Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:20:16 -0400
From: Alexander Winfield <sheepwpunks-AT-gmail.com>
To: puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org
Subject: Re: [Puptcrit] Public Heath care & funding for the arts


To all,

   It rather seemed the subject of puppet bailouts was handled more or less
satirically in this thread. No one really expects or demands it to happen.
Still, on the topic of grants...
   For me, the issue of Grants is a thorny one. I myself have a very rough
time with grants (I'm terribly at drafting them up - the key seems to be to
write what the review committees want to hear, rather than go off on rants
at how wonderful your project. Research the committee and questiona nd
tailor-make a grant to their desires. Sun Tzu would approve. But I digress),
and so I, with a few exceptions, have made my own way. More often than not,
I take to the streets with a kooky little puppet show and hack it out in the
spirit of the old punch and judy professors.
   That's my little niche - but it can not be a permanent one. I've never
had a more exhausting job (and I've worked outside at night on film sets in
January in Canada for 14 hours. Graa!), more wearing (singing songs for 5
hours is just not good for the voice, even with amplification), and
troublesome (I usually spend an hour after every show day making repairs,
and I've been assualted - thankfully not seriously - a couple of times).
Still, it has its rewards, the least of which is not financial. But I in no
way want to do this full time for the rest of my life. For one thing a
couple more years of this would annhilate my voice (though granted I'm
working on some silent acts), for another I get very little respect from the
public and many (though not all!) of my peers, and finally I'll be burned
out by the age of 35. So what do I do?
   I could teach in schools, which is something I'm doing right now, but my
own style tends to be too weird and dark for this environment, so ultimately
I could not satisfy myself with that position. Besides - the teaching
program I'm involved with is supported by a grant.
   If I want to create a show on the scale I would like, with a space for a
good sized audience and advertising, technical support etc. I will need a
grant. This is not a matter of overestimating my budget or buying things I
will not need - I've spent years attempting to find the essential in a
dramatic puppet production, and the costs still come to thousands of dollars
and that's in cheap locations with really not enough advertising and lights
provided by yours truly and so forth.
  "Seed Money"? Grants could definitely work like this for some. A few will
be lucky and make fantastic careers out of it and the audiences will be
there for them - Jim Henson comes to mind. But many artists are rather less
than fantastic businessmen, and I do find that one or two successful artists
in a city tend to dominate this arena until they pass away (that's how it
works in my homeland of Bermuda - and to return to a theme, even those most
successful and independent of artists rely on grants for at least part of
the time!)
   Grants are created with the understanding that the arts does not work
like a standard business, and so to remain healthy the artistic community
will need support. By its nature (material costs, insurance costs,
fickleness of the audience etc.) an artists lifestyle tends to be highly
unstable. I remember being somewhat stunned at seeing Terry Gilliam - one of
my favourite directors and certainly a famous and respected artist - drive
away from an interview in a crappy looking used car. Could not this world
famous creator afford anything better? Well, maybe back in his heyday, but
now that he's no longer in favour?
   The arts are essential to society - of that I have no doubt - but
describing HOW they are essential is a tricky and ethereal process. We don't
need them to survive in a material sense. So where is their value to be
found? Most of my stories tend to be anecdotal - such as the sad and
depressed kid in the class I helped teach whose face lit up when he started
buidling shadow puppets, and without having to be taught figured out the
concept of shadow puppet scenic design all by himself. Or the boy who was
made speechless with happiness when he saw my street puppet show, and
embraced both puppets tenderly before leaving.
   The arts help enrich the lives of everyone, though some definitely more
than others. Nevertheless, they are not ABSOLUTELY essential in a material
sense, so their value is easily underestimated and budget cuts to the arts
programs tend to be the first thing to happen in a budget pinch (see
Harper's policies). This is a material society - how do your codify and add
value to something as inherently mysterious and subjective as the arts? How
can you prove to governing bodies - even a public - trained for at least two
generations in the concept of material value is all, that the arts yet is
needed by them?
   This is a terribly disorganised thesis, but I'll end on a few more notes:
in respect to the comparison of Canada's healthcare system, I would argue
that Canada's artistic support programs work in a similar way. We do not
want a system that forces sick individuals to sell their homes to remain
alive, and neither do we want a system that forces artists into poverty and
early retirement and jobs they despise and are no good at really but they
need the cash and so forth because they've expended all their moola and time
and life into creating a world that is a bit more beautiful.
   To paraphrase William S. Burroughs - I'd like to see a world in which
most (not just a handful) of artists can expect a lifestyle at least as
decent as a plumber's. When I was in France, whose artist support system is
perhaps the best in the world (can't back this up with research, but
certainly better than anything else I've seen), I was moved literally to
tears when I found myself in an environment where all the puppeteers around
me had at least a little house somewhere, and some had kids, and they were
if not rich than comfortable and able to produce. The children in particular
affected me. I realised that having children was something I had
subconsciously forbidden myself.
   So, yes. Some artists can be trapped in grants, and their work can suffer
for it, and they can become isolated from their audience. It's a dangerous
system, but better than all the alternatives I've heard of.

yrs. sincerely,

Alexander Winfield

On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Andrew <puppetvision-AT-gmail.com> wrote:

> Just some random thoughts on some of the recent topics of discussion...
>
> As someone who grew up in Canada knowing only socialized medicine I always
> find the debate over public health insurance in the United States
> mind-blowing. I can't believe it's still a debate. Here whether you're
> rich,
> poor, an artist or an architect you have health care. Period. That's a
> non-issue. The system is not perfect, but no one has to live in fear of
> losing their home because they need an operation or have to pay a doctor's
> bill either.
>
> And am I one of the few who think that the idea of bailouts (for puppetry
> or
> any other field) is a terrible idea? Look, the United States is pretty much
> broke. As much as I like and support President Obama, this bailout business
> is becoming like going on a shopping spree with a credit card you can't
> afford to pay. The only reason the American government can really function
> financially at this point is because the rest of the world feels it's "too
> big to fail" and keeps loaning it money like a friend with a terrible
> spending habit that you don't have the heart to cut off.
>
> I'm over simplifying of course, but it's just that I think at some point
> the
> madness has to stop.
>
> Here in Canada (sorry if I'm sounding high-handed here, we're just in a
> different economic reality right now) we have the only major financial
> system that hasn't had a single bank in danger and that's partially because
> there is a clear understanding between the banks and the government that if
> they (the banks) take risks and lose money the government will let them go
> broke. Personal deposits up to a certain point are insured by the
> government, but that's it. This has been an unofficial policy going back to
> the 1860s. The few times political pressure has forced politicians to
> deviate from it and rescue a bank have always been a disaster.
>
> At the same time, the government here has a regulatory environment very
> favourable to banks that makes it easy for them to make money. That's the
> understanding; the government helps the banks make a good profit and in
> exchange the banks are conservative, don't take huge risks and provide
> stability. If a bank does something stupid, it's allowed to go bankrupt and
> the surviving banks that were responsible divide up whatever is left.
>
> I'm wondering if there is a lesson there that could be applied to arts
> funding. Maybe provide a lot of "seed money" to new and emerging artists
> and
> organizations with the clear understanding they're going to get cut off
> eventually? This could encourage people to jump-start their careers and
> experiment with new types of work, but also send the message that
> eventually
> they have to be financially responsible and find an audience for the work,
> or at least a way to make a living.
>
> Hmmm...
> _______________________________________________
> List address: puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org
> Admin interface: http://lists.puptcrit.org/mailman/listinfo/puptcrit
> Archives: http://www.driftline.org
>
_______________________________________________
List address: puptcrit-AT-puptcrit.org
Admin interface: http://lists.puptcrit.org/mailman/listinfo/puptcrit
Archives: http://www.driftline.org