I loved it when Ben Cameron pointed this out:
One of the biggest art subsidies that exists occurs when an artist or an artist administrator does their work for little or no money.
So when an actor performs for free, that is essentially a subsidy (or a gift) to the arts organization.
It is one of the most unfair and harmful expectations that comes with this line of work . . . the idea that we are all supposed to do this sort of thing for little or no money . . . because being in the arts is such a privilege.
So that's bad enough.
What's even worse is when some of these nonprofit arts organizations are managed by people who bring the most negative aspects of the corporate management style in.
----------------------
I'm talking to a colleague. She makes 32K a year. She loves her job. She cares deeply about the organization she works for.
But her boss is an idiot.
She has 30 minute lunch breaks and if she is back a minute late she hears about it.
She has to clock in and clock out.
She's not allowed to make "personal" calls for a work phone.
Now let's be clear, she doesn't work at the huge corporation where sometimes you may need those sort of dracoian measures to keep a lot of people in line . . . she works for freakin' dance studio with eight employees.
So now this woman is getting the worse of both worlds. She's subsidizing the art by not getting paid a lot for it AND she's getting the same heavy handed corporate management style that really should be avoided at all cost.
-------------------------------
If you are running a nonprofit and not paying people much . . . you should find a way to pay them more.
But if you can't for whatever reason, then you have to give these people who are subsidizing your art, something else.
Freedom.
A pleasant work environment, whether it's in the office or the rehearsal room.
A sense of autonomy.
Because giving people the worst of both worlds is an easy way to ensure that they don't stay around long.
Comments