Also–and really this relates to your post above but — I really liked those masks! I mean I did wish them bigger but I also loved them as they were. You are too hard on them.

Also–and really this relates to your post above but — I really liked those masks! I mean I did wish them bigger but I also loved them as they were. You are too hard on them.

But to the topic at hand: I take great pride in paying our performers. I don't do it for them – I do it for me. I am exactly opposite of you, I've only been paid on two shows in my life.

The hardest thing to overcome for me in this situation was pride. It's hard accepting that this is all we have to offer, when it doesn't really cover gas… for the first few shows I did it felt more like an insult than anything else… in that “we paid $40 for your coat here's your $30″ sort of way that Dan talked about above.

But eventually you just need to swallow that and give what you can. Or in the case of Orestes give the community an opportunity to give what IT can.

One is that I agree that actors ought not work for no money (in 25 years I have worked for no money once, for a great role, and I still slightly regret it). But the reason they don't isn't lack of self respect, I think, but lack of the chance to work otherwise. You can't act unless someone casts you in something. You can't act alone in your room (like a writer) or at an open mic night (like a musician) or in any way at all except being cast in a play. So actors get a little desperate to act, and a producer can take advantage of the desperation, but (as I think we're all saying) that's arguably a creepy thing to do.

Second, I wanted to say about this: “The companies in this town that do pay are 10 years old. They have City of Austin and/or other grant funding.” That is true. But I did my first play for Ken Webster (just a handy example) in 1984, when he was 27 and had no grant money. He paid me $93 (that's $192.72 today! w00t!), which was awesome. He pays a good bit more than that now, because he has more resources, but in all those years since he never once did a show where he didn't pay actors, even when when that meant he didn't pay himself or the money came out of our tiny-to-nonexistent savings. I don't say this just to brag on Ken (although that's always fun) but to say you're not the first producer to come up against this problem without resources, and things will change if you stick with it.

Since that relationship is inverted when it comes to actors – by both the overwhelming number of them, of varying degrees of talent, in relation to the number of productions at any given time, as well as by the inherent insecurities that come with choosing a career in which the ability to work is determined, at least in part, by the ability to please people in the role of director/producer – basic economics say that you don't have to treat the actors the same way you treat the lumberyard. I get that.

Nonetheless, I can't help but see taking advantage of those circumstances as exploitation. Just because the deck is stacked against the performers doesn't mean that it's justified to push them to suffer indignities (like being valued less than wood). At the risk of sounding hyperbolic, it seems like using the “they should know better and they should decide not to participate if they don't want to be exploited” line as justification could extend beyond working for free – isn't that where the casting couch comes from?

As far as the track record goes, I dunno. It's certainly possible to produce a piece on the cheap and compensate the artists involved, even without any institutional support. It just limits your options as far as what sort of work you can produce. There's a reason I directed a living room drama that my wife wrote instead of the dazzling musical adaptation of Fear and Loathing: On The Campaign Trail '72 that I've been slaving away on, you know? Without knowing anything about how their actors are compensated, I'll say that I've been impressed with the Vestige Group's approach to putting on work that keeps the production costs low without ever feeling like you're watching bargain theater.

And you're right – this probably is a better conversation to have over a beverage somewhere. At least in that setting, I won't come off as much like a strident jerk as I think I might be here. But I am glad for the opportunity to discuss it in public, too, and foster the conversation on a wider scale. I'm still down for a talk with y'all about structure, paying actors, and whatever else comes up after No One Else closes.

–d

I spent 90 minutes this morning trying to write a reasonable defense of not copensating performers and I really don’t have one. I'd be a bad debate team member… I'm lousy at defending a position I don’t hold.

The one asshole position that I do really hold to is that the actor is responsible for respecting themselves enough to not work for free and for bailing on a scene that can’t support that.
If I can’t pay on a show and that means you won’t work for me so be it. I'll learn my lesson.

I will say I honestly think that you're wrong about any indie theatre scene anywhere being able to pay or not play and survive. The companies in this town that do pay are 10 years old. They have City of Austin and/or other grant funding. For either you need a track record. As a producer that agrees whole heartedly with the “produce within your means” mantra, I was chided at my grant review for the City for not producing more, for too many of my ideas being locked up on this page and not in reality. I will receive less (or no) City funding in the coming year because we lack that track record.

Without performers willing to work for “opportunity” no middle class of companies could be developed.
I agree that means (and should mean) working with a lower level of talent, but you get what you pay for.
I want to work to work with the best I can get so we do what we can.

And for the record? If Lowe's offered me free lumber I would take it.
If one of the 8 venues in town offered me a free three week run I would take it.

No. Only art.

One of the main goals of Divergence Vocal Theater is providing paying artistic opportunities to professional local and regional artists. Is it a living wage at this point? No. But when so many organizations expect work (that's what it is, folks) for free, offering performers an honorarium, becomes appreciated and important. Our budget is based on this concept – other things go so we can pay our artists. I also believe in our creativity — I am one of those whackos who does productions with no sets. It can still be compelling, beautiful, inspiring: http://www.divergencevocaltheater.org/multimedi…

Don't let the size of the organization fool you – there are large companies that refuse to pay performers (but pay everyone else in the production): i.e.: Houston's G&S Society which performs at the Wortham Center with a pro orchestra (tix average about $40). Singers get $0.00.

Money is not some dirty thing that is going to kill art. It is simply an exchange of energy. Without energy exchange, one party (at worst) becomes vampiric, and one party dies.

I am not, however, implying that work quality suffers one way or the other, or criticizing small organizations that choose not to finically compensate artists. But it is a choice, a company's philosophy.