Following up on the last article, Ward Minnis in his series of meditations on the viability of making a living off of art in The Bahamas writes to illustrate his position. First, he clarifies the sticky point of “viability”:
And then, clever man, he makes reference to the Day of Absence observations in Nassau:
If you haven’t done so yet, subscribe to Ward’s feed, because what he’s doing is provocative but important. What he’s developing in this series is a blueprint to change the state of affairs for artists in this country. The lament of those of us who established the Day of Absence — the whole purpose of establishing that day of observance (which will be coming again in February 2010, have no fear) is that although it is indeed possible to create viable economic activity in the arts in our Bahamaland, everything in the society is ranged against it.
This is being written against the backdrop of TaDa’s ArtOvation (internet-streamed, thanks to Star 105.9), and she’s talking with guests about possibilities, viabilities, and so on.
In order for this viability really to exist, though, the society as a whole has to buy into the idea of supporting Bahamian culture with more than their lips, but also with their pockets. We are avid consumers of culture — but we prefer other people’s. Last semester students at COB conducted an on-campus survey that indicated that young Bahamian college students (who spend, on average, around $50 a week), are more willing to pay money for parties or live concerts (nationality of the musicians not specified) than they are to pay money to see Junkanoo, our premier festival, and the one which, if supported, could actually generate real employment. Perhaps that’s pushing the issue a little too far, or in a direction which has its own built-in controversy, but perhaps not. What I’m hoping to show is that we have the disposable income as Bahamians to support far more artistic activity than we do; but it all depends on the choices we make as consumers.
So once again, I want to stretch the debate. The reason I disagreed so strenuously with the idea that we can’t have a viable film industry here is that film is a potted medium. Like the visual arts, it can be separated from its creation and have a life well beyond its making. It doesn’t all have to be assembled in one place and one time.
For instance. One can be an animator and do all one’s work at home, alone, and not have to pay anybody else but oneself, and make a living; one can be a cinematographer or a set builder or a location manager and make a living (both off local films and off those foreign producers who shoot in The Bahamas on location). One can make art films and get grants from international agencies and inject them into the film festival circuit and make a living; or one can be a documentary filmmaker and make a very good living indeed, with only oneself and one’s camera, one can make filmmaking viable.
What’s a whole lot harder is to provide enough work for other people to give up their day jobs and enter the film industry. Neither film nor theatre has generated enough revenue yet in The Bahamas to enable actors, for instance, or front-of-house personnel, or box office personnel, or playwrights, to make a living off the performing arts. Unlike musicians, filmmakers and others, actors, playwrights and others must work in other jobs for a living. Unless you are willing and/or able to diversify, to become a Michael Pintard (who is a public speaker, an actor, a playwright, a poet, a producer, a landlord and a consultant), viability is difficult. Part of the issue, of course, is the question of payment. It’s just possible for a filmmaker to make enough money to keep herself alive; but the development of these industries depends on helping to keep other people alive as well, and that’s where the difficulty comes in.
So though I’m going to wait till Ward’s finished and moved on to theatre (which he believes is a viable industry) before I continue this argument. But I’m going to encourage you guys to be like me — keep your eyes peeled and check out Ward’s blog for updates!
{ 1 comment }
Received the following email from a reader, B. L. Child, who was unable to post his comment owing to my spam filter’s preferences:
Having been referred to your blog (and Mr. Minnis’ blog) by a Bahamian friend, I have been reading the posts on the subject of a Bahamian film industry with keen interest. I read your most recent entry and confess that, as with your earlier posts, I find myself in substantial agreement with your views and thus have not had anything meaningful to contribute or quibble with. There is one very small thing, however …
You state: “Neither film nor theatre has generated enough revenue yet in The Bahamas to enable actors, for instance, … to make a living off the performing arts.” Given the context of the discussion, I assume that by “making a living” you mean the ability of the artist (in this example, the actor) to support himself or herself solely from the proceeds of their artistic endeavour. Using the screen actor as the example, I believe this is a concept which ought to be explored and, perhaps, clarified.
The starting point is whether you believe that a Bahamian film industry will necessarily reflect the economic models of that same industry that exist elsewhere in the world. Assuming you agree that it will, I think it is valuable to analyze the implications and realities of that model with a view to determining whether or not expectations are achievable. Let me use the United States as the comparative model.
First, statistics suggest that approximately 2% of persons identifying themselves as “actors” actually are able to solely financially sustain themselves from remuneration derived from acting (internet searches turn up many fuzzy statistics on the topic, but the 2% figure appears to be the most accepted one – so let’s accept it for now for the purposes of this discussion). Let’s use membership in the Screen Actor’s Guild (“SAG”) as the starting point for the number of professional screen actors (admittedly probably too low a figure if one wants to include all actors). SAG membership in the US is about 120,000. If we apply the 2% figure to that membership (which may be misleading, because most likely more SAG members earn better incomes from acting than non-SAG members), then that means that 2,400 actors in the US derive their income solely from acting (a figure I am skeptical of, but let’s follow through with the analysis regardless). Regardless of the actual numbers, the undisputed reality is that most actors in the US must supplement their income from non-acting jobs.
Now, let’s apply that model to The Bahamas and do a linear comparison. The population of The Bahamas is approximately 1/1000 that of the US. Accordingly, assuming the US model is a “fully developed” one, then when The Bahamas film industry is fully developed, based on its population it might expect have approximately 120 “SAG-equivalent” actors (i.e. 1/1000 of the US SAG membership). Following through on the analysis, if 2% of those actors supported themselves solely from screen acting, then that figure turns out to be less than three actors (i.e. 2% of 120 = 2.4)! Even if the numbers and the statistics are in error, if we assumed an error factor of 300%, we are still talking about less than ten actors supporting themselves solely from acting in film in The Bahamas if and when the Bahamian film industry is fully developed!
At first blush (and for the purposes of the discussion, let’s at least assume that the analysis is correct – or close to it) one might be extremely disheartened by the above. I would, however, advocate a contrary view. The nature of the acting field is such that it is “usual” for actors to have to earn an income from a secondary source. It is a common stereotype that every waiter in Hollywood is actually just an actor between roles. In fact, there are indeed many “professional actors” who are also cab drivers, bank tellers, accountants, judges, politicians – and yes, even waiters.
Actors are a special breed. They are talented people (“talented” being defined as being able to do something I can’t) who will frequently work for free for the right role (and we can leave a discussion of whether that is a good thing or a bad thing for another day). They lead rich, interesting lives and similarly enrich our lives through their craft. But to suggest that they are any less accomplished because they must augment their acting income from other sources departs from the economic reality of the craft. A very, very small percentage attain anything close to the income levels of even “C-list” actors and, regardless of talent, becoming an Angelina Jolie or Will Smith is probably lower odds than winning the lottery three times in a row.
So I say that to suggest that using sole employment as an actor as an indicia of success of the industry in The Bahamas is misleading because you would be applying a criterion that does not exist elsewhere in the world. Whether in The Bahamas or elsewhere, one must go into acting with one’s eyes open and understand the reality of the art – the fact that it is highly improbable that one will be able to derive a sustainable income solely from acting (and now I am starting to sound like Mr. Minnis – not a bad thing). By applying more realistic expectations, I suggest that Bahamians can achieve a comparable level of the art and the industry much easier than what may otherwise have been thought.
Thank you for your terrific blog, clarity of thought and for taking the time to the end of my rantings.
Best regards,
B. L. Child
Comments on this entry are closed.