Is growing allowed in Chicago's indie culture?

This is a quickie, since I'm supposed to be writing a review, but I just read Michael Miner's Reader piece on the feminist Venus magazine's new direction. This quote, from Venus founder Amy Schroeder, really struck me, with an assist from Ethan Stanislawski, whose tweet led me to the article. ("Sarah" is Venus's new owner.)

Am I supposed to be on the defensive, or is Sarah supposed to be on the defensive for setting big goals? Or is Venus supposed to be this small magazine that doesn't get beyond a certain point? I live in New York now, and one of the things I think about is Chicago does a really great job of helping indie projects take off, but sometimes it's hard to progress beyond a certain point. Not that there aren't a number of resources there, but there's a great sense of staying indie—and if you try to move beyond a certain point, people don't like you anymore.

Given the allergic reaction some folks in the theatrosphere and the theater twitterverse have to the slightest mention of marketing, audience development or money in general, this pricked up my ears. What say you, folks? Does this attitude apply in the storefront scene in Chicago? Does it not? Is Schroeder's take wrong? Discuss.

Comments

[Josh D]

I think "growth" and "indie culture" are, for the most part, mutually exclusive. Think about any indie band that gets "big" -- as soon as they start doing VW commercials and touring major stadiums, the indie crowd becomes alienated.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. I think of the indie scene as seed capital for "cool": once your venture grows past a certain point, the initial "investors" are going to stop investing in it, but the general public takes over.

[ladyplaywright]

I'm not sure that a direct comparison can be made, because while Venus was founded with a specific mission in mind, it's ultimately a money making venture. It can choose not to adhere to that original mission in favor of reaching a wider audience if it wants to. Storefront theaters, on the other hand, must generally adhere to a mission of SOME kind. Nonprofits (which most storefronts are) receive public support in the form of their tax id status and are allowed to take donations from patrons without the patrons expecting any tangible goods in return. The government gives them this status because non-profits are supposed to provide a service for which the government itself does not want to pay. It's fine for a storefront theater to grow as long as it continues to adhere to its mission.

[Dan Granata]

I think the lexiphobia around "business-speak" is worse than the actual fear of running your company well. Now that I think about it - (and this is likely somewhat hyperbolic) - the fear of *sounding* "corporate" has generally stifled real innovation around the model that supports our small theatres, and so closeted "growers" grope in the dark for the only model available to them: the non-profit model that runs major regionals. The problem is, that model fairly *requires* a certain size of organization, patron base, and a way of operating.

(What's more, the non-profit model for theatres works ok when you're the only game in town - it was built to support regional theatres at a time when there *was* no theatre outside of New York. It was designed to get *something* sustainable and locally-focussed in parts of the country that hadn't had any theatre historically. But it doesn't work when you have 300 companies all fighting over the north side.)

The real killer of growth - largely - is that most companies *don't,* in fact, have a mission beyond "me and my friends do plays that we like." They're built around the artistic aspirations of a group of people united by (at best) aesthetics they share at a certain point in their artistic development or (at worst) mere proximity and a lot of free time while waiting for bigger theatres/commercials/tv to call. Since individual careers grow faster than organizational ones, companies lose their driving artistic or organizational forces pretty quickly unless those people are actually willing to give up "fame and fortune" to slog it out with their buddies. It doesn't actually happen all that often. (Remember my baseball player analogy? This is where it fits pretty aptly.)

My fervent belief is that if a company chooses an *actual mission* and pursues that doggedly - and isn't just a platform for occasionally gripping public masturbation by a relatively random group of artists - folks don't begrudge their growth. I'm thinking About Face - I'm even thinking TimeLine or Lifeline. But when a group makes moves that seem inconsistent with their mission in order to 'cash in' - thinking here of the rash of musicals a couple of years back - people get resentful. They get even more resentful when a cult of personality is built around particular artist or two - and by extension raises the profile of the company that artist is synonymous with. The thought (echoed nightly in bars around the city), "Well, who the fuck are they? Did you see them in such and such - they sucked!" The 'art' part is always going to be subjective. The 'mission' part probably shouldn't be.

[Brian Golden]

I think this is a great post, Kris - and I agree this premise as it relates to Chicago's theatre scene.

Both press and companies themselves, I think, are to blame.

Much of the major press in our town, as in most places, loves to play king/queen maker. One thing I think TimeOut does very well is continue to cover and tell the stories of companies and artists when they're growing, but not HUGE (Kim Senior, recently, for example). For some of the larger Chicago publications, there seem to be no second acts in storefront life - first and third acts, totally. But no middles.

Also, I think theatres share some blame for not sustaining a commitment to a mission statement or consistent values. A non-profit theatre without a credible, achieveable mission statement is going to be more likely to suffer wild swings of popularity based on the success of their shows, instead of consistency based on an audience's belief in their values.

It's pretty hard, either way.

Brian Golden
Artistic Director, Theatre Seven of Chicago

[Tony Adams]

I think the key graph is: "the more I learned the better Venus became, and the better it became the more readers we got, and the more readers we got the more I recognized how to grow Venus—and that involved making it more accessible, which was not just covering Riot Grrl bands."

A lot of indie artists don't want to learn the business end, and really don't want to change.

It's pretty easy to look at a huge organization and realize they're doing a shitty job creating art and say that money is evil.

It's not as easy to look at indie orgs and realize they're doing a good job creating art and a shitty job taking care of themselves and those who work with them.

[Aaron Andersen]

I think Dan has it largely right on, especially about the different growth trajectories for persons vs. organizations. But I also think there is some simple tribalism at the root of the resentment. If you get big, you have to attract folks outside the tribe both to your audience and to your artist base/ensemble. So then you've "betrayed the tribe," even if your art is better and more mission-driven than ever.

Also, on the less vindictive side of things, as you get bigger, your former close peers/rivals simply don't feel you need their support anymore.

[Brian Golden]

Rereading the comments here a day later, I should clarify mine, particularly 'for some of the larger Chicago publications, there seem to be no second acts in storefront life'.

First of all, Theatre Seven has been blessed with ample, fair and kind press coverage. We are lucky, and should say so more often. I didn't mean to sound bitter.

Second, my comments were not about one publication specifically, but more about an unfortunate circumstance of declining theatre coverage across the board in our city. When section sizes decline significantly, as they have as the Reader, for example, it seems that often the stories that remain focus on either 'the big thing' or 'the next big thing'...not often about the theatres in the middle. Maybe those are just the best stories - I don't know. And as an Artistic Director facing the challenges of running a theatre somewhere in the wide expanse between those two, they might just not be the ones that interest me. But maybe that's just me.

Brian Golden
Artistic Director, Theatre Seven of Chicago

[medieval dress]

The real killer of growth - largely - is that most companies *don't,* in fact, have a mission beyond "me and my friends do plays that we like." They're built around the artistic aspirations of a group of people united by (at best) aesthetics they share at a certain point in their artistic development or (at worst) mere proximity and a lot of free time while waiting for bigger theatres/commercials/tv to call. Since individual careers grow faster than organizational ones, companies lose their driving artistic or organizational forces pretty quickly unless those people are actually willing to give up "fame and fortune" to slog it out with their buddies. It doesn't actually happen all that often. (Remember my baseball player analogy? This is where it fits pretty aptly.)

[Don Hall]

For the cry-eye!

Coupla thoughts:

1. A disdain for corporate lingo and a constant vomiting of MBA-speak does NOT mean a lack of understanding of these things nor an inability to manage the business of an organization well. The assumption that someone who finds the never-ending focus on "how to grow" (translates to "how to make more money so I can quit my day job") tedious and leading to a general neglect of the work has no clue is half the problem.

2. Growth is about something measurable - money or audience or membership or number of productions. Growth is not, in and of itself, a necessary good. Like deciding to become Equity, the choice is often between artistic freedom or monetary gain. The idea that a "mission statement" beyond "create art" is the badge of maturity is as sad and capitalistic as the idea that success is measured in rubles.

3. "It's not as easy to look at indie orgs and realize they're doing a good job creating art and a shitty job taking care of themselves and those who work with them." Sure it is, Tony. But your definition of pretty good art and shitty job taking care of themselves is defined strictly by a corporate model and utilizing money as the benchmark for taking care of themselves.

[Tony Adams]

Actually Don that has nothing to do with my definition of taking care of people.

[Don Hall]

Tony-

Based on your two sentence wrap-up of things:

"It's pretty easy to look at a huge organization and realize they're doing a shitty job creating art and say that money is evil.

It's not as easy to look at indie orgs and realize they're doing a good job creating art and a shitty job taking care of themselves and those who work with them."

it sure reads like the shitty job taking care of themselves has to do with money. Is that not what you mean?

[Tony Adams]

Money is not what I mean, I didn't say paying people, I said taking care of people. Money is a tiny part of that equation.

Though a company paying a couple hundred bucks a year for insurance to cover actors in case they get hurt onstage, or being understanding if someone has to work and miss a rehearsal are other ways money affects that. The stress of constantly being in survival mode is another way money can affect that. But that's not primarily about money, nor being corporate, nor about art.

There are many companies and people who use making art as an excuse to treat people like shit; who use making art as an excuse to take advantage of artists; who use making art as an excuse for a complete disregard for safety.

There is nothing "corporate" about taking care of people. It's actually more corporate to treat artists like cattle, no?

[Don Hall]

Tony -

I believe we agree completely.

[Tony Adams]

Well, that rarely happens. :)

[buy zolpidem]

I fully agree with Josh D :)

[Retro Air Jordans]

Friendship is in my life a lamp which lights up my soul.

[Fibonacci levels CFDs]

Every one has their own opportunity to shine be known. This is a positive attempt that we have to go through. I really like a positive post that will give enough time to develop our full potentials. Thanks a lot for sharing your thoughts.

[marketingconcept]

When it comes to business matters; there should have the matters of knowing its aspect and nature. Being engage in business, it has tough challenges that must be face through.