Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A ‘Great Cultural Depression’ Looms

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A ‘Great Cultural Depression’ Looms

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/26/a...gtype=Homepage

    n the top echelons of classical music, the violinist Jennifer Koh is by any measure a star.
    With a dazzling technique, she has ridden a career that any aspiring Juilliard grad would dream about — appearing with leading orchestras, recording new works, and performing on some of the world’s most prestigious stages.
    Now, nine months into a contagion that has halted most public gatherings and decimated the performing arts, Ms. Koh, who watched a year’s worth of bookings evaporate, is playing music from her living room and receiving food stamps.


    Pain can be found in nearly every nook of the economy. Millions of people have lost their jobs and tens of thousands of businesses have closed since the coronavirus pandemic spread across the United States. But even in these extraordinary times, the losses in the performing arts and related sectors have been staggering.



    During the quarter ending in September, when the overall unemployment rate averaged 8.5 percent, 52 percent of actors, 55 percent of dancers and 27 percent of musicians were out of work, according to the National Endowment for the Arts. By comparison, the jobless rate was 27 percent for waiters; 19 percent for cooks; and about 13 percent for retail salespeople over the same period.
    In many areas, arts venues — theaters, clubs, performance spaces, concert halls, festivals — were the first businesses to close, and they are likely to be among the last to reopen.
    “My fear is we’re not just losing jobs, we’re losing careers,” said Adam Krauthamer, president of Local 802 of the American Federation of Musicians in New York. He said 95 percent of the local’s 7,000 members are not working on a regular basis because of the mandated shutdown. “It will create a great cultural depression,” he said.
    The new $15 billion worth of stimulus aid for performance venues and cultural institutions that Congress approved this week — which was thrown into limbo after President Trump criticized the bill — will not end the mass unemployment for performers anytime soon. And it only extends federal unemployment aid through mid-March.
    The public may think of performers as A-list celebrities, but most never get near a red carpet or an awards show. The overwhelming majority, even in the best times, don’t benefit from Hollywood-size paychecks or institutional backing. They work season to season, weekend to weekend or day to day, moving from one gig to the next.



    The median annual salary for full-time musicians and singers was $42,800; it was $40,500 for actors; and $36,500 for dancers and choreographers, according to a National Endowment for the Arts analysis. Many artists work other jobs to cobble together a living, often in the restaurant, retail and hospitality industries — where work has also dried up.
    They are an integral part of local economies and communities in every corner of rural, suburban and urban America, and they are seeing their life’s work and livelihoods suddenly vanish.


    “We’re talking about a year’s worth of work that just went away,” said Terry Burrell, whose touring show, “Angry, Raucous and Gorgeously Shameless,” was canceled. Now she is home with her husband in Atlanta, collecting unemployment insurance, and hoping she won’t have to dip into her 401(k) retirement account.
    Linda Jean Stokley, a fiddler and part of the Kentucky duo the Local Honeys with Monica Hobbs, said, “We’re resilient and are used to not having regular paychecks.” But since March hardly anyone has paid even the minor fees required by their contracts, she said: “Someone owed us $75 and wouldn’t even pay.”





    Then there’s Tim Wu, 31, a D.J., singer and producer, who normally puts on around 100 shows a year as Elephante at colleges, festivals and nightclubs.



    He was in Ann Arbor, Mich., doing a sound check for a new show called “Diplomacy” in mid-March when New York shut down. Mr. Wu returned to Los Angeles the next day. All his other bookings were canceled — and most of his income.
    Mr. Wu, and hundreds of thousands of freelancers like him, are not the only ones taking a hit. The broader arts and culture sector that includes Hollywood and publishing constitutes an $878 billion industry that is a bigger part of the American economy than sports, transportation, construction or agriculture. The sector supports 5.1 million wage and salary jobs, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. They include agents, makeup artists, hair stylists, tailors, janitors, stage hands, ushers, electricians, sound engineers, concession sellers, camera operators, administrators, construction crews, designers, writers, directors and more.
    “If cities are going to rebound, they’re not going to do it without arts and cultural creatives,” said Richard Florida, a professor at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management and School of Cities.

    Steph Simon, a hip-hop artist from Tulsa, had been booked to perform at South by Southwest when the virus hit and eliminated the rest of his gigs for the year. Credit...September Dawn Bottoms/The New York Times


    This year, Steph Simon, 33, of Tulsa, finally started working full time as a hip-hop musician after a decade of minimum-wage jobs cleaning carpets or answering phones to pay the bills.



    He was selected to perform at the South by Southwest festival in Austin, Texas, played regular gigs at home and on tour, and produced “Fire in Little Africa,” an album commemorating the 1921 massacre of Black residents of Tulsa by white rioters.
    “This was projected to be my biggest year financially,” said Mr. Simon, who lives with his girlfriend and his two daughters, and was earning about $2,500 a month as a musician. “Then the world shut down,” he said.
    A week after the festival was canceled, he was back working as a call center operator, this time at home, for about 40 hours a week, with a part-time job at a fast-food restaurant on the weekends.
    In November, on his birthday, he caught Covid-19, but has since recovered.
    Performers on payrolls have suffered, too. With years of catch-as-catch-can acting gigs and commercials behind her, Robyn Clark started working as a performer at Disneyland after the last recession. She has been playing a series of characters in the park’s California Adventure — Phiphi the photographer, Molly the messenger and Donna the Dog Lady — several times a week, doing six shows a day.
    “It was the first time in my life I had security,” Ms. Clark said. It was also the first time she had health insurance, paid sick leave and vacation.
    In March, she was furloughed, though Disney is continuing to cover her health insurance.
    “I have unemployment and a generous family,” said Ms. Clark, explaining how she has managed to continue paying for rent and food.



    Many performers are relying on charity. The Actors Fund, a service organization for the arts, has raised and distributed $18 million since the pandemic started for basic living expenses to 14,500 people.
    “I’ve been at the Actors Fund for 36 years,” said Barbara S. Davis, the chief operating officer. “Through September 11th, Hurricane Katrina, the 2008 recession, industry shutdowns. There’s clearly nothing that compares to this.”
    Higher-paid television and film actors have more of a cushion, but they, too, have endured disappointments and lost opportunities. Jack Cutmore-Scott and Meaghan Rath, now his wife, had just been cast in a new CBS pilot, “Jury Duty,” when the pandemic shut down filming.
    “I’d had my costume fitting and we were about to go and do the table read the following week, but we never made it,” Mr. Cutmore-Scott said. After several postponements, they heard in September that CBS was bailing out altogether.
    Many live performers have looked for new ways to pursue their art, turning to video, streaming and other platforms. Carla Gover’s tour of dancing to and playing traditional Appalachian music as well as a folk opera she composed, “Cornbread and Tortillas,” were all canceled. “I had some long dark nights of the soul trying to envision what I could do,” said Ms. Gover, who lives in Lexington, Ky., and has three children.
    She started writing weekly emails to all her contacts, sharing videos and offering online classes in flatfoot dancing and clogging. The response was enthusiastic. “I figured out how to use hashtags and now I have a new kind of business,” Ms. Gover said.



    But if technology enables some artists to share their work, it doesn’t necessarily help them earn much or even any money.
    The violinist Ms. Koh, known for her devotion to promoting new artists and music, donated her time to create the “Alone Together” project, raising donations to commission compositions and then performing them over Instagram from her apartment.
    The project was widely praised, but as Ms. Koh said, it doesn’t produce income.
    “I am lucky,” Ms. Koh insisted. Unlike many of her friends and colleagues, she managed to hang onto her health insurance thanks to a teaching gig at the New School, and she got a forbearance on her mortgage payments through March. Many engagements have also been rescheduled — if not until 2022.
    She ticks off the list of friends and colleagues who have had to move out of their homes or have lost their health insurance, their income and nearly every bit of their work.
    “It’s just decimating the field,” she said. “It concerns me when I look at the future.”

  • #2
    Thanks for posting this. I am not a fan of the New York Times as a general rule, but this is an article that needed to be written. The only problem is that all it did was present a string of case studies: it didn't ask why this is happening. The article makes an implicit case that performing and other arts workers are "essential" for the wellbeing of society in general, but then failed to ask why they have been deemed non-essential - and furthermore, expendable - by governments, despite the almost total lack of evidence that sit-down entertainment venues are a significant C19 vector.

    If you want evidence that the effect is going to be long term, it can be found in the university and college application and admission stats over the last year: applications for STEM programs (in particular medicine and biological sciences) have skyrocketed as a proportion of the total, while applications for arts and humanities programs have tanked. Furthermore, the applications for the latter are increasingly coming from kids with affluent backgrounds and weaker high school qualifications. The better and brighter section of a generation of teenagers are looking at what is going on, and deciding that they don't want to risk a career in a sector of the economy that could be condemned as "non-essential," shut down, and they be thrown out of work at any time.

    EDIT: I'm not too worried by the article's suggestion that the $15bn bailout for the entertainment sector is jeopardized by the current political wrangling over the overall bill. No-one could make a viable case that this line item could be construed as pork (spending unrelated to C19 that has been sneaked into the bill), so presumably it is not one of the items that will be involved in the horse trading if the bill in its current form is pocket vetoed and has to go through Congress again, likely in a revised form, after the new administration takes office.
    Last edited by Leo Enticknap; 12-26-2020, 11:11 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Leo Enticknap
      If you want evidence that the effect is going to be long term, it can be found in the university and college application and admission stats over the last year: applications for STEM programs (in particular medicine and biological sciences) have skyrocketed as a proportion of the total, while applications for arts and humanities programs have tanked.
      Even without the effect of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic multiple fields of study in the arts and humanities were under very serious threat of a "correction" in college enrollments. A student can spend a crazy fortune on a 4 year degree at a top flight school. But if the pay in that career field isn't all that great then it kind of makes that arts degree a lousy investment. I value the BFA I earned at School of Visual Arts in NYC. But if I was 18 years old and had it to do over again it's likely I would have gone in a different direction. That could have meant studying a different field with better earnings potential.

      For some arts fields it does pay dividends to be able to attend a particular school to learn from acclaimed instructors. Music, dance and drama are arguably valid examples. There are other fields in the arts, particularly the commercial end, where it is hardly even necessary anymore to attend a full blown art school. These days it's possible to learn the principals of graphic design with resources freely available online. A dedicated classroom setting usually yields better, more consistent results. A proper school with competent instructors will have a valid course load to teach the kids a lot more than just how to click around in a certain graphics application. But if an individual is driven enough he can learn how to design or learn how to code without setting foot onto a college campus. The prevalence of self-taught amateurs falling in and out of the graphic design field has pushed down wage scales in the field. And that can't help but call into question the value of getting a degree in that field, particularly from a high priced university.
      Last edited by Bobby Henderson; 12-28-2020, 10:08 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        And that can't help but call into question the value of getting a degree in that field, particularly from a high priced university.
        That's the crux of where we are in this country. It's not uncommon to see liberal arts schools charging a list price of $70,000 a year or more these days. Now there are lots of discounts and scholarships and one can even negotiate a bit, but there are a LOT of careers that aren't worth investing a quarter of a million dollars outside of careers where one must be certified (law, medicine, engineering, architecture, etc.) IMO, too many of today's students in the U.S. go for the "easy" liberal arts degree and then wonder why they can't a get a job when they graduate. In an ideal world, education would be inexpensive enough that one could study anything they wanted at college and pursue learning for the sake of learning and explore different interests, but that's not the case today. The tuition at the first college I attended was the equivalent of $9638 in today's dollars. The actual list price tuition at that school today? $55,380. And that school was far from an elite or Ivy League school. It's insane.

        But the one thing college does provide is interaction and contacts, especially if it's a school that attracts "celebrity" professors. My granddaughter is a near-genius who started college at 16. But since the school did not have in-person classes this and last terms, she deferred attending because she considered the remote classes she took the term before to be a waste of tuition money. There was only one true Zoom class. All the rest of her professors simply sent assignments. We didn't need to be paying $tens of thousands to be given a reading list and for someone to score essays. She'll return when they have in-person classes again.

        IMO, if Leo is correct that there's been a big increase in enrollment for STEM related degrees, I think that's great for the country. I'd love to see a big increase in American engineers (although he wrote it was mostly related to medicine and biological sciences). Even a few decades ago, the AES Journal published a special issue on digital audio and I was shocked to see that not one paper was written by an American. And it's only gotten worse since.

        Comment


        • #5
          Interesting thing: my younger brother doesn't have a college degree. But he makes pretty decent money as a diesel mechanic. Over the years he has probably taken enough courses, training seminars and ASE certification tests (on semi trucks and regular vehicles) for that to equal a degree. There are numerous other skilled trades that have manpower shortages and rising wage levels.

          Historically, the United States has always been dependent on immigrants to do both high skill and low skill jobs. We import a lot of doctors, engineers and scientists. We also rely on immigrants (documented or not) to work in unpleasant situations like slaughterhouses.

          Basically a lot of American-born citizens have become very complacent and even lazy. Worse yet we have a really bad entitlement attitude and douchebag superiority complex. While this situation goes unchecked our nation's higher education sector continues to allow tuition inflation rates to soar. Their business model is growing ever more dependent on foreign students with deep pockets. So even when you have an American-born kid working hard as hell in class and making top grades there's no guarantee he'll get enough scholarships to make it into a top school.

          We have a lot of deep, structural problems in this country that really need to be re-thought.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Bobby Henderson
            Interesting thing: my younger brother doesn't have a college degree. But he makes pretty decent money as a diesel mechanic. Over the years he has probably taken enough courses, training seminars and ASE certification tests (on semi trucks and regular vehicles) for that to equal a degree. There are numerous other skilled trades that have manpower shortages and rising wage levels.
            Higher education is not providing that sort of education and training, so others are having to.

            As someone who used to work in higher education (though not in this country), agreed with everything Martin and Bobby write. The current trend is unsustainable - increasing numbers of arts and humanities courses being taught at costs that are running out of control, and which do not equip their graduates for careers that will enable them to repay those costs. We are already seeing the political fallout from this, in the form of calls for the incoming administration to "forgive" student debt (obviously, I'm not going to comment on that issue here - only note that it exists). This would not be happening if there were not a significant number of graduates out there who are unable to repay those loans in a sane timescale.

            That brings us back to the subject of the article: that the vast majority of professional arts practitioners do not have the earning power needed for a stable, middle class existence, despite their expensive qualifications. I bet that most of them dreamed of being the next Trevor Noah or Gustavo Dudamel: the reality is doing standup in a local bar, or giving piano lessons to the children of doctors and attorneys, the spending on which is discretionary, and the first thing to go when trouble strikes the economy. A degree in medicine or law or engineering is a ticket to a reasonable standard of living at the very least, unless you screw something spectacularly up: no such guarantee exists with history, music, or performing arts.

            IMHO, we are seeing signs that C19 has caused the current generation of teenagers, and their parents, to wake up to this. As Bobby points out, that leaves the colleges offering pricey arts programs with two customer bases: the children of very wealthy American families, who will never truly have to work for a living, and similarly wealthy international students. Without the middle class Americans who expect to make a middle class salary when they graduate, the market for these programs will surely shrink by an order of magnitude over the following decade or two.

            Comment


            • #7
              I can't speak on the performance arts stuff, other than many of the most famous performers in those fields never earned formal degrees. That particularly goes for movie stars and popular music performers. These days it seems to matter more how good the performer looks rather than how well he/she sings or acts. In terms of visual arts (illustration, graphic design, photography, etc) those fields used to pay much better when all the tools were "analog" and the work didn't appear so "easy" to laypersons looking for an easy gig. 40 years ago a degree from a high caliber arts school would have been valuable. There wasn't exactly a flood of people looking to go into those fields. But when computers entered the picture in the 1980's it really changed things. And not really in a good way either. So many people who "couldn't draw or paint" thought they could use a computer as a crutch, not realizing a bunch of the actual creative work goes on in the brain. Employers figured the computers would allow them to task secretaries or low wage temps with creative projects than pay more for people formally educated for such work. It's all race to the bottom stuff.
              Last edited by Bobby Henderson; 01-07-2021, 08:24 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                When they did that multi-hour famous performers singing from their living room or back yard thing on tv a couple of months after the virus got started last year, I watched a tiny bit of it and found it rather jarring to see how many of the apparently top-tier singers can't sing without a lot of post-recording processing to make them sound good. When it was just the singer, a piano and a microphone, well, just about anyone can sound like that. A surprising number, maybe even a majority, of professional singers can't actually sing well at all.

                Comment


                • #9
                  We got caught with two kids in higher education and one just starting high school. Oldest doing a business degree went online last spring and the entire final year online. It's gone fine, certainly saved a lot in living at home and not Toronto ($$$). Hospitality/Tourism focus, so obviously that is getting slammed but she's going to focus on recovery and at least it's a business degree, so should be value there. Next in line went online for spring semester and entire second year has been online. Saved a bit of living expenses, but luckily electrical engineering has 1-3 days of in-class labs each week, so he drives 4 hours into the city and shares an airbnb with a classmate. Year 3 should be in person and he's lucky seems electrical is quite in demand, not many taking it. For #3, they've been in-class all year until this week, high school via Zoom goes fine, but hoping this gets back to in-class soon. All activities and sports are stopped, so of course that's a bummer for kids in those years. I really hope this flushes out the institutional bloat that I think is taking educational costs into the stratosphere. Still waiting on a discount on tuition for the older two. Not holding my breath.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by David Bird
                    I really hope this flushes out the institutional bloat that I think is taking educational costs into the stratosphere.
                    Amen, Brother! I think what sums it up is that the only place I've installed what is about the most expensive projector currently on the market (Barco DP4K-60L) is in a university lecture theater. And on another occasion I was called by the technical manager of a film school, who told me that he had to "use or lose" $200k by the end of the year, and did I have any suggestions for new stuff for the booth? That booth was already one of the finest equipped in the country. Of course we were delighted to help, and if the upgrades help a new generation to value the experience of communal viewing in a theater, then that'll be a good thing. But if they're carrying such a high debt load that they can't afford to go to the theater after they graduate ... ? Even theater projects in the homes of multi-billionaires tend to be more cost conscious.

                    Originally posted by Frank Cox
                    I watched a tiny bit of it and found it rather jarring to see how many of the apparently top-tier singers can't sing without a lot of post-recording processing to make them sound good. When it was just the singer, a piano and a microphone, well, just about anyone can sound like that. A surprising number, maybe even a majority, of professional singers can't actually sing well at all.
                    Or read music. When I was in the church choir as a teenager, I was expected to sing the alto (and then, after my voice broke, bass) lines of a four-part arrangement from the page, in real time, first time. I struggled with that, and still cannot sight read fluently enough to play both manual and pedal lines of an organ piece in real time, first time: I have to memorize it to get to that point. But I don't have to listen to someone else playing it to figure out how to do so myself: I can at least memorize it by reading it. A friend was telling me that she recently heard an interview in which Taylor Swift had claimed that the ability to read music at all is unnecessary and not even particularly useful. I guess if your complete repertoire consists of, say, 4-5 hours of content maximum, that's viable. But if you're playing in the LA Phil, and have to do, say, Mozart one night, Bruckner the next, and then Sibelius the night after that, all with only six hours' rehearsal time for each symphony (and the overtime bill for 100 highly qualified musicians if the conductor requires more than that being in the "if you have to ask, you can't afford it" category), I can't see how that would be possible without everyone having highly advanced sight reading skills.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Leo Enticknap View Post

                      I was called by the technical manager of a film school, who told me that he had to "use or lose" $200k by the end of the year, and did I have any suggestions for new stuff for the booth?
                      And that is exactly how it went with my project for the University I used to work at. I had just finished out the new screening room I designed (tech only, architectural was done by the Regents designers) a year prior, when the department head contacted me and told me they had some money they needed to spend, and "could you add Digital Cinema to the room"? Suffice it to say I made a handsome profit on that one, as I had to spend ALL of the money.

                      My current job has me working on a new Middle School (I am an electrician) and talk about the "Educational Bloat" David Bird spoke of. We have installed imported foo-foo light fixtures, lots of expensive LED track strips and lots of area lighting with sophisticated dimmers and "light harvesters" to automatically adjust lighting levels..and they have cameras and automated security gates ...the list goes on.

                      And on top of all that, all of the trades have been reveling in an orgy of billable change orders as the district can't seem to make a decision without changing it every 2 weeks. ALL of what I mentioned would be money better spent on things like, oh I don't know, how about teachers' salaries, books/computers, and better materials for the students?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X