Have you Experienced Snobbery Against Spectacle?

As a high school teacher, I find snobbery against tech to begin with little wanna-be stars who believe they are above helping paint or sew. I counter that by requiring that EVERYONE serve on a tech crew at some time. I allow two acting shows, and then require a tech show. I also require a certain number of hours for all cast and crew during a show to paint, sew, build, fold programs, etc. With some students it works, with others...they do two shows and never come back. Those who do participate always comment how much fun, and how much they learned by attending the work days.

The biggest thing I struggle with regarding this is to have enough stuff for the cast that does show up... At times there's lots of base painting to be done, but not everyone has the requisite skillset (or inclination) to become more advanced in it. I find I have a core group of both actors and techs who are very good - our lead scenic charge artists are also the leads in the musical - it's harder to deal with the 20 others that show up...
 
The biggest thing I struggle with regarding this is to have enough stuff for the cast that does show up... At times there's lots of base painting to be done, but not everyone has the requisite skillset (or inclination) to become more advanced in it. I find I have a core group of both actors and techs who are very good - our lead scenic charge artists are also the leads in the musical - it's harder to deal with the 20 others that show up...

In a school we aim for "education" of the students. IMNSHO the production of a play, musical or concert should represent the culmination of some level of advancement as well as participation. Its the difference between "we'll announce a show and learn along the way" and "we're gonna learn stuff and demonstrate that by putting on a show." As you point out not all students arrive with the same level of desire to participate or perhaps the technical or artistic chops. Balancing that is the art of teaching The Arts.

Back to John's question and thoughs -

"The Arts," as to benefit the public, would not exist without commercial and/or social patronage. To pretend that either can exist in exclusion is a disservice to both. Visual arts, theater, dance, etc... are driven by creative forces that find support or not. Without support it's a matter of the Bernie Taupin lyric "Take me to the garrets where the artists have died". With support a vibrant and vital symbiosis can take place. When dealing with the snooty or snobby I think the question we should ask ourselves is "how can I have a conversation/relationship with this person that might benefit my artistic industry and community of creators and spectators?"
 
I argued this point once in my BFA program. I wanted to go work at the road house on campus not attached to the theatre dept for a bus and truck that was coming in. Load in was during the day and I'd miss some shop time or something. I was told "you don't need to learn how to do that, our goal is to teach you so you don't have to do that kinda thing". When I pointed out that our program had produced 10+ full time working technicians and zero full designer in the last 5 years I was told that was no reflection on the program. Jump forward 2 years I skipped out on a day of class unapproved to go do an in/show/out for 20+ truck arena show. For those hours I missed the dept. TD decided to fail me for shop that semester... once again citing "you don't need to learn that stuff".

Now I run a 2 venue road house producing 200-250 events a year full time, with state benefits, and easily make twice what the professors at my college make.... plus have more design work then I can handle on the side.

We all can't be designers. Many "professional" designers I know also have a teaching gig in order to make ends meet. A lot of my freinds who did go grab their MFA are already back teaching.... some never even ventured out into the real world. Its one of the reasons that the way "college theatre" is produced happens. I still wish someone woulld have showed me Tait or something like that when I was 17 and followed that up with "want to do this? go to school for engineering".
 
I argued this point once in my BFA program. I wanted to go work at the road house on campus not attached to the theatre dept for a bus and truck that was coming in. Load in was during the day and I'd miss some shop time or something. I was told "you don't need to learn how to do that, our goal is to teach you so you don't have to do that kinda thing". When I pointed out that our program had produced 10+ full time working technicians and zero full designer in the last 5 years I was told that was no reflection on the program. Jump forward 2 years I skipped out on a day of class unapproved to go do an in/show/out for 20+ truck arena show. For those hours I missed the dept. TD decided to fail me for shop that semester... once again citing "you don't need to learn that stuff".

Wow, this is exactly what I was talking about. If you don't mind telling, what year was this?

We all can't be designers. Many "professional" designers I know also have a teaching gig in order to make ends meet. A lot of my freinds who did go grab their MFA are already back teaching.... some never even ventured out into the real world. Its one of the reasons that the way "college theatre" is produced happens.

Hear, hear!

Thanks!

John
 
I've certainly encountered anti-spectacle snobbery, but had a very different college experience than many are describing here ('99-'03). My university had a design/production degree, and a road house on campus that was not part of the school of theatre, but was staffed by student staff who split all calls with the IATSE Local. Many of the student staff in the road house were design/production students. It probably helped that our TD was also a member of the Local also.

We were taught that spectacle should always be motivated by the script, but there was no stigma about teaching us how to do the practical job of being a technician. At least nothing formal or even unified comming from the faculty.
 
Nicely done, John.
 
Nice blog post John. As a retort to some professors, Shakespeare was not primarily creating ART, he was creating entertainment for the masses. He knew he had to keep the groundlings happy...…..or they would throw stuff at the actors.
 
My old High school's crew is frequently moving equipment around the school and even outside during the warmer months, they are very well versed in making their venue wherever it may be, for whatever the event is.

It helps when the Head of the arts has a background in both Music and Theatre, and the school also has a sizable dance program. For the few who choose to pursue the techie life, it's fortunate they get that dynamic style of "Get the job done with whatever is available."

My college on the other hand traditionally held contempt towards events that weren't directly related to the theatre program. Luckily that's long since been fixed.
 
My old High school's crew is frequently moving equipment around the school and even outside during the warmer months, they are very well versed in making their venue wherever it may be, for whatever the event is.

It helps when the Head of the arts has a background in both Music and Theatre, and the school also has a sizable dance program. For the few who choose to pursue the techie life, it's fortunate they get that dynamic style of "Get the job done with whatever is available."

My college on the other hand traditionally held contempt towards events that weren't directly related to the theatre program. Luckily that's long since been fixed.
@EdSavoie Would you mind expounding and elaborating upon how your college improved their attitudes?
Toodleoo!
Ron Hebbard
 
@EdSavoie Would you mind expounding and elaborating upon how your college improved their attitudes?
Toodleoo!
Ron Hebbard

Sorry for the late reply, been busy with a show and it slipped my mind.

My program was originally created for the sole purpose of serving the musical theatre program, so in the early years of the program, spending any money on our program that didn't aid musical theatre was considered out of the question. From what I've been recounted, this lead to the original program coordinator quitting because he couldn't take the program where he (rightly) felt it needed to go.

Years go by, the college gets involved with some venue rentals that either save them money by using us, or make money for the college, people making decisions change, and voila. Our program is now allowed to engage in arena style rigging, wrestling, automation, electronic controls and many other things, in addition to everything related to theatre.
 
I'm really late coming to this discussion, but there's another aspect of this I've seen a few times. I would call this envy denied and hidden as snobbery. More than once I've heard friends in community theater rant about how the shows they do are pure art because they do it for the love of the show and not just for money. They then go on to rant about rant about Broadway shows, rock concerts, the local LORT theater, Cirque.. Anything with a big budget and a paid staff.
 
Ah, my chance to animate the Zombie.... From Mixerperson extraordinaire Robert Scovil (Rush, Matchbox 20, Tom Petty, Def Lepard, others).

https://splnetwork.com/show-versus-concert-07092013/
While not exclusive to theatre I think he touches on the push/pull between "art" and "performance" for the audience.
 
I ran into this a bit a few years back when I used the adjective "legit" to distinguish live-stage theater from the filmic kind, having been told that this was a traditional adjective... and the responses varied between not understanding what I meant at all, and thinking the term was deprecated *because* it displayed the kind of snobbery you're asking about here. For my part, I could see the connection, but didn't think that current live usage of it was intended to mark that snobbery.

I was led to believe there no longer *was* any live usage of it.
 
I ran into this a bit a few years back when I used the adjective "legit" to distinguish live-stage theater from the filmic kind, having been told that this was a traditional adjective... and the responses varied between not understanding what I meant at all, and thinking the term was deprecated *because* it displayed the kind of snobbery you're asking about here. For my part, I could see the connection, but didn't think that current live usage of it was intended to mark that snobbery.
I was led to believe there no longer *was* any live usage of it.

Well someone should tell Variety :)
https://variety.com/v/legit/

Also, it's funny, I'm an anti snob snob, and I was never offended by the "legit" term. I guess I'm proud to like stuff that would be considered illegitimate :)

John
 
In my experience what a lot of this "snobbery" comes down to is a generational circumstance with particular people. When I was an undergrad I went into college with the idea that I wanted to work in this industry. At the time I honestly didn't know what that really was yet but I knew it was where I wanted to be. As an undergrad I didn't experience the snobbery but did experience myself as an anomaly. My undergrad professors had not really experience a student who was going outside of the school and working for A/V companies, doing rock concert load ins and prepping shows in commercial shops. They came from a world where what you did was a regional theatre style job. They didn't think less of me for it but did not really know what to do with me. So they guided me the best tat they could and I honestly figured a lot of it out on my own. I experience a very different environment in grad school amongst faculty. I went to grad school with the idea that I was not going into regional theatre once I was done. I still believe that I was an anomaly because of that but my faculty in the TD program were supportive of it, even to the point where they were willing to work with me when I picked up part time work with a production company half way through grad school. The TD faculty were drastically different in age but they had an understanding that not everyone one is them. The only odd thing I think they experienced with me was the notion that as a TD or technical manager I was able to oversee other parts of a production that were not just scenic based. As I have experienced in the corporate world a lot of the times as a technical manager you are overseeing scenery, rigging, lighting, video, and audio in conjunction with the heads of those departments.

Where I observed the snobbery was in grad school with my colleagues in the design disciplines. The funny thing was that the design faculty was of a wide array of age groups as well. As a side note, I tend to think I planted the seeds of thought concerning non regional theatre jobs in my fellow students heads in grad school. Most of them had no real knowledge that there was so much more they could do out in the world then just theatre. I like to think that they are better off because of it. A bunch of them are now working in architecture, corporate, and themed entertainment. I had a colleague meet with their advisor about what they wanted to do when they were done with grads school and it did not go well. The student told their advisor that they wanted to go into scenic and production design for fashion shows, galas, retail installations, and product launches. The professor gave the student guff about their decision since the professor didn't understand why the student was getting an MFA in scenic design to do that. I had also observed similar situations when design faculty would metaphorically and sometimes literally put their noses up at the idea of doing work like this on front of students in their class.

So I think part of this is a generational things, there are some faculty who come from a time period where work like that didn't exist. It could be a resistance to change and there may be a fear that something they hold dear and invested their lives into is going away. At the same time in a post Regan, post 9/11, post W. Bush, and eventual post Trump world the landscape of our business has changed drastically compared to when the older faculty in this example were starting out. I think part of the solution is just time, as faculty retire we will have younger faculty come in who are a part of our modern industry which is including less and less theatre. On top of that I think that there also needs to be a change of culture to help curve this problem. This can be as simple as changing the language from theatre technology to entertainment technology. Community engagement outside of the academic department for the students to work on projects can be a successful avenue. This could include collaborating with a local theme park, museum, or production company on a retail display for example. Even setting up formal fellowships with frims, conultants production companies, and the like. I think the try and help this issue internally is to develeope relationships with the art and engineering departments within the university, start cross pollinating. Is there any reason that an introduction to theatrical design class should not include tha thetare, art and engineering students? This is all prime learning opportunities for all the disciplines to work together on. This will also hopefully break down the stigma across the board of you don't need to learn this or that, just what I do. I think for the survival of academic programs this needs to start happening. A lot of this was really good thoughts that came about from a really good session I went to at USITT this year called " Is it time to panic!", it discussed the current state, future and potential viability of academic theatre departments. So, should we panic?I think we are just starting to get to the point where the beginning of it may start to set in.
 
Last edited:
My take is similar to yours, @chawalang . My undergrad major was performing arts education. What I saw was a track to either tether me to school teaching or a piss-poor path to becoming a "designer."

I have a lot of antipathy for "designers", whose personalities run from "great guy/gal/person" to "SWMBO" to "insufferable prick (the word I want to use is censored by the forum software). They don't know squat (or worse, don't care) about what it takes to turn their ideas into things that work, on time and on budget. They are enabled by producers and directors who then cut other parts of the budget to have money to build the designer's dubious pretty picture into a production element.

Coming from a touring music concert and corporate AV background I'm amazed by the lack of communication about MONEY within the design process or between producer/directors and the designers. I continue to be amazed at how inefficient and time-wasting the mounting of most theatrical products is. I've been paid as an IATSE stage hand to stand around for hours while the designer (a@@hole) and shop (incompetent to perform engineering miracles) decide how to make the flawed design work on stage "right freakin' now", often to the detriment of budget, design intent, the director's objectives and the safety of cast and crew.

I've posted about this before so I'll stop here.
 
@TimMc, I know at least a couple designers with the reputation for regelling an entire show after its in the air. I for one welcome our new LED overlords.

One of the nice things about coming up through the system sales and design consulting side of things is that I've become really comfortable talking about money. There's really no guidebook other than to build yourself a few nice spreadsheets and develop some rules of thumb based on past experience, but being comfortable with money is a very necessary skill. Both for negotiating my own pay and for giving clients a high altitude idea what something's going to cost without having to go price it all out. Just in terms of developing proposals for projects, I'd say on average I usually have no more than 24-72 hrs notice so I've become adept at looking at projects and throwing big round numbers at them. It's not uncommon for one of my marketing people to call me at 8am and need a proposal to go out the door by 11am. You learn to get by.

Same thing goes for dealing with clients. Lot of times I get a question that sounds easy in conversation but has x, y, z, implications. I can take that information back to the office and spin my wheels on it for two weeks, or I can ballpark "It'll cost you somewhere between $50-75k and they can make a swift decision if they even want to pursue it any further.

I tried to push my professors in my BFA program to talk about money but they were very uneasy about it. Felt like some of that was personal privacy, but I also got the sense they just didn't feel confident in their own design fee negotiating and budget-making skills to teach others about it. I'll bet most of the students in my program couldn't talk intelligently about the pros/cons of working as an employee or an independent contractor, or whether or not to join IATSE, USA, or AEA. The tax, liability, and worker's comp implications alone for working as an independent contractor should absolutely be an entire week of lesson plans.

Don't get me started on all the schools I see renting 24+ wireless mic's a few times a year and not spending a dime towards buying any of their own. Whoever's mixing sound for them is giving them terrible advice.
 
I guess it depends on how you define "spectacle"

If the best way for a production to tell its story is on a bare stage with un-gelled lights, that's great.

If the best way to tell the story is with 1000 light cues and 14 projectors, that's also great.

But if you are writing 1000 light cues when 10 will do, then it's design for design's sake.

I feel the same way about music concerts; some shows clearly have cueing that has been written and rehearsed for the specific songs being played, while some shows are just "flash and trash", generic chase sequences and stock mover patterns.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back