THE STATE OF THE ARTS........
A comment by DAWN PARKINSON Director of WISH UPON A STAR

"I write on behalf of everyone who is involved in the mounting of live
performances of anything, be it music, song, dance, theatre - whatever.

Just recently, I have been fortunate enough to have been showered with
praise for my part in a production which is currently running at Reps
Theatre, WISH UPON A STAR. There's no doubt about it, being showered with such praise is gratifying. After all, they tell me, that is what we do it
for: to keep people happy, entertained in one way or another. Whether we
move the audience to laughter or tears; whether the audience leaves the
venue in some way altered, having shared an experience which moves them to
think deeply about an aspect of life or if they simply leave in a happier
frame of mind than that of which they entered - that's what we do it for.
And, I guess, that's right. If we manage to achieve a positive reaction from
the people who take the time and spend the money to support our work, then
we have fulfilled the unwritten contract between a group of artists and the
public - to produce work that is worth seeing, worth even paying money for.

For the most part.

The old adage that "You can't please everyone all the time" is one which all
producers of any enterprise live with, accept. It's a risky business and one
which one can never predict consistently. The public, it seems, are fickle.
Adrian Stanley once told me that you can never tell which production will
sell and which wont, "You have a better chance predicting a winner at
Borrowdale Race Course," was the way he put it. And he's right! I think
the sad thing is that, increasingly in our capital city, there is an
underlying sense of apathy towards the local performing arts on the part of
the potential audience which is, without doubt, slowly but surely, eating
away at the future possibilities of a thriving Arts industry. And that's
really sad.

It's sad for a number of reasons:

1 I wonder if the public knows how much money is spent on a production of
any sort, in any venue, for any management? I doubt it. But I can assure
those who are reading this that it is no small amount. Whether one is paying
the production personnel or not, mounting a live production is an expensive
business. People have been known to complain about the so-called high cost
of tickets. I would venture, however, to suggest that if they could see
what a production budget entailed, in order to produce shows of any kind,
and compare it to the expected revenue, and to the cost of tickets anywhere
else in the world, they would see that such ticket prices are very
reasonable and much cheaper than anywhere off this continent. Performing
artists in Zimbabwe are often forced to sell themselves short - that's sad.

2 It's even sadder when you consider that even when ticket prices are
kept to a minimum and care has been taken to try and serve up what producers
think the audiences want to see and then produce a product of a high
standard, the public feels that instead of taking a chance and buying a
ticket early in the run, they wait for the critiques to come out or to hear
what their braver friends have to say about the work. And more often they
wait until it is too late. By the time they have made the decision to go to
a show, the show is finished or sold out. Here's a fact: the longer the
public takes to buy a ticket, the smaller the chance of the production
achieving a viable audience capacity. The smaller the audience capacity,
the smaller the profit margin, and the smaller the profit margin, the less
chance of the future of long enough runs to enable the luxury of "I wonder
if I should go and see that, I heard it was very good." And the shorter the
run, the less chance of a viable audience capacity which eventually
means a higher ticket price. It's a vicious circle.

So not only do producers have to magically come up with a winning product
every time, they also have to carry the costs of the prevarication of the
public. That too makes the Performing Arts Industry, such as it is, an
expensive and risky business. It's sad.

3 The ongoing debate about professionalism and amateurism is not one I
want to discuss in this article but for our purposes, let's define it in
financial terms: let's say a "professional" is someone who is paid to
perform or produce or whatever, and an "amateur" is someone who does
it for fun! Whether the production is "professional" or "amateur", however,
I
wonder if the public realise how much work is put into a production? Most
projects involve a rehearsal period of not less than 112 hours of work.
That's about two weeks of a full-time job, if you're "professional", and
about seven weeks on a four-times-a-week schedule, if you're "amateur". It
doesn't seem like a lot when you see it in that light. But it's intensive
work and for the artists there is much, much more in the way of preparation
which takes place outside the scheduled rehearsal times, so the input by all
concerned is often unquantifiable. Because the Performing Arts Industry in
Zimbabwe is basically in it's infancy and there is little in the way of
financial subsidy enough to go round, most artists have day jobs and "do
shows" basically for the love of it. Yes, for the love of it. But, however
much one loves the process, the work, the "smell of the greasepaint and the
roar of the crowd", when a group who have been working very hard is
confronted, night after night, by scant audiences, where's the fun?

As a director and producer, I tell the people I work with that much of the
magic for an audience is in the commitment of the cast to the project.
"Believe in it!" I tell them, "If you're enjoying it, they'll believe it.
They'll enjoy it!" To a large extent that is true. But how enjoyable is it
when there's no-one to enjoy it or believe in it with them? Live
performances exist for the very reason that they involve a two-way dynamic -
the sharing between the performers and the audience. If there's no
audience, where's that essential dynamic? There is nothing more
heart-breaking than a company which has produced work of a high standard,
that has even earned so-called critical acclaim, playing to virtually
no-one. Nothing.

4 I wonder if the public appreciates just how much talent there is in
this city, in this country? It abounds! Many of our young artists have
left the country for pastures new, for places where they want to try their
hand at being famous in the big wide world outside our borders. And to
them, I say, "Go for it!". But would they, I wonder, be so keen to go away
and try their fortunes elsewhere if there was a way of earning a reasonable
living here in their own country? Where they can be accessible, an
inspiration, for the many, many others with similar talent who are left
behind? I don't say for one moment that getting out and seeing,
experiencing, isn't an integral part of an artist's development, of course
it is! But they cannot return and develop and share their skills if there
is an insufficient audience. They cannot be a part of an industry that
virtually does not exist, not because there isn't the potential for a
thriving arts industry, but simply because the audience doesn't seem to be
there to support it in sufficient numbers. So we lose them and the Industry
never really flourishes. That's sad.

5 We go on and on about "Our Culture". No-one has yet been able to
define that term in a way that is satisfying to me. Maybe I'm wrong, but I
understand Culture to be a dynamic, living thing, that is representative of
the society in which we live and work and play. In Zimbabwe, the land of
ultimate contradiction, it is extraordinarily dynamic: changing, growing,
stretching constantly; inventing of its own, borrowing - stealing even - and
adapting to suit. It is, all of it, reflected in our art, I guess in the
way Culture is supposed to. Are we then, living in a Culture where our art
could be dying because of a lack of interest? Because we're all becoming so
insular behind our walls and in front of TV's that we have forgotten how to
share and participate not only as artists but as audiences? If so, that's
sad.

I hear a thousand excuses about why the Harare public is so seemingly
apathetic: "It's too cold", "It's too expensive", "I've got no petrol", "I
don't like going out at night", "There's something on DSTV that I cant
possibly miss", "We've been away"', "We've just been out so much recently" -
and I accept that anyone at anytime can have something better to do than go
and see a show, or a concert, or watch the ballet, or see a play or a new
band - we can all do that! Hell, even I've done it! But not often. Why?
Because I know only too well that if I don't make the effort, just me, even
just a couple of times a year, to attend something that has been produced
locally, then without a doubt eventually there wont be anything produced
locally that's worth seeing. That's incredibly sad.

And finally, let no-one come and preach "relevancy" to me. What's relevant?
If one person pays for one ticket then that performance, whatever it is,
immediately becomes relevant. Let me go further, if one person sits down in
front of a performer to watch their work, without paying, it too is
immediately relevant. Too bad if it isn't relevant to everyone, it's
relevant because it exists. Is the Mona Lisa relevant? Is a school
production of Hamlet relevant? Is rap music relevant? Is "airport art"
relevant? Is a strip show relevant?

The task ahead of all artists is to stay committed to their work and to try
and work out how they can make their particular relevance pay, in however
small a way.

The task of all audiences is to be open and willing to support that.

And it is a task. For everyone concerned, on both sides of the curtain, so
to speak.

Or else....what? Think about it.

Dawn Parkinson

Return to top