A strike by Arts on Jan. 20?

[Jane2]

Posted: 12/17/16 at 6:40pm

Very interesting article on a possible arts strike on Jan. 20. I'm certainly for it. This takes in all arts including theater.

http://hyperallergic.com/344820/should-the-art-world-strike-on-inauguration-day/

[Jane2]

Posted: 12/17/16 at 9:56pm

I'm surprised there are no comments from those for whom the art of theater is of utmost importance. And from those who are so vehemently against the president elect and all he stands for.

There are no opinions of the closing  of theater and all other art on Jan. 20? No one cares? I guess you'd all rather post what the worst musical you ever saw was, than what could happen to the arts under this president to be.

pity

Updated On: 12/17/16 at 09:56 PM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 12/17/16 at 10:40pm

To be honest, when I read it earlier, I wasn't sure how I felt. Art is at its best when it presents, prods, provokes, not when it goes on strike. To me that is a form of defeat. We commit the act of theatre; we don't omit it. I can't speak for anyone else, and am disinclined to veer into any sort of political discussion here, even if it is on topic. So I will leave you with a rhetorical question, and hope no one will try to answer it: what is the aspiration of this strike? 

 

 

 

Updated On: 12/18/16 at 10:40 PM

[Broadway Joe]

Posted: 12/18/16 at 12:59am

I think some people are just sick of hearing about politics, I know I am. 

 

I don't know what Broadway shows would actually participate on this but I'm sure not every single person, actors / stage hands / theatre crew all voted for the same person anyway. 

 

Also almost all of the shows on Broadway right now have nothing to do with politics anyway, what would Wicked and the Lion King, etc etc etc have any reason to do this. 

 

Nothing is going to happen to the arts anyway and this "strike"  would do nothing but lose money for these shows for the day. Pointless to me. 

Updated On: 12/18/16 at 12:59 AM

[adamgreer]

Posted: 12/18/16 at 1:14am

I think a better response would be to create art that provokes and challenges this new "president" rather than shutting everything down. If it hasn't just been revived, for example, this would be an ideal time for a Cabaret revival.

[UncleCharlie]

Posted: 12/18/16 at 1:53am

I'm not familiar with the author or his website but I'm going to go out on a limb and say the call for a general strike is not going to go anywhere. There doesn't appear to be any momentum here, just one or two people on the fringes of the arts community saying there should be one and they'll circulate the idea.

Some people just like to call for protests for the sake of protesting cause it makes them feel like they are "doing something". I'm not saying protests are not effective. The folks in North Dakota as an example are clearly having an impact but you protest because you have a specific cause or issue and are asking for a specific outcome. These general "Trump is a bad guy and we're protesting him taking office cause we don't like him" protests are a waste of everyone's time. If anything we've seen these types of public challenges only embolden him.

Also telling was the author's remark that one day's loss of salary shouldn't be a big deal for anyone. Easy for him to say. I didn't see him saying he would shut down his site for the day and forego any profits or income for the day.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 12/18/16 at 2:27am

A strike is usually a device to stand against unfair or unfinished work related issues with management. Your own.

This would be a protest.  This is no different then the pleas for people not to go to work, not to spend money or watch the inauguration that day.

Am I in support of this president? No.  Do I think this will send a message that he will actually hear? No.

This only hurts any business whose workers participate.

[Jane2]

Posted: 12/18/16 at 10:43am

Thanks so much for your replies! I can understand your reasons, but if you read the piece, it mentions that closing down of all arts for one day would point out  how important they are, and how much of life is affected by art. This is not a political statement as much as a wakeup call for some people. 

Do  you know that the first thing that's cut out of an educational curriculum is art?

As for the complaint that artists would lose one day's money, well, I don't think money is paramount  to making the statement of how important art is to life.

Also, as you all know, most artists do not make any money from their art. They keep doing it because it's in their blood. So one more day of not making any money, but making a statement, is important. 

Would you say that doing nothing is a better idea/

Updated On: 12/18/16 at 10:43 AM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 12/18/16 at 11:38am

But tying it into inauguration day, MAKES it political.  As if this president has said they will make it illegal to be an artist. Or that no artist is worth paying.

 

 

 

[Jane2]

Posted: 12/18/16 at 11:56am

It's legend that the GOP is not in favor of supporting the arts in general. I keep remembering Giuliani's campaign to ban the art of Ifili.

And so what if it is political? Should the anti Trump rallies not have taken place? Should we just stand by and stifle ourselves?

Updated On: 12/18/16 at 11:56 AM

[Broadway Joe]

Posted: 12/18/16 at 12:31pm

Jane2 said: "It's legend that the GOP is not in favor of supporting the arts in general. I keep remembering Giuliani's campaign to ban the art of Ifili.

And so what if it is political? Should the anti Trump rallies not have taken place? Should we just stand by and stifle ourselves?

 

"

Because I'm sure that if you include all the people who work in the arts that some might not agree, whether they admit it or not. 

No matter what happens with Trump the arts will be fine because there will still be money to be made in theatres and other art. I don't think the Ofili situation is a great comparison because Rudy didn't want to support that singular project because of the controversy around that one not the arts in general. 

[ggersten]

Posted: 12/18/16 at 12:39pm

Broadway Joe said: "Also almost all of the shows on Broadway right now have nothing to do with politics anyway, what would Wicked and the Lion King, etc etc etc have any reason to do this. "

Wicked is all about politics.  Think how easy it is to see Bannon as the Wizard and Conway as Madame Morrible, 

 

 

[South Florida]

Posted: 12/18/16 at 12:49pm

Adamgreer you're making me feel really old, my last trip to NYC I saw Cabaret.

 

Updated On: 12/18/16 at 12:49 PM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 12/18/16 at 1:38pm

I guess it was a slippery slope from "we won't be silenced" to "oh look, we are silent." All the guy had to do was win an election to shut us up?

[Jane2]

Posted: 12/18/16 at 2:01pm

Broadway Joe said "I don't think the Ofili situation is a great comparison because Rudy didn't want to support that singular project because of the controversy around that one not the arts in general. "

It's a perfect example. It was all about Guiliani deciding what is art and what isn't.

Also-it doesn't matter if Wicked or any show is about politics or not. That is entirely NOT the point. The point is support for the arts in general.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 12/18/16 at 2:09pm

Jane, I promise I'm not trying to give you a hard time....but support of the arts from whom?  The government?  We've never had a lot of funding from that arena.  And I don't mind that we don't -- with federal funding comes federal strings - especially with this admin.

 

Those of us that DO support the arts don't need reminders to do so.  Those that don't, aren't going to care or notice a one day strike.

 

I guess, I'm not really sure what this hopes to actually "say".  As an educator OF the arts, I'm fully aware of how quickly funding gets hit in times of budget issues.

[Jane2]

Posted: 12/18/16 at 2:20pm

Drama, there's the National Endowment of the Arts, for one.

The points you and others make might make sense on paper, but I, as an artist, and former art teacher, feel very strongly about the lack of interest and support of the arts in this country. As I said, it's in our blood.

And Drama, I don't take offense at anything you have said. I enjoy a sensible debate. What I deplore are people coming out of their holes to be nasty in a post.

[trpguyy]

Posted: 12/18/16 at 2:30pm

Don't mistake this for support ofthem, but Mike Pence's wife, Karen, is an artist and supporter of the arts. 

Taken from a Cosmopolitan (I know) write-up about her:

"She formed the Indiana First Lady's Charitable Foundation in 2013 to promote individuals and organizations that encourage children, families, and the arts, the IndyStar reports. The foundation offers grants and scholarships to these individuals and organizations, and the foundation first benefited Riley's Art Therapy Initiative, an art therapy program for hospitalized children."

I'm pretty sure they're at least a little aware of the importance of the arts.

[Jane2]

Posted: 12/18/16 at 2:32pm

That's good to know, trpguyy, thanks for posting.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 12/18/16 at 3:06pm

Yes, notice -- I didn't say NO funding, I said we don't have a lot.  And never have.

 

But I'm not sure how this would make a difference to those that have no interest in the arts,  They already AREN'T noticing.   

Just like no one will ever be able to entice me to watch WW Wrestling or a monster truck rally, there are some that just don't WANT to have art in their lives.  I'd only notice things I care about going missing.  If there was never another wrestling or truck rally, I wouldn't even KNOW.

[Jane2]

Posted: 12/18/16 at 3:19pm

The fact is that most people don't realize just how much art plays a role in their every day lives. Of course they're interested in art. It has to be pointed out to them. Let's start with:

The clothes you are wearing - designed by artists.

The  house you live in - designed by artists (architects, for anyone who doesn't know)

Your furniture - you selected the shape and color, designed and made by artisans.

The packaging of everything you buy - designed by artists.

I won't go on because it's so obvious.

[neonlightsxo]

Posted: 12/19/16 at 9:44am

adamgreer said: "I think a better response would be to create art that provokes and challenges this new "president" rather than shutting everything down."

 

Hear, hear.

 

[adamgreer]

Posted: 12/19/16 at 10:17am

South Florida said: "Adamgreer you're making me feel really old, my last trip to NYC I saw Cabaret.

 

 

Cabaret was last revived in April 2014 and played until March 2015! That wasn't that long ago!

[Jane2]

Posted: 12/19/16 at 10:54am

adamgreer said: "I think a better response would be to create art that provokes and challenges this new "president" rather than shutting everything down."

That's what art does and has been doing since the beginning of time. It's all around. And because of provocation and challenge, some art is banned by the wrong administration.

[Kad]

Posted: 12/19/16 at 11:26am

This reads more as an exercise in theory than anything with practical effect. The strike is occurring on Inauguration Day, so it will be vastly overshadowed by a major national event and all that will go along with it. And I'm not sure I see how a strike that day accomplishes the closest thing to a stated goal in that post, which is questioning the relationship between art and institutional backing- which is indeed a valid concern.

And the post rather blithely dismisses any concern one might have for repercussion against those who take part. For some, the risk of losing a job is real. Not showing up to a job is, in many cases, cause for termination, art institution or no. People involved could be members of labor unions and that could muddy things- could their union be seen as sanctioning a work action? That's not something to take lightly.

And these institutions are all run differently. A theatre company is not structured the same as an art gallery and a gallery isn't run like a museum.