Final Confession . . .

My name is Adam Thurman and I am an arts administrator.

It seems like the current trend in the theatre world is to make that term "arts administrator" a dirty phrase.

To some artists we are the keepers of the wealth, gaining salaries and health benefits at their expense.

We are the people that build the bloated institutions that produce the subpar art for the masses.

There have been times that I have read theatre blogs and come to the conclusion that everything in the theatre world absolutely sucks.

I mean that's what we talk about right?  How bad things are?

And before Prof. Scott or somebody else reminds me that it is there role to point out the flaws in the regional theatre system . . . I know that already.

But it just seems like the comments skew heavily on the negative side of the equation and are sorely lacking in perspective.

Maybe that's the nature of the internet, I don't know.

To me, the relentless bashing of the regional theatre system and of arts administrators just seems like a bit much.

I admit my perspective is biased.  I know a lot of arts administrators and I have found most of them to be incredibly smart, passionate people who love arts and love artists.

We are not perfect.  The system we work in is flaws.  Some of the flaws are our fault.

But we are not the enemy and sometimes it feels like are are.

 

 

Comments

[Director]

Don't worry, I've ordered the pitchforks and torches from Home Dept. We'll take care of you shortly.

All seriousness aside, being negative isn't restricted to the internet. Watch the news, read the papers, talk to your friends at the water cooler. You'll see.

[Scott Walters]

Adam -- I don't think I have ever said anything against administrators. As a member of another "hated" group (academics), I would never do so. My focus has always been on the system, and frankly more on artistic directors like Nicholas Martin who unreflectively reinforce and propogate the problems. I think administrators are absolutely crucial to the theatre tribe, and absolutely crucial to the balanced planning of an organization. That's why I despair at your having teamed up with Don Hall in supporting the blackjack analogy as "the way it should be" -- I wanted you on my advisory panel!

[nick]

Adam, I think you are correctly reading the theatrosphere vibe and its need to scapegoat administrators for the failed system. Scott is being somewhat duplicitous here. As you comically noted, Scott has been Mike’s tag team partner. And he has been arguing for this Us/Them split at least since Mike Daisey’s Stranger essay. That essay bluntly stated administrative staff needed to be “bitch-slapped.” So Daisey cast administrators and staff as perpetrator within the system and artists as victim. This harsh rant was in direct contrast to his self-effacing monologue of the same title. His performance is more love letter to the theatre than rant against its failure.

Thanks to you and Don for trying to keep everyone in the debate honest. I’d join the effort, but I’m swamped with other for now.

[Dennis Baker]

How do you define arts administrator? What is your role? (You probably have talked about it and I just haven't read that deep into the blog yet)

From my understanding the funders, board and AD/ED have the power within a theater organization. The decision makers need to be held responsible and I think they are the ones being critiqued. Yes those are theater administrator positions, but not the only ones. There are many admin. positions that are necessary (ie. marketing, education, book keeping, etc.)

So I don't think theater admin. as a whole is a bad word.

Also I think theater is going through what society has gone through in this postmodern time. The idea that the institutions have not lived up to everything that was hoped for and a move towards decentralization. So hopefully through the critique will come inventive ways to adjust and change.