on Facebook. I don’t think anyone wants to drag the theatre company with which you are affiliated through the mud just because you had a moment of anger motivating you, especially because it’s a very small theatre and NONE of us wish anything but good things for such companies. Certainly not TW. That’s not what this is about.
I do not live in the DC area but so happy to have stumbled across this post. I personally have a very similar background and investment in the arts that you do John.
I couldn’t read past Sam’s condescending comments so I hope more people feel the same way I do about this. I had some choice words for him but chose to not put more negativity on the subject out there.
Thanks again for the post!
I think demanding it, and then devaluing the work of companies who can’t pay it is egotistical. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we all could pull $30k a year for our work. But society at large doesn’t demand us to exists and therefore doesn’t value our work to that amount, which makes it entirely unrealistic for us all to pay what you are demanding of us. And we will never pull that sort of money without sacrificing some of our artistic integrity. Does the fact that we insist on doing challenging material that the Red Hats don’t want to see make us somehow less professional? Does the fact that some of the most talented actors in the city agree to do our work for small wages because they find it so enjoyable somehow make them less professional? I mean, honest truth, if anyone is devaluing their work, it’s the large theatres that would rather cast out of town than take on our pool of just as qualified or capable actors.
very interesting…TB you see expecting a living wage as a matter of ego. i don’t see it that way at all. I also don’t think any of the smaller companies are hoarding money from the artists. I think everyone knows younger groups make due as they grow. Charles, I understand that you want your work to be respected. I don’t think that is at issue. I understand their is frustration about losing potential PR. it seems that their is room to create the equivalent to what New York has with the OBIE’s down here for smaller organizations.
I’m not a member of equity, I’ve never been to the Helen Hayes and couldn’t really care about awards.
However.
it’s not what you think you’re worth. it’s what the market says you are worth.
if half of the market is just really happy to be there, and doesn’t feel they deserve a living wage – it affects the entire market.
It’s why Equity is weak. there is an enormous workforce out there willing to do it for nothing. It devalues all actors.
I’m a pinko, communist, card carrying memeber of IATSE Broadway 798, and we don’t fuck around.
I’m not an artist. I’m an artisan. there is a difference. I have a skill and it has to be compensated. i encourage actors to adjust their thinking.
artists – patrons are allowing you the priviledge of doing your art.
artisan – skilled worker getting paid.
it would be in equity’s best interest to give anyone who wants a card their card. no questions. no auditions. pay the fee – get your card. we all know the union is not necessarily synonymous with quality. have a unified workforce and feel the real power of collective bargaining.
no that is off topic!
This is all getting wildly off my original point, which is simply a call for professional respect for self-producing artists. We’re not devaluing your work by existing, and we don’t expect awards – but HH eligibility is something that helps us sell tickets, attract pr, and ultimately develop our companies. It’s fun to remember that there is no true definition for professional artist other than an artist who is paid, no matter what a union or anyone says. We take different career paths and that’s fine. I’m not trying to insult you Sam, but maybe you’re not any more professional than us just because you choose to work within the lines.
I actually apologize for this one. It was personal and born out of anger. I’m sorry Bobby, you don’t deserve that attack.
Good for you Samantha. I’m still not going to make this a personal thing. My argument is against the clique of entitled people who are demonizing the small theatre community because we can’t afford to pay you what you think you’re worth. As if they’re all just hoarding all this extra money for themselves when the reality is they do the best they can and will always pay what they can afford, and understand that theatre isn’t about how much you pocket at the end of the day, but how you affect people. I’m fine if you never come work with our companies, because we work with wonderful talented people every day who do understand that, who do dedicate themselves to art for arts sake, and who know that we will do our best to compensate them at least as much as we can.
And you’re right. I’m not a gentleman. I’m an honest, straightforward person who’s not afraid to challenge what I think are flawed and often egocentric opinions.
TB, I would pray for you if I only knew your name.
hi TB!
it’s Sam!
my name is Samantha Hunter. I’ll give my name because you’ve earned it. you certainly haven’t earned me ever sharing my super kick ass skillz with your company.
ps – no one does this for the money. i mean seriously. no one
and you wish you were half the gentleman Bobby Smith is.
And give it up Smith. I’ve spent enough time around you to know you’ve got just as much venom as the rest of us. It’s a small community. Don’t forget it.
Because I won’t be goaded into making this a personal attack. You got into this business to make money. I got into this business to make art. That’s the simple truth. There will always be actors just as talented as you who understand that. And I will always pay them as much as I can. It likely won’t ever amount to a living wage. And that’s just the nature of this art. I can’t understand for the life of me why you feel you are so special that you deserve more money than is available. It makes me sad to see so many make this same argument. I’m fine if you want to continue being too good for the rest of us. I prefer people with better attitudes.
Hey TB why not sign your actual name? You continue to throw bombs from your annoniminity. Because you know if you did sign your name your theatre would be boycotted and could no longer find anyone to help you. So just stand up so the rest of us professionals and armatures a like know to never work for someone who clearly devalues all art.
Also I hope this conversation makes you realize you are not welcomed in this community and you should just leave.
ah… so there it is. I think TB got to a deeper truth. ” be given the same consideration as someone who does something more valuable for society?”
it would seem you don”t truly believe what you create is worth a living. it’s something you cherish and honestly enjoy, and would monetize it if you could…. but perhaps don’t believe that it is worth it? I don’t know what you are producing, so you might very well be right.
you can make a phone call a get 100 of me…. interesting. People on this board who know my identity would disagree, but now i’m just being coy…
so there lies the crux of this issue. I don’t do this work at all costs. In fact I have a very specific threshold. if it isn’t met, I’ll look for other means of employment.
not to say i wouldn’t step into a theatre for the right project pro bono, but i wouldn’t expect to be considered for an award for that. Purity of heart is lovely, but ultimately meaningless in this art.
Art for Art’s sake. not something I’ve had the pleasure to enjoy since college. when it wasn’t yet my profession.
I Iove craft projects. I mean seriously love them. making presents for people is one of my greatest pleasures. I craft with love and gusto… but i wouldn’t dare claim myself a professional. can you imagine if I opened an etsy shop and gave away for next to nothing all of my wares…. because they meant so much to me and I just wanted to share them with the world… I imagine I’d get an ear full from professional crafters – unhappy that i was devaluing their trade.so, i give to friends and colleagues. it’s my hobby. I’m just happy to share.
I understand where you are coming from. TB you will have no shortage of actors willing to perform for peanuts. you gotta start somewhere. it seems you have some interest in compensating them. although, it is discouraging to hear you undervalue the profession as a whole.
How dare you. TB. Throwing out boorish crude comments and hiding behind initials. So glad to see your true colors. How dare you. Not one person on this site has had as much venom to spew. No wonder you don’t use your name. No person in the arts with any self esteem would dare work for someone who publicly devalues artist as a dime a dozen. I wish you peace.
TB if you think the world has not lost something inherently valuable if Sam or any of these artists stop doing what they’re doing that tells me a lot about the quality of what you must be producing. What a contemptible thing to say, even if it were true. You almost had some good points to add, too.
Actually I think it’s Charlie who seems to have struck Sam’s nerve. I’m sorry, did someone trick you into thinking you were a special, unique commodity that deserves to just make art all day and be given the same considerations as someone who does something more valuable for society? Unless suddenly 90% of the thousands of theatre makers in the area just suddenly decide to up and leave, you ARE NOT special. I make a call for $100 and get a hundred of you. All of them much more willing to make art for the sake of art and can accept that we will pay them what we can, and if we end up doing well and can pay them more, we sure as hell will because we respect them for respecting us. No one is asking you to do what you are doing. If you quit what you’re doing, the world does not lose something important. Get off your high horse. You’re in theatre. We do what we can with what we have. And unless we’re willing to sell out and produce only old white people pleasing golden age era musicals, what we have will never amount to much. But we will continue doing it because we love it. We will continue to pay for it out of our own pockets unless someone else loves it enough to help us out with that.
oh dear! seems a struck a nerve Charlie! that’s ok. I understand that for many people this is an issue of ego. I encourage you to set that aside. You speak of “the man” . alright, so why are you interested in “the man’s” award? it seems that you are set on doing much more artistic and daring work than what is happening in the big houses. certainly the caliber of that art isn’t what is at issue. you want to have a day job and live your dream on the side. on your terms. that’s very understandable… and safe. comforting to know you’ve got that 9-5 career to pay the bills I would argue that the real risk takers are the ones doing this without a net. i believe you refer to them as “jobbers”. i would call them brave ( maybe crazy) artists. i would not call your version of art any more meritus than theirs. they just put more on the line.
further down this thread you mention we should be taking on “the producers”. i believe what you are looking for is getting a group together, organizing, and setting terms of employment with management. the term you are looking for is collective bargaining and it is what equity does but this isn’t about equity vs non equity. it’s not about caliber of art. its merely setting a very low standard to define professional theatre in our region. It’s all well and good that you enjoy getting together with a bunch of your visionary friends to create the most exciting art the DC area has ever seen. super. but if you want “the man” to consider it for a professional award you have to check a couple of boxes.
i know you mean well.I can tell you love theatre and want to keep it pure and unsullied by the constraints of … a job…. but a few of us have endeavored to make this our livelihood. we really couldn’t care less about plastic trophies. we survive by this life. your philosophy cheapens us as a whole.
Hey, some companies just want their work to be seen, they want to redefine the art, they want to create theatre for someone other than rich old white people. I can think of a million reasons. It’s easy for jobbers to call independent artists hobbyists, I mean who could expect you to understand anything about vision? Are you saying that when a group of professional artists come together to form a company we have to carry the “burden” of paying ourselves $x to call ourselves a professional company? As if we don’t hire AEA artists when we need to supplement our productions with comparable talent? We’re second class citizens because we chose day jobs (often in theatre) to give us the freedom to make theatre on our terms? I think maybe you and your ilk should pack up your big boy pay checks and condescension and stop doing The Man’s work for him.
Let me get this straight… You’re not having fun AND not getting paid. Charles you are doing it wrong.
No one is saying squish the little guys out of exisitence. Not at all. If you can hang with the pathetically low guidelines you will be ajudicated. If not you can keep producing for whatever reason it is you are doing whatever it is you are doing. Not joy. Not money. Accolades? Well, I guess then you are out of luck.
No, Sam, it’s not fun, it’s not a hobby. Small professional theatres are doing work of their choosing the way they want to do it, and professional artists there take the jobs and the pay that they want. Audiences pay for that work. Why cut those artists out of the big boy awards? Because you can’t compete with them on your paycheck? How about you let the cards fall, live and let live? It’s not like HH has ever awarded low budget production value.
That is not my point. Lovely to see small up and coming groups make their way. It’s fun to do art. We all love to be a part of ” do whatever you want” theatre companies”.. However, why should the large companies be held to the constraints of professionalism, and all of the responsibility that entails, while the adolescent companies get there own set of lesser standards and rules to Adhere to. It’s much easier to be the king of your own little castle and make it up as you go. Certainly the established theatres would love that luxury. It isn’t afforded to them. They produce within the confines of the real world. Interesting you should point out theatres that are approx. 10 years old. Forum has been around 11 years? They meet the threshold. I’m sure it would have been a much a easier road for them to not worry about such things as professional compensation. You can’t have it both ways. You want to eschew established professional theatre practices. Fine. But why should the establishment reward you for it?
Sam, it seems like the artists on your side of this argument are union actors, aspiring union actors, and freelance directors and designers. Please understand that most small theatres in DC are comprised of self-producing artists – professional artists like all of you who choose to put their time ($) into producing their own work rather than working for $12/day as someone else’s monkey. Imagine that you weren’t just interested in a paycheck for today, you wanted to build a company where you could work regularly and control your professional destiny and artistic vision. Imagine that you didn’t have a rich uncle or government handout to finance your theatre, but you DID have your own professional skill to donate as sweat equity – and trust me, in a town with 90 companies, the market will shut down “amateurs” by rule of Darwin, companies that have been in business 10+ years are professionals. These companies are not exploiting artists because generally, they aren’t hiring outside of their company circles – these are like-minded directors, actors and designers of comparable professional skill who choose to work together. Are these companies really a threat to your livelihood? I suspect you wouldn’t work for them unless they could meet your price, and they probably wouldn’t be hiring outside of their resident pool, anyway. Please consider that what you are actually arguing for is to set back independent professional artists who actually need all the free pr they can get from HH. Why belittle and work against independent artists who are trying to make it without financial support – and incidentally, in the same way that the big theatres all made themselves?
This is not about talent. It’s about thinking this art exists in a vacuum. There is nothing wrong with hobby theatre, but you don’t get to have it both ways. You want to hang with the bigs boys? Take home the trophies? Well, you get saddled with some responsibilities at that level same as the big kids. Yeah, it’s harder to do art that way- no doubt. That’s the professional world. There are salaries and benefits and work rules. You want a seperate set of standards to do what you want when you want. To do your art your way and at other’s expense. That’s an entitled attitude.
let me help you out John. Over trained dillatante. That’s your category. Nothing wrong with that. Just as long as no one is counting on you for their livelihood. I can’t imagine you’d have such a cavalier stance if your actual job treated your work in such a way. What is your profession? Whatever it is you do from 9-5. Your art is your hobby. It’s a professional hobby… But a hobby. Totally cool, but not your job. The little theatre’s you are worried about will one day be invited to the grown up’s table. Or they won’t. At least that art won’t be at the expense of their performers.
Ars gratis pecuniae, right fellas? The sense of entitlement that I’m hearing from some of you is just heartbreaking. “I’d never work for X theatre company because my talent is worth so much more”. Thank god. Thank. God. Because I’m happy to find someone just as talented who is willing to do the work for the love of the work. Someone who understands that we are doing our best, and we will always compensate what we can, but in the end we’re making theatre not because someone needs us to or is asking us to or even wants us to, but because we’re passionate and in love with the art. Which is not something that is entitled to money.
tW gave lip service to defining it as a “goal indie theatres should reach.” Whether or not this came from the Big Seven is something I can’t answer. What I do know is that the Big Seven were not in favor of the Helen/Hayes split.
Weren’t the changes precipitated by the letter from the big theatres threatening to leave HH if some demands were not met? I’m pretty sure these changes were not imposed to help small theatres grow or give their artists better pay.
It seems like there are two different conversations going on.
First, this designation of “professionalism.” Everyone has a different definition. Heck, there’s a comment below from an actress who printed a definition of professional, and then turned right around and said something contrary to that definition. At the end of the day, tW is attempting to define “professional theatre” in DC, by simultaneously creating another (unnecessary) division within DC Theatre. tW can do anything they want, except speak for other companies. Look at the tW website right now:
http://theatrewashington.org/theater-directory-2
Listed among those “90+” theatres are: theatreWashington (the actual organization. does tW represent tW?), the Artists’ Bloc (defunct for 2 years now) and Theater Du Jour (hasn’t produced anything in over a year and a half).
tW cannot accurately claim to represent “90+” theatres in DC and the environs when some of those theatres no longer exist!
So why did tW make this change? Why not just put the arbitrary line at the “non-equity/equity” line? There was no public demand for tW to become more exclusive or for the HHA to become tighter. It’s because tW has no clue what the problems facing indie, non-eq theatres are. These salary requirements will be extremely difficult for indie theatres to meet, especially those without permanent spaces. tW has stated that this is a plateau for indie companies to reach. However, without providing…well…anything…to guide smaller companies to this plateau, it comes across as self-serving and unnecessary.
I guess “professional” in this case means accepting a $5 million bailout from the county.
I tell you with absolute certainty that no one’s going to miss not being eligible for awards. They’ll miss the publicity (for the theatre) that comes with it.
Let’s look at the second argument: the “living wage.” Never mind that many of the comments coming in support of these changes are from Equity practitioners; they already have a guarantee of a living wage. It’s extremely easy for anyone to stand up in a vacuum and say, “Yes! Pay us more!” That’s silly, though, because it ignores the problems facing indie theatres (space rental, limited federal and state resources, shared audience). No one, and I do mean no one, has the right to tell any of us whether or not we’re allowed to create theatre. The practitioners (non-owners) screaming about pay are doing so as if this were some sort of debate, as if theatres don’t WANT to pay anything more.
Ultimately, this is all nonsense, and will be forgotten about by the end of 2015. Practitioners who see this as some sort of “wake up call” will make commitments to themselves to only work when X is Y. The rest of us see this as tW turning into an elitist entity (again, the whole “Equity/Non-Equity” separation wouldn’t make them elitist. The fact that they just want to play with the top 20 theatres in DC, because there aren’t enough Equity theatres to make it worth it, is their choice).
If Equity is threatened by non-equity theatres (a statement so laughable I had to pause while typing this), then maybe some of the DC Equity practitioners on this thread might want to chime in about how much DC Equity houses cast and staff their shows out of New York.
As so many other people have so often stated on this thread, I too have worked on awful Equity productions that were not worth the money, and I have worked on Indie productions where I had such a satisfying, growth experience that I gave my pay back to the company. A “living wage” (which, by the way, this tW arbitrary ceiling doesn’t provide for) is not indicative of professionalism, and to indicate otherwise is offensive to the community as a whole.
Then maybe all paid theatre that falls under union scale should be considered semi-professional (by those who accept union rules for professional theatre), and TW should stop acting like a union to create further division – because this current plan is not creating any incentive for small theatres to pay anyone anything.
Yeah, we’re sticking to our talking points.
Eventually I’ll retire from my day job (or win the lottery), join Equity (if they’ll take me, after all my yappin’), and act until I’m dead, provided I can still stand upright and remember lines. Which will make me either a full-fledged unambiguously professional person of the theatre, or a retired non-profit fundraiser, depending on what label I pick that morning. Until then, I’ll keep on doing what I do, for as much $ as I can earn as an actor or pay out as a producer.
Sorry for swatting hornets’ nests. Buy you a beer next time I swing thru New Haven.
Charles – you call that theatre semi professional. There is nothing wrong with that.
Yes. Unions need to stop targeting nonprofit theatre where no individual shareholder is profiting. No one should shame artists for taking well-paying contracts. And you can’t call a theatre professional that does not pay – but what then do you call a theatre that pays… something… if not professional?
What if the next step is that small theatres accept this branding as “community theatre?” A bunch of professionally educated and skilled artists, who don’t need the pay anyway, begin to form companies that don’t pay anyone anything – they charge actors and designers a fee to participate as a way to guarantee full commitment and the agreement that all money goes toward making the best art possible. Limitless resources and artistic manpower. Suddenly “community theatre” for $20 is looking a lot more attractive to patrons than “professional theatre” at $100+ tickets.
Think it through.
What I see here are artists putting each other down, making themselves out to be more or less “professional” over amount of $ paid. Some are working for $ to make a living, some are working for less because they value artistic control/vision over the paycheck – but their time is also $, and the audiences don’t see the difference in skilled work. None of us are making what we deserve because the public does not value ($) theatre art. Some believe everyone should hold out for better pay – others think we should do better work to merit better pay. Union houses have to play it safe – if you cut out small theatre or dismiss their work as “amateur,” you’re just dumbing down the art and turning big theatre into a service industry for rich patrons without any pressure from “below” to make art groundbreaking or relevant.
Wow, Charles,
I don’t know many bitter artist. I only know the ones that are talented and struggle to make art and make a living in this profession. Please don’t name call.
J,
I agree we should all take a a step back. I agree we all have different positions and are passionate about each one. I will say, whether intentional or not, the words in the original article strike me as inflammatory and deserve a response. I know I respect different positions regarding this debate and I am sorry if my initial posts were less than respectful. I have worked for 30 odd years in this business as a professional. I think we should all think before we write. I hope the author of this article will do the same if there is a next time.
Why is the word “commercial” constantly being used in the article and in responses? All of the theatres we are talking about, large and small, are non-profits. Nothing we are discussing is commercial.
Can someone please explain the difference to me between community theatre and a professional theatre that doesn’t pay? Because you have decided by yourself that your theatre is professional, it is professional?
The most infuriating part about all of this is when I continually see people cutting down those of us who make money as though we are sellouts and in some cases bullies. As if someone with a full time day job who works for little to money in the theatre can claim the higher road as an “artist” because their work is more interesting or profound. And before you tell me that’s not what is being said, that is exactly what John says above and it is insulting. Suggesting that the work he does is “TYPICALLY RISKIER, EXPERIMENTAL, or FOCUSED ON MORE ARTISTIC THAN COMMERCIAL GOALS.”
(I don’t do commercial theatre. I work for non-profit theatres. So the term “commercial” absolutely needs to stop being used in these conversations.)
I spent a fortune to get an education. I have worked hard to be where I am and I expect to be paid a living wage! You don’t? Believe me when I say that is absolutely fine. You can make no money and think of yourself as a better artist then me. But don’t turn me into a bully because I demand to be paid, or suggest non-profit theatres who actually pay their performers are bullies because they applaud TheatreWashington for setting limits for their PROFESSIONAL awards. By all means go make your theatre that you have deemed to be “riskier”, more “experimental” and “more artistic” than mine. I’ll do my risk free, safe work and I’ll happily make money doing it. And if you don’t want to, that is FINE… it’s GREAT… but don’t turn me into a bully or say the theatre’s I work for are out for commercial gain and are “exploiting talent.”
At the end of the day this is about an award. TheatreWashington is currently adjudicating anyone who has deemed themselves professional (I believe over 90 theatres) and some who pay their actors nothing, or as little as a dollar. That is NOT PROFESSIONAL. You don’t get to call yourself a professional theatre just because you’ve decided you are. They need to set limits for their awards in order to adequately and fairly judge professional productions. Is it really fair to ask TheatreWashington to judge 90 theatres a year? That is impossible and they have been struggling to do that for several years now. Do you know how many judges there need to be to make that work? And then we have a group of judges judging one thing while a different set of judges judges another, and then another production judged by an entirely different set of people. Because it would be impossible to see every or even a majority of the productions. So how do they make this manageable so the award and the adjudication process mean anything and are balanced? They set parameters for their awards to define what “professional” means. And that is their right.
TheatreWashington gives out an award. If you are fighting for an award and not for better pay I don’t know what to say about that. But it doesn’t make any sense to me. And if you think your theatre will collapse because you can’t win an award… well… good luck.
“The difference between a professional and a dedicated amateur is, simply, this; a professional wakes in the morning and haas to, feels compelled to, pursue their craft while a dedicated amateur wants to do that same task.” That quote came from Alfredo Krause, operatic tenor, almost 30 years ago and it has stuck in my brain. I respect this man’s argument but, I get the feeling he does not feel he “has to” pursue acting or the stage as a career.
Equity needs to stop feeling threatened by non commercial theatre. It should go after producers who are making money and exploiting talent.
Holy Hyperbole, Batman. I would like to encourage everyone to pause before posting and remember that these are well-intentioned people and fellow artists you are talking to/about. They may not be fellow-professionals, but the quality of their work and dedication (John, MFA) merits a listen. Agree with them or not, there are a large number of people and companies that feel a conversation needs to be had regarding legitimacy, representation, and defining professionalism. It may be a short one for you, but coming close to personal attacks regarding integrity cheapen some otherwise excellent points.
Look, I don’t agree with John Geoffrion, but I knew him to be very kind and sincere and dedicated to his process when he worked in DC. I certainly don’t question his self-respect or his deep love of theater (“for Chrissake”). Nor do I question his “listening” comprehension. The defensive tone and emotional responses adopted here and on Facebook are understandable, but ultimately distract from moving the conversation forward. I appreciate and share that passion. But a week ago we were demanding that the anonymous poster name himself or herself— so that we could what, form an angry e-mob? People– lots of them– say we need to have a chat. It isn’t up to us to decide whether or not that desire is legitimate or worth addressing. John has spoken to us with respect and has asked honest questions. If we feel he has disrespected our profession unintentionally, we could do him the same courtesy by being impeccable with our word and our opportunity to educate one another.
There are tons of non-professionals who feel the way John does. He is sticking his neck out and allowing us to reach out to that large, large group to explain to them why it is so important for those of us just a few weeks shy of having healthcare to maintain a real understanding of what “professional” means. It is not a descriptor of quality of work, it is simply an indicator of what one does for a living. If we allow it to mean the former, it ceases to mean anything at all.
By the way, here is something somewhat relevant from Equity: “…Such non-union work seriously diminishes Equity’s ability to stimulate professional work opportunities, undercuts all other agreements, creates unfair competition, and is ultimately detrimental to the welfare of all the members.” Reminiscent of what Andrew has been getting at.
Speaking to the frustration and emotional responses— I hope (and believe) that John and others understand how deflating and disheartening it is to have to have this conversation again and again for decades, and that it is an especially hard one to have to have with fellow artists when some of us have it daily with our families.
Be kind, rewind.
This is becoming an embarrassing and ugly argument. HH is pitting “small artists” against small theatre in a ridiculous wage debate (and by this logic, it will only follow that no artist is “professional” unless you work in NYC) when we all know this is about cutting self-producing artists and low budget companies out of the game. Audiences pay, and they decide what is “professional.” This is why a new award needs to be introduced for small theatre. Take away the 16 performance requirement, plan 3-8 shows in a 500 seat venue, suddenly a small company can pay union rate – there needs to be press coverage and pr incentive given to those productions. Then bitter artists can continue to create an imaginary hierarchy of professionalism and fight over the same two jobs that will always go to NYC artists at the big budget theatres.
I’d just like to direct our attention to the following definitions for the word PROFESSIONAL:
Participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs
Paid to participate in a sport or activity
The fact that, when asked what I “do”, I need to say “I’m a PROFESSIONAL actor” is a perfect example of exactly why I support TW’s new requirements 250%. Ask a doctor what he or she does. “I’m a doctor”. There’s no need to specify that they are a professional because, like most professions, there are no amateur doctors, lawyers, social workers, teachers, psychologists…the “professional” is implied. These careers carry an inherent respect that, as PROFESSIONAL actors and artists of the stage, we are not automatically given. We have to earn it and any of us that has had success earning it has done so by working our ASS off and CONTINUING to work our ass off for simple respect that almost every other profession is given automatically. If the view represented in this article were the overriding attitude toward stage artists, our bodies would still be getting buried next to the criminals and other “second-class citizens”. If you’re a true artist, have some respect, for Chrissake- for yourself and for the theatre.
words right out of my mouth. Big God, small world, misinformed people.
And yes, Will Gartshore is still a professional actor, because Will Gartshore works under professional contracts that pay a professional wage.
I don’t want to opine too much directly on the site here, but no, a lawyer isn’t less of a lawyer if he works pro bono.
However, a lawyer who only works pro bono, and earns his living as, say, a dishwasher, is a dishwasher by profession. “Lawyer” is not his job in that case.
Thanks Andrew, clearly john just wants to have this discussion with you.
John
I really think you aren’t listening to me, or you are only hearing what you want to hear, so I am not going to unpack most of what you said up there, but I do want to correct some things that you incorrectly implied I said as I feel it’s important I address that. You pointed out that I inferred the following: “Are you saying they’re all entitled to living wages? And that only theatres who can pay living wages should make theatre? How are these two statements compatible without a major culling of the acting pool or a flood of billions of dollars into the industry?
And if Non-Equity theatres start paying comparable wages to Equity theatre, what then would be the point of Equity?”
I am going to correct you by quoting myself, exactly from the comment above. “I am not asking small companies to bear the brunt of that burden, I am just asking that companies that want to be considered professional to start paying what looks like professional wages. $12.50 a rehearsal and $18.75 a performance is hardly a living wage. Let’s bear in mind we are asking companies if they want to be considered a professional company, by a professional awards ceremony you can and pay artists less than 1/3 the federal minimum wage. If you can’t pay a person for their profession, then you aren’t professional. No one is saying you cant do theatre – no one is saying you must stop producing – people are giving small theatres one full year to make an action plan to meet these minimums IF and ONLY IF they want to continue being judged for a professional award. But if it is important to you and your mission to get to that point, grow to it.”
To answer your questions directly: no I’m not saying they are all entitled to living wages, I am saying that theatrewashingtons insanely low minimums are not a living wage and rather a good start towards the societal acceptance of theatre as a legitimate profession that deserves a professional wage. I am also saying theatre outside of helen Hayes award theatre should still happen and pay whatever it likes. I also clearly state that anyone who wants to make theatre should. And finally, theatrewashingtons minimums are nowhere near equity, so the point of equity is still what it always was and has been.
Of course.
Thank you Matt
This right here is the essence of your misunderstanding:
“Dude, we all just want to make theatre. I thought I was getting a bunch of like-minded friends together and putting up a show.”
Yes we all want to to make theatre but we want to make theatre that’s sustainable to the artists that make it. If all you want to do is make theatre for no money and no fee; great! But do not stand in the way of the people who want to make this show business thing work as a living.
And certainly do not think the art we make is less than the art you make because we want to get paid.
Art doesn’t work that way.
If you truly believe this then you need to re-evalute and re-examine, what art means to you.
Money has nothing to do with art but everything to do with making a living from art and its odd to me you can’t see that.
AND Lawyers make enough money that they can afford to work pro bono.
12 dollars a rehearsal and 18 dollars a performance is hardly an Equity wage. Sorry your argument doesn’t fly. And bring up Will Gartshore doesn’t make your argument legitimate.
Is a lawyer compromising the integrity the legal industry when he/she works pro bono?
If you define professional by what pays their bills, would you call Will Gartshore (2 HHA’s, 5 noms) non-professional because of his full-time career at the World Wildlife Fund, even though he still stays active in theatre? Or would he be classified as “former professional?” What about Equity actors who make the majority of their income from teaching, serving/bartending, temping, headshot photography, theatre administration, etc.? Or Equity actors who don’t work continuously, but have a trust fund or significant other who supports them?
And as for me being apathetic. I’ve been advocating for better pay for actors in the Boston area since I landed here, and I’ve been essentially quoting you while doing it. I haven’t worked pro bono, my own productions aside, for nearly three years. Many smaller non-Eq companies in Boston don’t pay at all – a combination of high production costs, small budgets and, yes, a culture of exploitation. Which I am working to change. When I started my own company, we resolved that everyone we hire, actors, crew, designers, everyone, gets a stipend. These stipends, as I said in my previous comment, will grow with our budget. More Boston companies have started paying actors lately; whether our efforts are influencing this is debatable, but I’m glad it’s happening. If this is apathy, I shudder to think what you call activism.
Lost in all this discussion is the false dichotomy of ‘actor’ versus ‘producer’ in the small theatre world. We’re all theatre makers. Most producers are also actors, so if there is exploitation here, it’s self-exploitation. Dude, we all just want to make theatre. I thought I was getting a bunch of like-minded friends together and putting up a show.
You are correct in seeing an industry rife with exploitation of actors. But it’s the degree mills churning out BAs in Theatre by the thousands every year, flooding the industry with young actors (who in many cases are racking up an absurd amount of debt in the process, a far more insidious exploitation).
Are you saying they’re all entitled to living wages? And that only theatres who can pay living wages should make theatre? How are these two statements compatible without a major culling of the acting pool or a flood of billions of dollars into the industry?
And if Non-Equity theatres start paying comparable wages to Equity theatre, what then would be the point of Equity?
Thank you Andrew Griffin for your no non-sense reply. More people need to hear this. John I think your stance is way off base. No one is forcing anyone to pay their actors a certain amount of money, Make your art. I applaud it. I really do. You just wont be eligible for this particular regional award……right now. There will be other awards to help promote your work at some point. But even the government program for food stamps has a certain criteria you have to meet.
John –
What I find incredibly disheartening as a fellow artist is your apathetic stance. “If I quit that job and worked for fifty weeks a year with a NEAT contract, I’d be lucky to make half of my current income. I’m happy right where I am, thanks.” It seems you are fighting very hard for your ability to be a professional actor when in fact you are a professional (at whatever is paying you your wage) and you act on the side. And that’s fine, that is your choice. But for those of us who it is our livelihood we are asking that people acknowledge that we all have a value. What that requires is EVERYONE to value themselves. But when we read this, the attitude of “whatever, I have a full time job that pays the bills, I am just happy to be in a show” starts to wear thin. You don’t depend on that theatre paycheck, we do. You don’t depend on actors and designers being seen as a profession that deserves fair compensation, we do. You don’t depend on a community coming together and starting to make things better for it’s members who work VERY hard at this craft every day, we do.
I am not asking small companies to bear the brunt of that burden, I am just asking that companies that want to be considered professional to start paying what looks like professional wages. $12.50 a rehearsal and $18.75 a performance is hardly a living wage. Let’s bear in mind we are asking companies if they want to be considered a professional company, by a professional awards ceremony you can and pay artists less than 1/3 the federal minimum wage. If you can’t pay a person for their profession, then you aren’t professional. No one is saying you cant do theatre – no one is saying you must stop producing – people are giving small theatres one full year to make an action plan to meet these minimums IF and ONLY IF they want to continue being judged for a professional award. But if it is important to you and your mission to get to that point, grow to it.
Thing is, Andrew, I am not opposed at all, in principle, to artists getting a living wage. Where we differ is where the money should come from.
When Oprah Winfrey and Amanda Palmer recently asked dancers and musicians to work for them for free, I assume we both agree this is egregious exploitation. They have the money to pay, so they should pay them.
When thousands of people, including friends of ours, are paid starvation wages (and no benefits at all) to teach five college courses a semester, the equivalent of a full time job, I assume we both agree this is criminal. Universities have the money, so they should absolutely pay them more.
I support raising minimum wages for fast food workers. I’ve worked in fast food restaurants, and it’s grueling work. McDonalds is a multi-billion dollar corporation. They can pay more.
There are arts organizations who hire non-Equity casts of famous plays, tour them around the country, charge the same amount for tickets as if it were an Equity tour, and pay the cast peanuts. These organizations should be put out of business.
But why, Andrew, are you placing the burden of responsibility to provide living wages on small arts organizations, who are, all in all, the least capable entities to provide them? This is not a 99% versus the 1% situation. The producers are just as financially compromised as the artists, if not more so. We’re ALL the 99% here.
As an actor, I don’t mind working on a projects for free when I know that they just don’t have it to give (In DC, in six years, college productions and readings aside, I only worked gratis for a one-day-only short play festival). As a producer, I pay my artists as much as my budget allows; everyone gets paid except my co-producer and I. As our organization’s budget grows, so will our stipends. But don’t ask us to run when we can barely stand.
I applaud the Equity companies that offer comparatively generous weekly pay rates for their non-Equity actors when they have virtually no contractual obligation to pay us anything. I hope that now that there is a minimum pay requirement, that this will continue.
I applaud anyone who wants to stay in the arts. But people like this make me chuckle. Community theatre folk consistently try to over-compensate with airs like the above. “Actor, Director, and Producer”. Ha! I love it. I wonder what you write as your occupation on your taxes.
I once saved a man’s life by performing the Heimlich on him. He paid my bill at the restaurant. I guess I’m a Dr now.
yes, 100%, exactly what this comment says
John –
This is all well and good, and I am happy that you have chosen a life that works for you. What seems frustrating to me and all of us ardent living wage folks is the fact that just because it didn’t work for you doesn’t mean it can’t work for the future. Trust me, I too have fought my way up the ladder, and I, know it isn’t easy. But I firmly believe that one of our many purposes of existing is to make life better for the next generation, and that is what I am trying to do when I speak for fair wages, negotiate my salaries, and defend the wages of people who are working for and with me.
It feels silly, but I am going to quote myself from the article I wrote this past summer. In that article I said “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.” (https://dctheatrescene.com/2014/05/29/artists-liveable-wage-right-responsibility/).
Just as you argue setting a minimum will drive wages down, what I think you are forgetting is your willingness to work for poverty wages actually hurts all of us, and drives the wages of the entire industry down. What you might not realize is for those of us who are at a point where we can make a “living” doing this, are working just as hard as those times we worked a day job and still are struggling to get by. You say “Granted, I’m past forty years of age, and as such, many of the choices and sacrifices I made for my art in my comparatively bohemian youth – scraping together temp work and odd jobs, quitting full-time jobs for summer internships, no health insurance or savings, accepting parental charity – are no longer feasible, especially in this economy. I have a day job that pays better than the LORT-A minimum. If I quit that job and worked for fifty weeks a year with a NEAT contract, I’d be lucky to make half of my current income. I’m happy right where I am, thanks.” But thats you. Look at the entire industry as whole. Just because you are ok saying “…the choice to work for free or demand fair compensation is mine.” doesn’t mean you should. It is thinking like this by artists like you that are holding back the wage market in theatre just as much as anything else.
Everything I’ve been trying to say, but with far greater eloquence. Thank you.