Home >  A & E

Sunday, October 06, 2002

By William O'Donnel

There is a divide between the attitudes that dominate the Cultural District, with its definition of "arts community," and the other local professional theater artists who create and perform here.

	William O'Donnell is associate professor of Theatre and Dance at California University of Pennsylvania and has been resident lighting designer at City Theatre for the past nine years.

In a city teeming with performing artists, many of the events in the Cultural District (Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra concerts being an obvious exception) feature non-Pittsburgh artists.

The national touring shows are, of course, from out of town. Pittsburgh Public Theater uses some local artists, but it, too, hires primarily from outside.

The bulk of the Cultural District is a large-scale hotel for outside artists who visit and entertain us before going someplace else. While this allows Pittsburgh to have exposure to a broad range of talent and art forms it might never produce on its own, it does little to foster the local community of professional artists.

This means the voice of Pittsburgh is not being heard in its own Cultural District, and the fundamental spirit of local theater culture is to be found only in its smaller companies.

The local theater ethos exists in a small group of aggressively creative professional artists who populate a shrinking part of Pittsburgh. They survive by the skin of their teeth. As a group, they tend to be well-educated, enthusiastic and dedicated. Theirs is a blend of bohemian lifestyle and work ethic that creates an arts community uniquely "Pittsburgh."

The infrequent bone thrown them from the Cultural District crowd is welcome, but their primary reward is from working with the smaller companies. Despite the excellent training schools in the area, Pittsburgh has a fairly dismal reputation as a place for theater professionals to make a living.

City Theatre has always been the leader on the local side of the divide, a model for small arts groups. The company, however, is poised to cross that divide. For those of you who don't know, City Theatre plans to use the space it now rents to other groups to expand its own programming. The three outside tenants are expected to be gone by around this time next year

This hub of the theater community is expelling local arts groups from its performing space and isolating itself from the city's artistic community.

I find this transformation shocking, given the reasons I was persuaded to live here as a theater professional.

When I came to Pittsburgh in 1986, Pittsburgh Public Theater invited me to an exclusive Cultural Trust event, a gathering of the artistic directors and managers of all the local performing arts organizations. The discussion centered on finding ways for performing arts organizations to make this city a viable place for artists to live and work. The Trust was, in essence, inviting actors, dancers, designers and technicians to live in Pittsburgh as part of the cultural neighborhood.

Such a neighborhood of artists would serve as a "talent magnet." If artists want to live in Pittsburgh, then it stands to reason that it would be a good place for creative business types, too. The Trust, at that time, anyway, seemed to realize that just having touring productions of someone else's art is not enough to foster growth. People are drawn to a fertile, diverse and supportive environment.

Unfortunately, the Trust seems to have lost this vision in favor of a Cultural District centered in a corporate culture. Or perhaps it doesn't realize how its actions help perpetuate the divide.

City Theatre, until recently, had become the manifestation of the talent magnet the Trust had hoped to create Downtown. It also was the epitome of a Pittsburgh neighborhood; first in Oakland, then on the South Side, for more than 20 years, local artists could gather, perform and be a part of the community. The defining aspect of City Theatre's success was a tangible spirit -- a spirit that comes from a dedicated and loyal group of collaborative artists sharing a common purpose.

Designers, technicians, actors and support staff began buying homes around the theater, settling down in spite of the low wages typically offered by nonprofit arts organizations. As Pittsburgh artists, they made a commitment to the city to further their development, which seemed to promise continued employment and a solid future.

Whatever that mystical influence is that allows art to come from collaboration was magnified by the closeness and affection these professionals share. Their work together has its own style -- a style that expresses the spirit of Pittsburgh's theater neighborhood.

I'm doubtful, however, as to whether the Pittsburgh spirit that gave City Theatre its greatness will survive. Artistic director Tracy Brigden, beginning her second season at City Theatre, has more of a commitment to the Cultural District's attitude than to the ethos of the local artists who built the place. The closing of its space to outside groups indicates a distancing of the local theater community from City Theatre. This in itself will build a wall between City and local artists. It's as if the hub of local theater is putting up a sign that reads, "This neighborhood is restricted."

Still, what difference would it make to Pittsburgh if the residents of our small local theater community just left? To answer that, I refer you to Richard Florida's much quoted book "The Rise of the Creative Class," in which he talks about a "scene" -- a place where business people and artists interact.

This requires a central focus for the community. The Cultural District is meant to attract businesses to Pittsburgh by saying, "Look at all the art we have here." But Pittsburgh is not necessarily an attractive place for the creative class. Sure, they enjoy meeting an actor who is in town for a month, but they prefer to live next door to other creative people. They want to live in a "scene."

City Theatre used to be a colorful part of this scene. You could stop by the place and see people you know either in a show or rehearsing for one. Three or four companies could have something going on at the same time: Pittsburgh Irish and Classical Theatre in the Hamburg, Unseam'd Shakespeare Co. rehearsing next door, City Theatre in production on the main stage, and perhaps a dramatic reading going on in the lobby. This, of course, spilled into the streets and businesses of the South Side.

Pittsburgh needs to throw its support behind these and other local theater companies to better foster that neighborhood spirit. And the Trust needs to review its own community-building heritage. Perhaps a collective performance space could be developed on the South Side to house small local companies. The South Side could become the equivalent of Off-Broadway (Off-District?), working collaboratively with the Trust.

Ultimately, this boils down to promoting an environment that encourages, rather than excludes, local creative artists while establishing that "scene" now missing in the Cultural District. Pittsburgh needs local artists, as does every forward-thinking business in this region. At the onset of a new creative economy, we can't afford to abandon the artists at its core.