Monthly Archives: November 2008

Planning for a Sustainable Future: American Theater Company

Joining the growing ranks of American theaters that are constructing new green buildings, the American Theater Company of Chicago announced late last year the launch of a $4 million capital campaign to build an entirely new, three-story, eco-friendly theater in the Logan Square area. Recent figures estimate that buildings account for 20 to 30% of all of the energy consumed in the U.S., in the form of heating, cooling, lighting, and general electrical usage. Green buildings, depending on the technologies used in them, can do a great deal to lower that figure, while also creating a healthier environment for patrons and staff, lowering energy costs, and inspiring surrounding communities.

PJ Paparelli, the newly-appointed artistic director who had just finished a four-year stint as the artistic director of Alaska’s Perseverance Theatre in Juneau, took up the challenge of ATC’s new building with enthusiasm, believing it to be a perfect expression of the theater’s mission. Board VP Macie Huwiler has taken the lead in planning and implementation. GTI had a chance to speak with both recently.

Gideon Banner: How did the idea for a green building come about?

PJ Paparelli: Our plan for a green building was created before I arrived here as artistic director in November. Our board of directors, with the previous artistic director, sat down and said, “We’re looking for a new facility.” All kinds of things were discussed, but one of our board members, Wyllys Mann, who’s from a long-standing real estate company here in Chicago, had pushed the idea of looking at green construction, and emphasized that there were a lot of opportunities for grants and other similar resources.

Macie Huwiler: I have been working all along with Kevin Kelly, one of our founding members, who has some experience in the construction area and is really excited about this project. He’s the one who originally brought up the idea. It’s a hot topic in Chicago right now, because Mayor Daley has really pushed to green the city; but three years ago, when we first conceived of this project, it wasn’t nearly as prevalent as it is now. Everyone in the organization embraced the idea pretty much immediately.

PJ: The main reason why we decided to do it was really about our mission statement, which addresses the question, “What does it mean to be an American?” That permeates the organization – our work, outreach programs, our board, everything we do. Looking at building a building, we want to be responsible Americans, and so we really wanted to deal with the environmental issue head on. That’s the big, exciting, passionate motor that was the genesis of the idea.

MH: ATC was founded almost 25 years ago by an actor, a playwright, a designer, and a director as an interdisciplinary theater. Also, we were founded because they wanted a place where their blue-collar families could come and see theater and not be intimidated; we never intended to be a fancy downtown theater where you had to come and dress up and drink champagne; it was intended to be a theater for the people, where you could come in your jeans and drink a beer and be comfortable.

As we’ve expanded over the 25 years, we’ve gotten to a place where we embrace all cultures, and we feel that being green and saving the environment is a really important thing right now. One of the things we can contribute to society, besides just creating art, is to educate people about this. The new building will not only have a ton of green features, but all of them will be highlighted. So when you walk into the lobby, there’ll be a little picture saying, “This is what geothermal heat is, and this is how it works.” We’re talking about putting in recycled insulation, and our architect is talking about putting a little plexiglass window into the wall, so that you can see it in action.

GB: How do you anticipate your audience responding to a new green building? Are you looking to lead with this, or do you think it’s already something your audience is concerned about?

PJ: It is a big deal for us, and our audience recognizes the issue already when asked about it. I think we’re the only theater in the nation aiming for a LEED gold certification (at least we were a year ago), so we do feel like leaders in that sense.

[LEED stands for “Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design”, and is a set of standards (bronze, silver, gold, and platinum) administered by the U.S. Green Building Council that are awarded based on a point system. Points are awarded for each element of the building – anything from solar panels to proximity to public transportation — that contributes to its overall sustainability.]

 

But it’s not only the building itself, but also the location we chose. We chose to build in Logan Square, a part of town that’s gentrifying quickly but has a very rich and diverse community, heavily Hispanic and African-American. People were nevertheless shocked that we chose something so far “off-Loop”. The big theaters in Chicago are downtown within the Loop, and we’ve always been one of the largest off-Loop theaters. But our theater is very connected to the working class; we were originally called the American Blues Theater, as in “blue-collar”. That blue-collar has changed in Chicago, from the Polish working-class roll-up-your-sleeves population – we’re in a warehouse now, we actually love that aesthetic, and that new building will reflect that – to a more heavily Latino population. It’s important to us to continue to represent that part of America, both through the diversification of our programs and our location. We’re moving to a part of town that represents the rich diversity of America. Chicago has been called a very segregated theater town, as well as being a racially segregated town. We’re working very hard to break that mold, partly by creating a very diverse of ensemble of actors.

So the choice to go green is a part of that; it’s not arbitrary. It’s a symbol of our commitment to being responsible Americans. I think we’ll become leaders in Chicago.

GB: Have you personally had a concern for the environment for some time, or did it emerge when you joined the ATC staff?

PJ: No, I’ve had that concern for some time. When I was in Alaska, I could directly see the effects of global warming on the glacier near Juneau, literally seeing it shrink over the four years I was there. And being in such a beautiful place, and seeing its effects on that environment, had a great effect on me. When Perseverance was building its new space, we even had to put in air conditioning because the summers were getting so much hotter. Al Gore’s film also had a great effect on me, and we’re playing An Inconvenient Truth on screens in the lobby at ATC.

MH: My other thought is that we’ll get some kind of interactive kiosk which will serve a dual purpose: it’ll announce upcoming shows and talk about the green features of the building and the technologies involved. Every person who comes into the theater is going to be hit in the face with some green awareness.

We’ll work this into the children’s outreach programs as well. We’ll have a studio space where those programs are conducted, so every kid who comes into the building will get a tour and learn about geothermal heat, recycled rubber tiling, recycled glass tiling, low-flow sinks, green roofs, rain barrels, and so on, and then they’ll sit down and write a play or whathaveyou.

GB: Will green concerns become part of the plays that they write, i.e. joint artistic/environmental education?

MH: We’ve talked about that, but we haven’t made a definitive decision. We’re still a few years away from being in the building, so as we’re getting closer, we’ll flesh it out.

GB: Was your board gung-ho about this from the beginning? Did you have to do any persuading?

MH: No, there was no persuading whatsoever. We walked into the room and said, “This is the idea we have. What do you think of it?” And they said, “Great!” There were a few questions as to cost, and we said, “Well, it probably will increase our costs a little bit.” But the price of building green has come down significantly, even in the two years since we started discussing this. And it continues to come down. But yes, there will be costs. Obviously it will be more expensive to install a geothermal heat system. But it will pay for itself in seven years, and then your energy costs are a third of what they would otherwise be, as the model from our mechanical engineer showed. So it’s well worth it in the long run.

 

GB: Several other theaters have built new green buildings, some LEED-certified. Did you look at all their models – how they found funding, or what technology they incorporated?

MH: Yes, we did: to the Balzer Theater in Atlanta, and Portland Center Stage. We did in fact talk to them, and ask about their fundraising and the elements of their buildings.

It’s a journey. We started out not knowing a whole heck of a lot about what we were doing, but we started making inquiries immediately. We luckily found an architectural firm, Hartshorne and Plunkard, that’s currently doing a lot of green work in Chicago, and they’re very knowledgeable. They’re very experienced in theater design, so we didn’t have to use an outside consultant for that, but we did end up getting a green consultant.

We talked to a woman in Nevada, Jan McAdams [her website, “Funding Green Buildings”, is viewable here] who specializes in grantwriting for green buildings, and she was a goldmine of information. She spent two years conducting seminars all over the U.S. on the subject, and we contacted her at the tail end of that, just before she was about to quit. We actually sent a board member down to Florida to attend her last seminar and get all the information. So we talked to a lot of different people.

GB: Were they pretty open to speaking with you?

MH: Completely. Everyone that we have spoken to – unanimously – has been very excited about this project, and more than willing to share information and help in any way they could. Interestingly enough, by the time we talked to them, most of what they told us we were already working on, and that was by virtue of our architect and our green consultant.

GB: How has the funding come through? I saw that you have some funding from the Kresge Foundation, and that you’ll be located in a special economic zone.

MH: We’re still in the early stages of fundraising. We’re applying for TIF funds from the city of Chicago, which are set aside for certain neighborhoods in which they want to encourage economic development, and Logan Square is one of those districts.

We also have a planning grant from Kresge and one from the Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation.

GB: Is there a pre-existing building on the site now, or will you be building from the ground up?

MH: No, it’s an empty lot.

GB: How does the geothermal heating work?

MH: It’s a really interesting technology. They drill a well, anywhere from 200 to 400 feet deep, and they put a U-shaped pipe down all the way to the bottom, and there’s a fan that forces air through the tube and back up. What happens is when you get below the frost line, which in Chicago is closer to the 400-foot mark, the temperature of the Earth is very constant; it stays at 50 degrees, more or less. So then when you pump that air back up, it’s already at 50 degrees. In the summer, that’s your air-conditioning; nothing else is needed. In the winter, there’s a device called a heat exchanger that slightly warms it up to 68 degrees (or whatever temperature you want), and that’s your heat.

But it’s all done without oil or gas, it’s all done with electricity, so it’s cleaner, it reduces your carbon footprint, and it reduces your energy costs by about two-thirds. It drastically reduces your air conditioning costs, because all you have to use is fans.

We’re also going to have some solar thermal collectors that will provide hot water in the building, and we’ll have a green roof, which acts as natural insulation for the building so that you lose significantly less energy from the building.

GB: It reduces stormwater runoff as well, which must be a big issue in Chicago, since everything runs straight into the lake.

MH: Yes, absolutely.

Almost all of the materials in the building will be recycled, everything from floor tiles to wall tiles, recycled carpet. We’ll be using non-VOC paint. All of the plumbing fixtures will be low-flow, to save water. All of the light fixtures, with the exception of theater lights, will be fluorescent or LED.

The insulation will be made from recycled materials, but we haven’t decided on a type yet. There are multiple choices, one of which is leftover denim from a blue-jean factory. Ideally we’ll use that, but we have to sort through some cost considerations before choosing. The other option is some sort of spray-on foam that is sprayed into the walls.

GB: Did you look into LEDs for stage lighting?

MH: We did. I have to say this with a strong caveat, because we might change our minds, depending on the timing of construction: they’re considerably more expensive. In many theaters, you have your standard lights but you may go out to rent extra lights that fill the specific needs of that show. What we found is that, first of all, the general cost of the system for LED lights – the board, the grid, and the individual light fixtures — is really expensive, almost more than double the cost; and secondly, if you need to rent extra lights, you can’t really do that, because they’re not prevalent enough.

We think that’s going to change, and we think it’s going to change pretty fast. The cost of LEDs is projected to come down pretty significantly in the next few years because of demand. We don’t really have a timeline for the building yet; but when the time comes that we’re ready to move in, if the cost has come down significantly enough, we’ll use them.

GB: You’re aiming for a LEED gold accreditation. Was that a mark you wanted to hit and then you decided what technologies to use in order to hit that, or was it that certain technologies were cost-feasible and they added up to a gold standard?

MH: More the latter. We weren’t really sure where we were going in the beginning. We just wanted to work through what was pragmatic and practical, what we could afford, and as we went along, we discovered that there were more and more green features that wouldn’t cost us an arm and a leg, so we incorporated them. When we started adding up our points, we realized that we could hit the gold standard.

LEED is a hard standard to meet, but if you’ve worked with any government entity, you know that you have to be very methodical, you have to follow procedure, you have to be very careful with your paperwork. But it’s not that much harder to do; it just requires a lot of extra painstaking detail work.

GB: Are there things that ATC is already doing to go green before you break ground on the new building?

MH: Yes. We’ve made a very concerted effort to recycle and to encourage our patrons to recycle. There isn’t much more that we can do in the space that we’re in; it doesn’t lend itself to that, and it’s a rental space.

GB: Are you saving money by recycling?

PJ: Yeah. We made a commitment to saving paper, and we almost cut the cost in half. We have a huge stack of used paper right here that we use for printing other documents. When it comes to printing scripts, printing on both sides has saved us a lot of paper.

GB: How has your staff responded to the idea of the new building?

MH: They love it. The great thing about having a green consultant is that when we finally move into the building, he’ll do a daylong workshop with the staff. He’ll go through all of the building’s green components, how to maintain and use them, how to talk about them. So that, going forward, everyone in the building will be on the same page.

We’ll also have bike racks and a shower for people who bike to work. So we’ll really be promoting a green way of living.

PJ: We’ve had some staff members who are very vocal about biking to work. We’re constantly addressing the question of how we create an example that we want other people to follow; it’s something we’re very aware of, and I’m not just saying that to be dramatic.

GB: Was audience travel a part of the planning process as well?

MH: Yes; we’ll be directly across from the L stop, and near the commuter rail. Being near those stops earns us LEED points, as well.

We also may have – this hasn’t been finalized – one designated parking spot in front of the building only for hybrid cars.

We’ve also tried to tackle one difficult problem: I had a conversation with Kevin Kelly and our green consultant a few months ago about the possibility of creating, I don’t know, a giant recycling center for theaters in Chicago, a warehouse somewhere where everyone could stow their old sets, costumes, and so on. Except for the major theaters here like the Goodman and the Steppenwolf, most of us are working on shoestring budgets, so we don’t have a ton of space; we have no storage space. So every time you do a show, you strike the set and it all gets thrown out, except for the elements the rented.

So the idea would be to have a central clearinghouse where all of this stuff could go. If everyone chipped in, maybe we could afford a storage space. And then when you’re doing another show, you can go down and pick out what you want and paint it and reuse it.

If we got that going, it might serve as a model for other cities. Have you heard mention of this anywhere?

GB: Not really. I do know of a woman here in New York, Janet Clancy, who on an ad hoc basis will recycle elements of sets. At Fashion Week here in New York, they throw away huge amounts of material, and she’ll show up and take it and place it at local arts centers. After Rent closed, she tried to find homes for their set pieces.

I asked her if we could scale it up and standardize it, perhaps make some money off of it. Part of her argument is that when a show closes down, they have to pay huge costs simply to cart away their set pieces. So this would be a way to cut down on disposal costs, and perhaps they would pay a small amount of money for her time. But she’s too busy to try and scale it up.

It seems as though it requires a recreation of the model. You have to have designers building things in such a way that they can be easily disassembled.

MH: We talked about that here. A lot of our set pieces are not only nailed or screwed but glued, because they don’t want them falling apart in the middle of a show. But when I was talking to the guys, they said they thought it was doable: if you knew going in that you wanted to be able to disassemble, you could plan for that.

I’m sure it’s the same thing in every city. Everyone in the theater world is so busy; everyone’s so busy just trying to keep their heads above water to get the next show up.

GB: It might take one devoted person in one city willing to set it all up, to figure out how it works, to deal with the pitfalls. And then other cities could emulate that model.

MH: It seems like not only would you be saving the environment, but you could be saving money as well. You pick a warehouse; you’ll have to have a truck. People could take stuff at no cost, saving them a lot of money.

GB: Perhaps it would be good if people had to pay a small amount for the materials. Say, Steppenwolf could sell their pieces to the warehouse, and the warehouse could then turn around and sell them at a higher price to other theaters, who then would be saving money by not buying virgin materials. So everybody would benefit in the process, but the model could sustain itself.

MH: And that way you could pay for rental of the warehouse and the truck as well.

GB: I’ve spoken with Bob Usdin of Showman Fabricators, one of the big scene shops in New York. I know that he’s committed to using recycled materials or to recycling elements of sets. He has a pretty keen eye to constructing things that can be disassembled quickly, easily, and in a reusable manner.

I wonder if a good place for this discussion might be at a major conference, where everyone in the room can throw out ideas to figure this out.

MH: It’s a very intriguing idea, and we’ve been kicking it around in our heads, but we just don’t have the manpower to take it up.

[We encourage readers to write back to join in this discussion about materials recycling – ideas for a new model, people they know that have undertaken such efforts, other industries that recycle and share in a similar fashion. GTI will be posting an article in the near future about individuals who have already taken up this challenge, including Janet Clancy and Eva Radke of FilmBiz Recycling.]

ShareThis

Go to the Green Theater Initiative

Greenwashing Alert: Rose Brand Neo-Flex

I receive a lot of mail, electronic and other wise, that deals with the lighting industry. My personal artistic practice is heavily centered in the discipline of lighting design and it behooves me to keep up with what is happening in the industry.

Lighting design in theater is uses alot of resources. The amount of electricity needed to illuminate a show is staggering even on the lowest levels, as compared to your average home or office.  And, since technology is not in a place where you can really design a show in a traditional sense, it will be a very hard transition to make headway in this sector of the performing arts. I won’t go into it much here, but will refer you to my paper, The Ecological Sustainability of Theatrical Lighting, on the site here.

This morning I received an email for Rose Brand, a company that makes curtains, expendables and useful items for theater production, based in Los Angeles. It is promoting their NeoFlex product.  It is a Flexible Linear Light, which may as well be called rope light. It uses LEDs and can come in different colors as well as an RGB color change model.  It is diffused to look like a solid linear light and since it uses LEDs, it is extremely energy efficient, which is to say it is marketable as “green.”

So is it green?

For any application which it is suited, yes, it is a more “green” solution that others on the market. I won’t say it’s the greenest; I’m not going to do a side by side analysis of similar products. But if you need a linear lighting solution, sure, it is.  If you’re looking for an alternative to neon, it would be a good one. Neon, relative to an incandescent bulb, is pretty efficient, so the energy savings wouldn’t be huge. But, it is safer since it is not breakable glass and doesn’t require the high voltages that neon does. And it won’t be as hot as neon. There are some design advantages too: it is flexible, reusable, doesn’t need to be made to order and the color options are greater, especially the color changing RGB.

What other applications does it have? You could use it for cove lighting… where you have a wash against a wall or the ceiling to provide indirect decorative lighting. You could use it for any light rope application as well. You’d probably only want to replace rope light that was decorative though because of the look of the NeoFlex as it is much more expensive.  But,  the point is that it is primarily decorative, not a particularly practical light source at all. As a designer, I’m more interested on what its applications are and what I can do with it. As a color changing, cool to the touch, flexible linear light source I’m interested in it. I like that it uses much less power, and my clients will like that it would save them money if they’re looking for the effect that it produces versus an alternative.

So is it green?

No.

Why? It doesn’t solve a problem. It offers an interesting solution to a design problem, but not a constructive solution to a particularly unsustainable and existing solution to that design problem.  It is a little more energy efficient than fiber optic solutions, but doesn’t do anything that you can’t already do with fiber optics. Furthermore, it uses more material and isn’t as adaptable as fiber optic solutions as I have used it.

There is a lot of lighting products out there being green washed.  LEDs aren’t yet practical or cost effective in general use, but they are pretty, colorful and you can control their use pretty extensively, so they are used a lot in theatrical settings. For putting color on stage or anywhere for that matter where you would otherwise use a lot of incandescent or halogen sources, LEDS offer a great step in the right direction on energy used and heat generated.  But, it seems that you stick an LED in something and it becomes green. It isn’t as green washed as the source four, which is marketed as green because it has high efficacy and outputs with 575w for which other instruments require 1000w, but it’s tiring.

Just because something use an LED doesn’t make it green, especially if you have developed it for the other benefits of LED use. It’s lazy marketing and a paid forward pitch for the marketing of the application, be it show or club or what have you, to pitch that application as one which use green technology over alternatives.

Using more of something which is more efficient is still using more.

Also in the email, which you can see if you click here, are the Flora Series of fabric hanging flowers, Design Master Colortool® Spray Paint, 12 oz. Cans and Panorama Tour Edition. What the first and last have to do at all with being green I don’t get and to call an aerosol paint “eco” because the can is partially recycled steel and it’s non-toxic after it dries is a  stretch (read the warnings on those labels folks). Be careful.

Rosemary Ingham

Having been swept up in the swift current of my life and health these past few months, I only just this evening opened the pages of the November 2008 issue of American Theatre, and was saddened to find Liz Covey’s obituary for Rosemary Ingham, who passed in July.

I did not know Rosemary well, but worked with her on a somewhat disconnected basis during my time with American Players Theatre, and later she would become one of the most valuable, insightful, and wise theater professsionals I had the privelige of speaking with for my book, Careers in Technical Theater.

I recall with fondness her honesty when I initially interviewed her for a magazine piece, and will not forget her advice on the dilemma of the solitary theater artist — it is a misnomer, she told me, so one must follow their heart. At the time, I knew she was speaking to me as someone who loved the theater, but also passionately loved to write. And she was in a position to offer advice on the matter.

As I sit in a hospital bed in Indianapolis, I just wanted to take an opportunity to  say thank you to Rosemary. You will be missed, and your kind soul undoubtedly touched many on its journey.

Go to EcoTheater

What are you going to do with that?

The Center for Sustainable Practice in the Arts has three things going against it. It 1) concerns the arts, 2) focuses on environmentalism and 3) is a non-profit. To the untrained eye, a group like this is doomed to fail. It is defined by three things often associated with bleeding hearts, off the wall hippies, and do-gooders with no real direction. No one takes it seriously. How do I know this? Because whenever someone asks me what my post-undergraduate plans are and I talk about sustainable theater or arts and the environment or working for a non-profit, I often get the same reply: “Well what are you going to do with that?” thinly veiled behind a smirk and smiling eyes. It’s a horrible feeling, having to justify hours of work and something I am intensely passionate about. It makes me question the worth of what I and other artists do, as though it is just a waste of time.

I think people feel that professionals in the arts, specifically, are shallow or foolish for a number of reasons. In all reality, it’s not the most stable career path. Unless you can guarantee commissions or roles, it can be difficult to stay in the game and maintain work. But what the layman doesn’t realize is that it is exactly that kind of aloofness, that uncertainty and inconsistency that makes artists resilient and competent workers. I spent a week in San Diego this past August doing some field research for CSPA. I had the opportunity to meet numerous artists, including dancers, actors, designers, and directors. In our conversations and my observations I learned a very valuable lesson: It takes an enormous amount of strength to stay passionate about the arts. Because they don’t always know when their next paycheck may come, artists learn to budget, they work harder to perfect their resumes, they constantly try to improve upon their talents and hone their craft. They are flexible and can think quickly on their feet and survive in the fast-paced, competitive world in which they live. It’s the backstage world of an artist that the general population doesn’t see and doesn’t understand. And artists aren’t dumb. That is another misconception, that artists do art because they aren’t smart enough to have “a real job.” I have met not only some of the most talented, but some of the most intelligent individuals during my time at CSPA. They are well-read, articulate, driven, passionate and funny. They just also happen to work in a field with a reputation.

The image of environmentalism is changing. What used to be considered only for drugged-out college kids has turned into quite the market. From organic foods to solar panels, the term “green” has become a label on which many industries are capitalizing. But there is still a definite aura of elitism around the nature of, well, nature. It just seems so nice to do things to benefit the environment, but it’s not always the most practical. That’s something I’m finding out in this research. When talking to directors at Eveoke Dance Company in San Diego, they were genuinely upset that they couldn’t do more than basic recycling. So in our current world, environmentalists are sometimes considered to have superiority complexes, because we advocate something that is not always readily available or accessible. I also believe this to be an unfair assessment. Am I a better person than someone else because I recycle and use FSC paper? Not necessarily. What must be understood is environmentalism is about doing what you can. Ok, so he or she can’t afford FSC paper or non-toxic paints. Fine. But that person can reuse lumber, or recycle metal scraps or even simply invest in a Brita filter rather than buying bottled water. Organizations like CSPA and the people who run them want to spread information, not beat you over the head with it.

Finally, of course, is the dreaded label of being a non-profit company. I have a limited understanding of what it means to work in the not-for-profit sector but for me, it has always been something deserving of respect. It acts as an agency for change and advocacy, for the benefits of others. Some may consider this charity. And charity is good, but not always respected. It comes back to that idea of the bleeding heart. I think in our society, corporations tend to draw more people and fame than not-for-profits. Being a Good Samaritan or having more than a daily dose of compassion is not always applauded. Some think of it as a waste of energy and resources. Such is the case when dealing with something as obscure and intangible as art and the environment. Providing food and shelter to orphans in Myanmar is one thing. A company devoted to sustainable performance spaces is something completely different.

Or is it? Sure, saving people is wonderful. But saving the environment is just as important. Without it, people couldn’t be saved. Art is humanity’s best way of documenting our existence. Through our writings, our art, our music, we are recorded into history. Without sustaining the practices in which we create that documentation, there is no guarantee that we will be able to continue our human existence into the future. At the end of the day, that’s all the people at The Center for Sustainable Practice in the Arts and other artists and environmentalists are striving to do.

Updated Information for ‘Moving Arts, Moving Green’ Expo

As part of the Talk Back Series for our current production, “Song of Extinction,” Moving Arts will be hosting a greening expo on December the 7th.   The expo will begin at 2pm on Edison Plaza at the Ford Theatres and will run until the start of the pay-what-you-can performance at 7pm.  (see schedule below)  This is an opportunity for local green businesses and green organizations to educate and inform our audiences in attendence about their services.  Additionally, a Green Business Insert will be included in the program for all of the four weekend performances.  At 5pm, there will also be a free panel discussion with various local spokespeople on how to live a greener life.  (Speakers T.B.D)

When: Sun, Dec 7, 2008 
Where: The Ford Theatres, 2580 Cahuenga Blvd. East, Los Angeles, CA 90068

If you would like to participate as a presenter:

Schedule
1pm Table Set-Up
2pm Expo open to public
3pm – 4:30 Matinee Performance of “Song of Extinction”
5pm Moving Green – A Discussion on How to Live A Greener Life
7pm “Song of Extinction” — Pay-what-you-can Performance

Costs
Expo Tables, $100 (with 1/4 page Green Business Insert Ad included)
$75 if you confirm before November 26th.
Green Business Insert Ads:
$50 Full page Ad
$20 Quarter Page Ad
$10 Business Card Ad
$5 Line Ad

why theatres don’t touch climate change

The nature of climate change (how it affects other people in other countries and how it will affect other people in other centuries) makes it a unique challenge to theatre.

The impact of individual actions spreads out, very diffusely, across time and place. It’s hard to see how this can be addressed within the classical dramaturgical model of cause and effect. It’s one reason whyno major theatre has staged a play on the subject.

But there are five other reasons why theatres don’t touch climate change.

1. Theatres think climate change is about science and so it’s going to be extremely technical. But it isn’t. It’s about drama’s core themes: human relationships, the way we live, what we value.

2. Theatres are worried they’ll be accused of hypocrisy, so they are going to need to get their house in order first. But this is not a ‘them and us’ subject where you have to be whiter-than-white before you can talk about it. Everyone’s implicated, everyone’s involved. Theatres should be open about that.

3. Theatres are holding off engaging with this subject (as one theatre director told me) because they’re not sure what they think about it.But not knowing what you think about something is the perfect moment to engage with it.

4. Theatres imagine the plays will either have to be agit-prop orapocalyptic and they don’t want to do either. But climate change is driven (as the great American biologist E.O. Wilson has said) by our high levels of per capita consumption: where stuff comes from and where it goes. Climate change is about everyday life.

5. Many of the leading fossil fuel companies are prominent sponsors of the arts. Oh yes, good point.

Originally Appeared in the Ashden Directory Blog as Posted by Robert Butler

Can Art Be Green?

Being conscious of the environment may be worthwhile, but what does it have to do with art? In a way, everything. According to Merriam-Webster, art can be defined as, “the conscious use of skill and creative imagination, especially in the production of aesthetic objects.” Based on this definition, art can be broken down as a form of production, a form of work. Art is the skill of creating an object, the process, as well as the object itself. Theatre is also so much more than the production. From play selection to strike, there are supplementary materials that go into making the final product. It comes down to a number of processes and tools. Art is work, whether or not the artist gets paid, and work always produces waste. In the theatre, for example, the shop sink is often a dumping site for half-used solvents and stains, and other toxic substances such as spirit gum and petroleum-based makeup are frequently thrown in the trash.

The question, however, is how to deal with that waste. How does an artist conserve consumption, reduce waste production, and yet still maintain creative integrity and innovation? It seems as though such a compromise may be impossible. Theatre artists tend to stay isolated in their own worlds of creativity. Sometimes there are artists who have always worked in a specific way, and it can be difficult for some to divorce themselves from a system that has proven itself tried and true. Should artists be limited to their resources and how they work? Mike Lawler asserts in his article, Toward a More Sustainable Theatre, that “no artistic director wants to tell his or her creative team to limit themselves in order that they may reduce the endless cycle of waste generated by their productions.” The “endless cycle” Lawler mentions is exacerbated by the common desire to create something beautiful and poignant from scratch. There has often been the philosophy that to make masterful theatre, designs and pieces must be built fresh and new. Though the lifespan of a particular set may be short, it must maintain artistic innovation and be profound. Because of constant replacements, it can be argued that theatre is therefore a “temporal art” – thereby inherently wasteful and environmentally irresponsible.

A compromise may lie in an organizational structure, one that does not condemn or restrain professionals in the arts for their production choices, but rather acts as a guide to aid these professionals in creating their work with minimal waste and even challenge their creativity. Stephanie Smith writes in her book, Beyond Green: Toward a Sustainable Art,

“The convergence of [art and design] can provide rich opportunities for artists to create satisfying visual forms that provide ways of embodying critical practices. And when this convergence occurs around environmental questions, it resonates strongly with sustainable design’s goal of bringing social and aesthetic concerns together with environmental and economic ones.”

Theatre artists may feel limited at first, but ideally, the push toward sustainable design will push artists to think out side the box for creativity and they will develop a deeper connection to not only their craft, but their environment.

It is also important to note that theatre artists cannot be alienated from the rest of the world. It is inherently impossible and implausible. Theatre companies act as role models for the community. Putting on a production is not merely a portrayal of stories. Companies and their actions are visible and can influence the communities which surround and support them. As Larry Fried and Theresa May articulate,

“As members of state and municipal arts networks and of local chambers of commerce, theatre organizations have an unusual opportunity to take a stand on principles of sustainability. Our audiences tend to be people who are educated, active in the community, and concerned about social issues. If we can inspire them to care about an ecological ethos, they will inspire many others.”

In an interview with Sam Bowers, of greenmuseum.org,  he stated that because “art is a very powerful tool for communicating ideas” it is very much the responsibility of arts organizations to take on the role of organizing and developing a paradigm shift in the way the community views and relates to the world. So can art be green? If we want to live, work and play in harmony with the Earth…no. It has to be.

Ecodrama Playwrights Festival & Symposium Update

The Ecodrama Playwrights Festival & Symposium On Theatre and Ecology is now closed to play submissions, and have reissued their call for proposals for the symposium. The CSPA sesions are also still open, and are linked at the top of the column on the right. We hope that you’ll apply to one or both and foresee some overlap and sharing in the final symposium. We, the CSPA, will be concentrated on the more scientific research side of the symposium, but are very excited to see everything everyone has to offer!

The Revised Call:

May 21~ 31, 2009 ~ University of Oregon

Ecology is at the heart of burgeoning creativity and interdisciplinary scholarship across the arts and humanities. This Festival, together with a concurrent Symposium, invites artists, scholars and activists to share their work, ideas, and passions with one another and with the larger community.  

CALL FOR PROPOSALS for Artist Workshops and Scholarly Papers.  FEB. 1 2009 DEADLINE

We welcome creative and innovative proposals for workshops, round-tables, panels, papers, working sessions, installations, or participatory community gatherings that explore, examine, challenge, articulate, or nourish the possibilities of theatrical or performance responses to the environmental crisis in particular, and our ecological relationship in general.

The form and format is wide-open and we will schedule and shape the Symposium around the types of proposals received and selected. We especially encourage artists who have performance work they would like to present to develop a workshop in which they present all or part of their work, and then use it as the basis for involving others in exploration. We encourage proposals that go beyond a recitation of ideas or positions, and instead bring presenters and participants together as they engage the driving question of how theatre has or might function as part of our reciprocal relationship with ecological communities.

Possible topics include: 

  •  land and body in performance;
  •  representations of bioregionalism; 
  •  eco-literacy and performance;
  •  representation of/and environmental justice; 
  •  green theatre production; sustainable theatre;
  •  design and technology developments towards green practice;
  •  old cultural narratives/new stories;
  • indigenous performance; 
  •  community-based performance/ecological communities; 
  •  sensing place/staging place; 
  •  the ecologies of theatrical form and/or space; 
  •  animal representation; 
  •  application of ecocriticism to plays, performance and culture.

    Send a one-page proposal and/or abstract by 1 February, 2009 to: 

    Earth Matters Symposium 2009, Theresa May, Director, 

    Theater Arts, VIL 216, University of Oregon
    Eugene, OR 97403. 

    Please include: type of session & title; time-length (60 min; 90 min; 2+ hours; half-day); bio or cv. 

    We encourage proposals that include more than one presenter; however, single person proposals are accepted and will be combined with others as themes and formats allow.

    Obama Cites Michael Pollan’s Sun Food Agenda

    by Jeff Nield

    In a recent National Public Radio interview, Michael Pollan talks about how he was approached by a Democratic party staffer about his New York Times article, Farmer in Chief. The article is an open letter to the next president concerning U.S. agriculture policy. The staffer wanted Pollan’s consent to summarize the article into a page or two to get it into the hands of Barack Obama. Pollan declined, saying that if he could have said everything that needed to be said in two pages, he wouldn’t have written 8000 words.

    Despite the snub, it looks like the article created enough of a buzz that it made it into Obama’s stack of pre-election reading material. In an interview with Joe Klein, Obama refers to the article, explaining how Pollan’s ideas fit into the concept of a new energy economy.  We’ve received no word on whether John McCain has read Pollan’s article.

    Here’s the portion of the interview where Obama addresses the issue:
    “The biggest problem with our energy policy has been to lurch from crisis to trance. And what we need is a sustained, serious effort. Now, I actually think the biggest opportunity right now is not just gas prices at the pump but the fact that the engine for economic growth for the last 20 years is not going to be there for the next 20, and that was consumer spending. I mean, basically, we turbo-charged this economy based on cheap credit. Whatever else we think is going to happen over the next certainly 5 years, one thing we know, the days of easy credit are going to be over because there is just too much de-leveraging taking place, too much debt both at the government level, corporate level and consumer level. And what that means is that just from a purely economic perspective, finding the new driver of our economy is going to be critical. There is no better potential driver that pervades all aspects of our economy than a new energy economy.

    “I was just reading an article in the New York Times by Michael Pollen about food and the fact that our entire agricultural system is built on cheap oil. As a consequence, our agriculture sector actually is contributing more greenhouse gases than our transportation sector. And in the mean time, it’s creating monocultures that are vulnerable to national security threats, are now vulnerable to sky-high food prices or crashes in food prices, huge swings in commodity prices, and are partly responsible for the explosion in our healthcare costs because they’re contributing to type 2 diabetes, stroke and heart disease, obesity, all the things that are driving our huge explosion in healthcare costs. That’s just one sector of the economy. You think about the same thing is true on transportation. The same thing is true on how we construct our buildings. The same is true across the board.

    For us to say we are just going to completely revamp how we use energy in a way that deals with climate change, deals with national security and drives our economy, that’s going to be my number one priority when I get into office, assuming, obviously, that we have done enough to just stabilize the immediate economic situation. In conversations with folks like Warren Buffet, Larry Summers, and the other people that I’ve been spending time with on this, I described it as we’ve got a boat with a lot of leaks and we need to get it into port. That’s what the financial rescue package is about. But once we get it into port, once the credit markets are functioning effectively, then it’s time for us to go back to the fundamentals of this economy. Now, the one other point I want to make about this, though, we can’t divorce the energy issue from what I believe has to be the dominant political theme underlying everything — the economy, healthcare, you name it. And that is restoring a sense that we’re growing the economy from the bottom up and not the top down. 

    “That’s the overarching philosophical change that we’ve got to have. It’s the attitude that Henry Ford had when he paid his workers a decent wage. That means they’re going to be able to buy their cars. The irony of McCain trying to make this whole Joe the Plumber thing as his sort of mantra over the last few days, if you look at the transcript of my conversation with him, the point I was making was two-fold. Number one, I want to give you a tax cut sooner so you can save sooner to start your business sooner because the average plumber starting off sure isn’t making $250,000 a year.”

    This article originally appeared in Treehugger.com, but I found it on Bioneers