The Artiste and Money Matters

The Arts and Money are closely related. Some claim an idealistic view- one in which there exists no relationship, claiming that it would defy the divinity of art to associate dance or music with mere numbers, but that seems far removed from the truth- money is essential to sustain the artiste, the art and the creative space it creates. It is common knowledge that in the era when dance flourished in the temples and royal courts, the artiste led a life of great respect and affluence. That was a time when musicians and dancers were free to work on their art-free from the vagaries of finances. Fast forward to the modern day proscenium- the performance itself has evolved. A performance no longer means just dancing but involves bringing together, coordinating and managing an entire ensemble of artistes and accompanists; hiring performance and rehearsal spaces, sound/light equipment, sets and managers. And this is a conservative list of activities and the accompanying finances that are involved in putting up a show. In such a scenario, does the artiste continue to be protected from the vagaries of finances? The answer is an uncomfortable one. While the last few decades saw a steady increase in investment by the artiste(s), there was no proportional rise in returns. 

On one hand, tempted by popularity and the need to be seen and heard at premier venues/stages, artistes in despair offered to pay to perform instead of being paid to perform. Several 'Sabhas' and organisers took advantage, either covertly or sometimes blatantly asked for 'donations' in return for performance slots or even awards. This pay-to-perform syndrome continues to thrive today as an open secret. It is publicly damned by all, but several artistes continue to be party to this thriving 'business'. If the collective artiste fraternity were to stand united against it, would it not serve the art itself!?

On the other hand, the audience seemed to barely spend on a classical dance show, barring a few events. Shows were leaving the pockets of the artiste lighter than they could appreciate. While 'paying-to-perform' needs to be uprooted, the more complex issue of 'performing-for-free' needs to be taken head-on as well. If the audience is comfortable buying tickets to watch a play or a movie, why not for a classical dance performance. Should "ALL ARE WELCOME" on invites denote that a show is not ticketed?

As one seeks to reason out the beginnings and spread of such a trend, the reasons for artistes putting up non-ticketed shows are many. As several artistes will tell you, it is not just a performance that they are putting together. More often than not, artistes double up as their own PR agents, stage managers, and designers, doing a lot of allied work as well. And in between all of this, the hassle of managing the ticketing process and personnel (the printing, issue and collection at venue) made them stay away. Some also claim an inhibition on the part of the artiste. Add to this the accompanying taxes and the filing process. But, in making non-ticketed shows the norm, the artiste didn't realise that the pitfalls were more than the gains. Apart from making it all an expensive affair, it has encouraged the growth of a fluid audience that likes to walk in and out of the auditorium at free will; and a sense of complacency about the artiste(s), with very little consideration for the amount of research and work that has gone into staging a production. Such a system cannot be sustainable for the artiste. 

As the proverbial silver lining shows up, there are exceptions to the norm. Alternative performance spaces for dance have been making tickets mandatory. Does this then mean that traditional performances are losing sheen? Definitely No: A few recent classical dance shows in Bengaluru too seemed to be in a bid to reverse the 'No-tickets' norm when they staged their production to ticketed shows. All their shows were sold out. With more and more youngsters taking to performing classical dance and working to obtain degrees in the performing arts, there is a need to convert these exceptions into the norm. Audiences have been conditioned over time to believe that dance performances ought to be free- this is a mould that ought to be broken.

Someone said "Artistes remain artistes despite the money, not because of it." The vagaries of finances in the arts is not a matter of pride. The responsibility rests with the artiste to rightfully command an entry fee for you are sharing with your audience hours of labour, love and energy. The duty to respect this lies with the audience. 

ALL ARE indeed WELCOME, *tickets apply!

Published in Ananya Kalasinchana Issue: November 2015

Do not reproduce in part or in entirety without permission.