National Endowment for the Arts Fellow Lightsey Darst recently wrote a series of blog entries about dance and income for The Huffington Post. Her pieces highlight what is already common knowledge for those of us in the dance field: dancers make very little money. Darst went so far as to suggest we should sleep with wealthy people to make up for the lack of funds, and sadly her attention-grabbing solution wasn't presented with much humor.
Yes, being a dancer is very difficult financially, and it has been this way for a very long time. Isadora Duncan, the mother of modern dance (born 1877, died 1927), was at times virtually penniless, depending on the kindness of patrons or on her lovers' generosity. It is not a radical idea or even taboo for dance artists to depend on their parents, lovers, or spouses for funds to support their work. This has been happening for centuries. Was it taboo when the artist-formerly-known-as-Prince donated money to the American Ballet Theater, because he fell head over heels for the ballerina Misty Copeland? Without families and others who love us and appreciate the meaning of our work, many of our dance careers would not be possible. But can dance in the United States sustain the lives of its dancers? Do dance professionals need to forever ask mom and dad, lovers and spouses to support our us because our career cannot?
Today economies are weakened, jobs aren't secure, food prices are higher than they used to be, student debt is on the rise, wealthy patrons are less well-heeled and we, moving artists, continue to dance for little or no pay. It is imperative that arts professionals, students (and fellows) come together to discuss "real" solutions to our dire problems.
My professional dance career changed completely after I suffered an injury waiting tables -- hurt in the pursuit of making money to support my art. The frustration was unbearable as I had to quickly rehabilitate myself to be part of my final performance. That was the last straw. Even though I was still in my physical and artistic prime, I refused to dance for anyone for free or for less than a livable wage. I started to call myself a "dancer on strike." It was painful, but I was more interested in finding a solution to the wage issue than contributing my talents to a problematic system.
Since that time, I have thought a great deal about sustainability in dance, asking questions about what is "working" and "not working."
One important issue is the dance artist's attitude towards money. Many of us have been brought up with the idea that our field is beyond a job -- to be an artist is almost a sacred calling. If you have ever danced you will understand. We love our art form and have the conviction that it does others good. With integrity and passion we put our bodies -- our very selves -- on the line to create. Our work is beyond a job description; in many ways it is a life's practice or a life's mission. How does one monetize that?
What has emerged because of our "calling" premise is a system that supports work not adequately funded. We pay staff what we can and often expect people to work for free while we wait for funding that often never arrives. While some could consider this noble -and perhaps it is to some degree -- by working in this manner the dance market's pay scale is continually suppressed. While in the short-term, sacrifice enables many to perform, in the long-term, companies and artists that work in this way suffer. They are financially unequipped to market their fine pieces of artistic work to a larger audience. The dirty truth is that many times the musicians, costume designers, stage crew and support staff get paid more than the dancers who are the main event on stage. It has become acceptable to pay a non-unionized dancer very little or nothing. Dancers will dance for the love of it.
The dancing life may look dismal in its current state, but I think there are solutions. One involves rethinking our choices of organizational structure to favor repertory dance companies instead of single choreographer companies. Larger institutions are beginning to see the wisdom of this, including Linda Shelton Executive Director of the Joyce Theater Foundation. She was highlighted in a recent Los Angeles Times article saying, "We've been studying how theater is made... You have a producer, or a director, putting together a collaborative team; you have many, many opportunities to say it's not working out... In dance, work is usually made in isolation without feedback in the process... It's unrealistic to assume one choreographer can do that year in and year out."
Ticket sales have been the dance company's standard way to generate income, yet many choreographers only have one or two short production cycles per year -- which usually put a company in the red. By creating choreographic co-operatives and repertory companies, more pieces generating more performances and attracting larger audiences could produce greater income opportunities.
Other practices that could influence a healthier dance economy:
This post was previously published at The Dance Enthusiast.
Realistically, given that a dancer’s career is short and the training requirements so intensive, and accepting that we will not see a radical shift toward more socialist policies in America, the smartest path a dancer can take is to educate herself and prepare for a second career post-dance.
The historical model of private patronage is likely to continue to dominate the arts landscape, and as long as the more unpalatable aspects of it are checked – as long as dancers are not required to sleep with lascivious benefactors, and the Koch brothers refrain from commissioning ballets glorifying the Tea Party – we should be able to live with it.
The theater/acting world made a transition which theaters and film makers of a certain caliber would only use production companies which had union representation as a code of ethics. If that was instated for the dance world, that would make dance companies clammer for that right and the union would be more powerful. That is such a pipe dream that I don't even consider it as a reality.
The reason we have not seen a great migration of dance to film is a) the industry has maintained that film doesn't do justice to the art form and never jumped full heartedly to training choreographers in the medium, and 2) all of those independent choreographers are still focusing on real life performances-- which have limited runs and very limited return on investment, and 3) those small independent choreographers haven't figured out how to raise funds upfront for the content which can possibly net them much more than any performance- if marketed right.
Theatre-going in general is increasingly viewed as an elitist – and therefore frivolous and dispensable – activity in America, whereas in Europe, Russia and a few other countries like Cuba, it is an essential part of everyday life for a broad demographic including the middle class. Beyer is naïve to think that artists themselves can lead the charge to change public attitudes toward dance: they are up against brutal economic forces and a highly litigious society. Corporate landlords and insurance companies drive up two huge components of dance company expenses – real estate and insurance costs – and as government largely stays out of their way, even the larger, better-funded arts companies can barely survive.
Increased demand for dance has to come from the public itself, and will happen through formal exposure in schools (government-driven) and in popular commercial media. Shows like Glee, Smash, SYTYCD, Breaking Pointe, Bunheads, and Dance Moms – controversial as some of them may be – are powerful drivers of demand.
We are trained and assume everyone should be operating in the old world model with the attached patronage. Economic models are not taught to many of the independent choreographers that set out on their own and start seeking advice AFTER they start their creative process. Talk to any dancer/choreographer under the age of 30, and they are only trying to do things differently. And let's face it, the movie industry is built off of patronage: it's called investors. It's just stronger word choices.
Yes, economic forces are a large part of the issue with dance creation, but unlike business schools where they teach their student how to survive in the market, none of that is communicated in dance education. As for government driven support, it will only come in the form of public-private partnerships where artists need to be a partner and not just the beneficiary.
So if dancers went on strike, independent choreographers would suffer. I understand we need to stand up and make our voices heard and demand a livable wage, but that's not in control of the choreographer. I am grateful to have understanding dancers who dance for me. Most of the time when I get paid for a 'gig' I split the money between them and fund the other "stuff" by myself. Working a part time non-profit job (which, I know, is far better than other jobs) pays, well, ehm... enough so I can live under the poverty level.
Solution? Haven't a clue.
I feel for independent choreographers, and this outcome of a surplus of small organizations is most likely related to a preference of these independent non-profit organizations. This happened sometime in the early 1970's through a push for "sustainability" in dance creation. (I did research on this topic in Graduate school) We were trained with this end goal only to realize decades later that it is not completely sustainable-- it's only sustainable to those with enough gumption, connections, or preternatural talent to attract big donors. There are hundreds of small choreographers for every Mark Morris...
Personally, I think the field has to step back and look at the big picture to address this situation. Although there is room for well positioned single choreographer companies, I think re-asserting that repertory companies are a well designed answer is justified. That is why I referenced The Joyce Theater's quote in this article. If choreographers leaving school have the well positioned ego and can enter a collaborative environment rather than trying to do everything themselves, then we might see some major changes.
Some of us are good collaborators, some of us are not and some of us haven't found the people to collaborate with who share the same vision.
I've been at it for 10 years, so I don't consider myself "fresh" out of school. I don't regret that I have gone into debt because of my passion. It's something I need to do (the same way I need to dance). My work has been well received, it's just that people (audience) expect it for free. Sometimes when you make something look good on a budget, people just expect that you are going to continue to do that again...by yourself. When you ask for money, few step up (I'm talking $10) because the expectation is that art is free and it doesn't cost anything to "dance around".
In the end, I believe that society needs small choreographers in their neighborhoods creating dance. We have to be in the communities and be present, not go on strike.
And even if the public doesn't "care", you can change a person's day just by performing in the least expected place, where they will have to walk around to get to where they are going. And that makes a difference.
But its pretty difficult to sustain enthusiasm for the craft when youre starving.
If one can't pay the rent, one has to find a way to pay the rent!