Respect for Improv, Ctd.

Jason Zinoman is certainly receiving a lot of blow back from his New York Times article about the UCB theatre not paying performers.

What’s become clear is that for the Upright Citizens Brigade, requiring performers to work free — and they can do so for years — is not a necessity but rather a fundamental part of the organization’s philosophy. As it has grown, the theater has chosen to keep ticket prices low and has put money into renting real estate (its East Village space led to $1 million in debt) and not to paying for onstage talent. If you listen to its leadership, you get the impression that the question of whether the theater has enough money to pay is irrelevant.

There's so much wriggle room for people who are running theatre's to create a philosophy on why "I shouldn't have to pay anybody anything". Starting a theatre is such a huge undertaking, it's probably easy for an owner to start thinking "I'm doing all the work; they're just fooling around." Ultimately, it's a business's way to cut expenses. But, when they're making money off the product that performers produce, the workers should get paid back.

Steve Hofstetter wrote a great article in response to some of the comments over Jason Zinoman's article:

There exists a myth that comedians are supposed to perform for free because money dilutes art, and there’s some truth to that. When money is why an artist works, that art is compromised. But when money is a side effect, there is no reason to believe that art is somehow impure. And money certainly doesn't dilute art when it’s just enough to pay for a MetroCard and a sandwich.

When you pay for art, the artist can spend more time perfecting his art and his craft, rather than having to spend all his time outside of a performance space working in an office or restaurant, or walking dogs for a living.

There exists a myth that comedians are supposed to perform for free because the business was created to help the performers, and there’s some truth to that. That argument gets invalidated when a business opens a second and third location. UCB is no longer the scrappy little guy. UCB is the industry leader. It’s the most respected name in improv, and a company that spawned a three-season television show. They did not open three locations as an act of charity. They could not have expanded unless the first location was profitable enough to justify more. Running a business takes an enormous amount of work; expansion was a calculated business decision. And part of that calculation should include the financial welfare of those working for you.

I don't have anything else to add to the above quote. I just like it.

While comedy clubs pay comedians, most theaters do not pay their improv troupes. It is not fair to vilify UCB for a common practice. However, UCB is not following the lead of other theaters, they’re being followed. They now set the standards, and those standards are the reason that a professional improviser is not a viable career path. Improv, instead, is relegated to a springboard. Improv can lead to a career as an actor, an improv teacher, or as an insurance salesman who remembers the days they used to do improv, but quit because they were starving. [my italics]

There are many levels to this debate. Many of the performers at the UCB, and the similar improv theatres are still learning their craft. You can probably justify not paying them. Some people take improv classes only to become teachers or insurance salesmen. Well, some insurance salesmen take improv, and become improvisors. It's their night of poker, or bowling. They aren't thinking about pay, because it's a pastime to them. But, for those of us pursuing careers in the performing arts, pay for performance is a very relevant issue, especially when that performance is making money for others.