With regard to the proposed $25 million Goodman Theatre complex: Why should government money be put into funding a huge downtown monstrosity that will put on shows at prices that are prohibitive to all but the upper and upper-middle classes?
Yes, the theater will have beautiful sets, expensive actors and it may be an architectural gem, but will such a temple be willing, or able, to take risks by presenting new playwrights, alternative dramatic forms or crazy new artists? I doubt it. Brilliant and unusual new art is born out of risk-taking, something big budget houses can`t afford to do. Broadway doesn`t give birth to greatness; it only books what will be commercially successful. The Goodman will be likewise burdened: a fancy house with no soul.
There isn`t much money to go around for the arts these days. We shouldn`t risk all of the money under one safe rock. If the approximately $12 million the city is slated to pay were equally divided into $50,000 blocks, it could completely fund 240 local theaters all striving to bring the arts to communities all through the city. The article says a huge theater downtown
”will be a strong performing arts presence in the area.” Wouldn`t 240 theaters across the city be a stronger presence?
