Solutions to performing arts problems

Last semester, The Daily Pennsylvanian published a series of articles that aired common complaints about the Performing Arts Council. People claim that groups are too numerous and redundant, that performance and rehearsal space is insufficient and that PAC procedures are bureaucratic.

As an active member of Penn's performing arts community, I'm familiar with these complaints. And to a degree, I can empathize. To groups outside PAC, the entry process is opaque. PAC meetings are long, boring and exasperating. Moreover, despite a "uniqueness clause" demanding that new groups not replicate extant organizations, many groups have converged over the years, making it difficult to distinguish one a cappella or theater group from another. Furthermore, groups compete for rehearsal and performance space.

Despite this, I think many complaints about PAC are unjust. Ultimately, they arise from a misunderstanding of the purpose of campus performing arts. In fact, the role of college performance is not merely a hypothetical question, since policies differ according to one's view of its purpose. I can see at least four potential goals.

First, some might say that the goal is to entertain. In my experience, this view is often adopted by those outside the performing community. On some level, this is sensible: Performance is pointless without an audience. Furthermore, groups with primary purposes other than performance (for instance, competition or teaching) are not eligible for PAC membership.

If one prioritizes entertainment, only the most popular groups should be supported. The artistry, creativity or personal enjoyment of smaller groups and their members is unimportant if they don't draw a large audience. This idea also holds performing arts groups to a different standard than virtually any other campus organization by judging their utility based on the opinions of non-participants.

A second goal might be to promote the most skilled artistic expression possible. As a prestigious college with artistically ambitious students, this also seems reasonable. With this goal in mind, only the "best" groups should exist, and groups that produce unprofessional, subpar performances should be eliminated. Duplication of groups should be avoided so that the most talented individuals can be concentrated. The challenge here is the difficulty of judging something as amorphous as "artistry" and the tendency for an individual group's skills to fluctuate from year to year.

A third goal might be participation. One could argue that college should provide as many people with an artistic and social outlet as are interested. Multiplicity and even duplication of groups is not problematic because each additional organization provides new opportunities.

A fourth goal is artistic diversity. College performance should promote as many unique artistic forms as possible. The prioritization of this goal would encourage the creation of new groups with unique artistic or cultural aims, even if they are narrow. This would eliminate the plethora of groups with identical purposes, but it would possibly prioritize avant-garde groups over those with mainstream appeal.

Personally, I think that all these goals are important. They are best served by a moderate-sized, diverse performance community, where some groups are more "elite" and competitive, others allow anyone to join and others have specialized artistic or cultural focuses. This basically describes the current community, which includes everything from award-winning a cappella to a high-participation scramble band to an African dance and percussion ensemble.

That said, what can be done about the current problems?

First, PAC's internal policies should be streamlined and made clearer to outsiders. The current Executive Board has already made some valuable modifications, but they can be extended. The procedures for applying to PAC should be outlined clearly on the PAC Web site, and all appropriate forms should be available for download. The PAC Executive Board could even add an additional member who focuses exclusively on external relations so that groups seeking membership would have a clear contact person.

Second, the structure of the PAC body should be adjusted to counteract the self-interest of its members. Currently, the Executive Board is a purely representative body with no funding power. The council consists of a community of friends who must self-police one another and are hesitant to recommend each other for censure. It would be useful to have more direction from the outside (perhaps by empowering the Exec Board or perhaps by using an outside individual) so that groups could be monitored.

Third, PAC and the University should continue to seek new time-constraint solutions and performance spaces. For example, groups should be encouraged to rehearse and perform at off-peak times, perhaps with monetary incentives. Furthermore, a new performing arts center is currently scheduled to be built in the Stouffer Down Under. Solutions such as this center, which will include six rehearsal rooms, should do much to improve the current situation.

Jennifer Weiss is a senior Linguistics and Theatre Arts major from Los Angeles. War On Error appears on Wednesdays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.