ART V. COMMERCE

At one point the directors of the O'Neill Playwrights Conference put out the proposition that the Conference might want a share of a play's future earnings (I read that the phrase "in perpetuity" was used) if that play goes on to have future earnings. Christopher Durang and Marsha Norman sent out a letter asking that people boycott the Conference and protest against such a proposition. And then the Conference apparently backed down from the floated notion of sharing in a play's subsidiary rights.

Blistering language appeared on several of the listserves I'd joined, almost everyone in high dudgeon about such a blatant attempt to make money that would go to support the Conference's work (which is, despite any protestations about not mixing art and commerce, all about getting a play in shape so that it can go out have an audience - hopefully a paying one - in the world).

I didn't add my notes to the chorus, but I didn't feel that what the Conference broached was an entirely bad idea: making money off the work that it does? What's wrong with that? Being "non-profit" doesn't mean that one doesn't care about profit, about building up stable revenue , reserves, savings, - it only means that one has to go about the money-making in a way that's different than Google's way.

The "debate" about art versus commerce has always felt tortured to me. The sides are drawn much too restrictively - art is this, commerce is anti-art, end of discussion. But, of course, any artist wouldn't mind at least a little commerce connected with his or her work, at least enough to make the proverbial ends meet. - and I suspect amounts above the ends-meeting level would not be rejected. In short, every artist toiling away in whatever shade of darkness would not mind being rewarded by the sweet smell of monetary success.
And just as for individual artists, so for arts organizations. The Museum of Modern Art and Brooklyn Museum can offer free admission because certain days of the week are covered by a corporation - that blend of art and commerce allows me to see things I normally couldn't afford. Signature Theatre here in New York offered $15 tickets to its shows one season because of corporate underwriting; ergo, I got to see August Wilson's plays. In short, without some blend of art and commerce, we would have all commerce and mostly no art.

Whatever our personal opinions about the matter, art is a commodity, just as everything eventually gets commoditized

• 1
• 2
• next page >>

---

Add your voice

Know something about The value of art?
We want to hear your view. Write now!