Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, March 31, 2009
Arts / Life Today in Eloquent Ad Hominem Arguments
Posted by David Schmader on Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 11:11 AM
Metafilter is hosting a conversation thread about "renewing the economics of theatre," but what caught my attention is a comment posted by Faze:
I'm always amazed at how few actors are actually cunning in the ways of the world. They have all the skills it takes to get ahead: good memories, advanced degrees, a desperate desire to please, few scruples or sexual inhibitions, skill at dissembling, the ability to pretend that they like—no, adore— people they can't stand, and (often) very good looks. They devote their whole lives to making people like them. They are articulate and well spoken. Why they can't use these skills to fashion some kind of living for themselves is one of the great mysteries. Why are so few actors able to play the role of successful people in their own lives?
Touche, Faze. (Dive into the whole MeFi thread here.)
5
@3:
Unfortunately, far too many have advanced degrees, because they've been led to believe an MA or MFA is an absolute necessity in order to compete against all the other actors with MA's & MFA's.
There's been a raging debate on this very topic going on in various theatre-related blogs & web sites, so I won't bore you with the details. But the question of whether or not advanced degrees are necessary to becoming a successful performer, has, needless to say, generated a fair amount of controversy among people who care about those sorts of things.
Unfortunately, far too many have advanced degrees, because they've been led to believe an MA or MFA is an absolute necessity in order to compete against all the other actors with MA's & MFA's.
There's been a raging debate on this very topic going on in various theatre-related blogs & web sites, so I won't bore you with the details. But the question of whether or not advanced degrees are necessary to becoming a successful performer, has, needless to say, generated a fair amount of controversy among people who care about those sorts of things.
7
Point being...actors are trained to communicate, silently and otherwise, with audiences; to mutate their "personal" selves in service of a character/story; to appear to listen and to react.
Their training employs a great number of exercises that advance the very abilities that are sought in successful business people, especially in sales. Voice and movement classes provide the assets needed in "making a good first impression".
Actors are often trained in improvisation. What could be more valuable in making sales than the ability to charm, persuade and circumvent objections or indecision? "Conflict improvs" are specifically designed to become adept at finding innumerable ways to "achieve your objective".
Against all odds, I started my own company 30 years ago without ever having taken a single business class. My academic and professional background was completely based in theatre, in acting. I discovered that my skills as an actor were immensely responsible for my success in sales...well, that and a great product.
I've always felt that business people should be required to take certain acting classes. Now that I think of it, if tailored for salespeople, an entrepreneurial actor could start a great business in doing just this.
Their training employs a great number of exercises that advance the very abilities that are sought in successful business people, especially in sales. Voice and movement classes provide the assets needed in "making a good first impression".
Actors are often trained in improvisation. What could be more valuable in making sales than the ability to charm, persuade and circumvent objections or indecision? "Conflict improvs" are specifically designed to become adept at finding innumerable ways to "achieve your objective".
Against all odds, I started my own company 30 years ago without ever having taken a single business class. My academic and professional background was completely based in theatre, in acting. I discovered that my skills as an actor were immensely responsible for my success in sales...well, that and a great product.
I've always felt that business people should be required to take certain acting classes. Now that I think of it, if tailored for salespeople, an entrepreneurial actor could start a great business in doing just this.
8
Don't mind Comte, he's just downplaying MA's and MFA's because he doesn't have 'em. If he did, he wouldn't be making that comment. Not saying that people with MA's and MFA's wouldn't agree, just occasionally dropping in to point out another Brave Cyber Warrior trait: if I didn't get it, I don't need it, and nobody worth a damn does.
9
I'm about to overgeneralize here, but some of the personality traits that make actors good at what they do -- spontaneity, sensitivity, an ability to live in the moment -- probably also contribute to their inability to get their shit together in other areas of their lives. Cold-eyed, long-range strategic planners they're not.
10
I don't think that actors aren't ABLE to "play the role of successful people in their own lives", but rather that after experiencing an ever-shifting and sometimes quasi-religious life in the theatre, they can't just give up and submit to a meaningless job stuck within a cubicle. And I know there are many people who find great meaning in their desk jobs, but it's called the "acting bug" for a reason: once it's grabbed on, it rarely lets go.
11
@3, 5, & 8:
The idea that you need an MA or MFA to make a living in theatre is misguided, but that's not to say that pursuing one is a waste of time.
Advanced degrees in acting and directing are generally most useful for the connections you make - complete your MFA at any number of good schools, and they'll essentially hand-deliver you to the equity houses they have ties with.
Plus, it's hard to argue with three more years of learning for a living.
That said - it's rare that an MFA will make you a better actor. If you're talented and persistent you will work, if you're neither of those things you won't - MFA or no.
And @7: For 3 years my day job was to sell high end timepieces - I acted more behind the counter than I have at times onstage.
And I know that Charna Halpern at iO offers "corporate training" to businesses, but I don't know if she (or anyone else) offers improv or acting classes specifically for salespeople. I just may have to make that my racket.
The idea that you need an MA or MFA to make a living in theatre is misguided, but that's not to say that pursuing one is a waste of time.
Advanced degrees in acting and directing are generally most useful for the connections you make - complete your MFA at any number of good schools, and they'll essentially hand-deliver you to the equity houses they have ties with.
Plus, it's hard to argue with three more years of learning for a living.
That said - it's rare that an MFA will make you a better actor. If you're talented and persistent you will work, if you're neither of those things you won't - MFA or no.
And @7: For 3 years my day job was to sell high end timepieces - I acted more behind the counter than I have at times onstage.
And I know that Charna Halpern at iO offers "corporate training" to businesses, but I don't know if she (or anyone else) offers improv or acting classes specifically for salespeople. I just may have to make that my racket.
12
The actors that cross over to the law seem to do well for themselves, or at least at the UW Law School.
13
@11 - That makes an MFA sound a lot like an MBA. Useful for the connections you'll make, but not necessarily going to make you better at your job (or, at least, not going to teach you much that you couldn't learn from reading a few selected books).
14
@8:
Funny. Then, what the heck is that piece of paper with my name on it and "Master Of Arts in Theatre" doing in that pretty embossed certificate holder on top of my dresser? And what are all those receipts for student loan payments doing in my tax files?
Funny. Then, what the heck is that piece of paper with my name on it and "Master Of Arts in Theatre" doing in that pretty embossed certificate holder on top of my dresser? And what are all those receipts for student loan payments doing in my tax files?
15
@11:
I don't necessarily disagree with your points, but one of the issues that's caused so much contention in the discussions that have taken place to-date on the subject revolve around the idea that many advanced degree programs in acting have essentially become "diploma mills", churning out literally tens of thousands of young, bright-eyed, idealistic actors saddled with massive amounts of debt, and shoved them out the door with little or no regard for the economic reality they will suddenly face when confronted by an industry that has far too many people, many with only a modicum of actual skills, scrambling to secure a relatively small number of available jobs.
Many, I would venture to even say most, of those teaching acting at the post-graduate level are themselves products of the same academic system in which they now share a vested interest in perpetuating, and in point of fact have little or no practical experience working in the industry. This is certainly not true in all instances, but it IS true in enough cases to question the motives of those running drama and theatre departments, particularly in mid-range and small schools where the "networking opportunities" may be marginal at best.
The fact is, many colleges have become financially dependent on pulling in inordinately large numbers of liberal arts post-grads, and rotating them through MA & MFA degree programs, knowing full well the chances of these graduates actually being able to obtain work in their chosen fields, and particularly work of a sufficient remunerative level to be able to pay off the massive accumulation of student loan debt, as being almost non-existent, for the simple reason that the ratio of applicants-to-jobs is grossly out-of-sync.
This is one of the primary arguments people like Mike Daisey have been iterating during the course of this debate, and naturally, those within the inner circles of academia have bristled at the implication that they're actually doing a disservice to the art by creating unrealistic expectations in their students that simply cannot be realized given the current economic environment in which most theatre is produced in this country.
More...
I don't necessarily disagree with your points, but one of the issues that's caused so much contention in the discussions that have taken place to-date on the subject revolve around the idea that many advanced degree programs in acting have essentially become "diploma mills", churning out literally tens of thousands of young, bright-eyed, idealistic actors saddled with massive amounts of debt, and shoved them out the door with little or no regard for the economic reality they will suddenly face when confronted by an industry that has far too many people, many with only a modicum of actual skills, scrambling to secure a relatively small number of available jobs.
Many, I would venture to even say most, of those teaching acting at the post-graduate level are themselves products of the same academic system in which they now share a vested interest in perpetuating, and in point of fact have little or no practical experience working in the industry. This is certainly not true in all instances, but it IS true in enough cases to question the motives of those running drama and theatre departments, particularly in mid-range and small schools where the "networking opportunities" may be marginal at best.
The fact is, many colleges have become financially dependent on pulling in inordinately large numbers of liberal arts post-grads, and rotating them through MA & MFA degree programs, knowing full well the chances of these graduates actually being able to obtain work in their chosen fields, and particularly work of a sufficient remunerative level to be able to pay off the massive accumulation of student loan debt, as being almost non-existent, for the simple reason that the ratio of applicants-to-jobs is grossly out-of-sync.
This is one of the primary arguments people like Mike Daisey have been iterating during the course of this debate, and naturally, those within the inner circles of academia have bristled at the implication that they're actually doing a disservice to the art by creating unrealistic expectations in their students that simply cannot be realized given the current economic environment in which most theatre is produced in this country.
16
maybe Actors realize that doing all those things sucks fucking BALLS (as a being), and don't want to do it 24/7 forevah.
no?
no?
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Putting It In by Dan Savage
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
Meet the UW "Swagga Suit" by David Schmader
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (17) RSS