First Letter to the Field

I think this is an important letter! I'm posting my responses (so far) below.

What do you think?! Join the discussion!

Janet said...

I agree that there is not enough support for people who have been identified as valuable "emerging artists" as they continue through the trials and tribulations of "mid-career" on their paths towards a more fully funded "established artist" moniker. I nonetheless question that the system is indeed working for "emerging" artists.

First: is an "emerging" artist a YOUNG artist, or an artist who hasn't found recognition yet? Are you emerging until you emerge? What if you never do? Many artists who have already had impressive careers as performers and teachers but who have yet to publicly choreograph, or who have decades of practice at making work in the studio, filling out submissions applications and possibly even self producing at a high level are in competition with those of us who are young and straight out of school. Then, unless someone is looking out for you and your application, you are only guaranteed that someone will look at the first 10 seconds of your work. (if that.) I am personally uncomfortable with choreographing to the first ten seconds of every dance. It seems a little bit like "dancing for my life" on SYTYCD. Furthermore, while almost every application that I've seen states that the dvd sent doesn't necessarily have to be of the work proposed, that they are looking to support ideas but not necessarily finished works, that they don't have the resources to support full productions, that they understand that if you are chosen you will be performing months from now and you may have made adjustments to the work . . . etc. . . if you send new rehearsal footage of new ideas you get application feedback that it isn't fully developed (at least I've gotten that feedback)- of course it's not! It's work in progress!

I recognize that I can't speak for anyone but myself, but it seems that organizations are particularly hesitant to take a chance on a young person who isn't established as a performer or teacher, who has great ideas that are underdeveloped, who might need mentors and resources to reach their full potential. While some of those things are easier found outside of New York City, if you leave the city many of the "emerging artist" opportunities are no longer open to you, and you have to go to the back of the line and take a new number. This may be unavoidable in an overly saturated market, but it still stinks.

I'd also like to bring up the idea that perhaps the use of the college/university system to fund artists as professors is a system that, while it provided (and in some cases continues to provide) steady, livable income for artists and necessary resources, has now created a whole slew of new problems. Each year more students graduate with degrees in dance. New York City can't house them all, but that's where we go. As with any other bachelor's degree, the market has become so saturated by BA and BFA holders, programs have become so over-filled with students and curricula have been so watered down by time constraints, budget constraints and gen ed restraints that more and more people continue with MFA degrees (myself included). Some people are getting MFA's to teach. Some are getting them to continue their educations. Some for a combination thereof. I recently saw an audition notice that indicated BA/BFA required, MFA preferred. For a performer in a company. The more MFA's, the more competition for those coveted teaching positions. The more debt. The more programs with more full time faculty churning out more dancers with bachelor's degrees who head to the big city who eventually decide to get Master's Degrees. . . Can we value artists as teachers and teachers as artists without creating an unsustainable cycle such as the above?

Unless we can develop a society that values our art making the way our art practitioners do, and at a living wage, this will continue to be a vicious cycle. Are there other options, other than having a trust fund?

Despite my (lengthy) commentary, I have to add that I greatly appreciate this letter, the intelligent consideration and time put forth by its writers, and the dialogue it has sparked. I hope that the discussion continues. I hope it becomes more than just discussion and leads to action! I think "do less with more" is the truth that many of us had to hear from many positions within the field, and is advice that I personally am trying to take to heart.

THANK YOU!