Perhaps it is time for the pretentious chardonnay guzzlers from Santa Clara Co. who enjoy striking the pseudo-intellectual poses to start coughing up the bucks instead of whining that a financially-strapped university system doesn't subsidize their self-indulgent booze-fest.
Kathleen Normington - 11 years ago
I voted "other" because I think this demands both the community and university support. Keeping the company afloat should not be at the expense of educating the students enrolled there. The company needs someone to reconfigure the finances and probably how the season is produced. As an instructor at a CSU campus, I have seen how budget cuts have crippled our Theatre Arts program and that is why I understand (to a degree) this action but I do not think it is necessary. Be creative, isn't that the job of the Dean of an Arts division?
Brendan Ward - 11 years ago
I take issue with the "they are a generation that has to be 'entertained' and does not realize that going to theatre..." blah blah blah. As a 25 year old fan of shakespeare, i would aim blame at the adults (when i was under 18) who voted for state and federal representative who cut funding to public education and changed the way certain subjects (english and theatre) are taught or not taught in school.
The foolish replies of those who say they don't care about Shakespeare should be completely taken out of this equation. They are a product of the generation that has to be "entertained" and does not realize that going to the theatre is a cooperative event. TV babies. Computer babies. As for SSC -- it has produced some of the finest theatre in the nation and created artistic partnerships and opportunities for the best designers, directors and actors in the theatre world. OF COURSE THE UNIVERSITY SHOULD STEP UP AND SAVE THE THEATRE COMPANY... and continue Marco Barricelli as the AD...
Perhaps it is time for the pretentious chardonnay guzzlers from Santa Clara Co. who enjoy striking the pseudo-intellectual poses to start coughing up the bucks instead of whining that a financially-strapped university system doesn't subsidize their self-indulgent booze-fest.
I voted "other" because I think this demands both the community and university support. Keeping the company afloat should not be at the expense of educating the students enrolled there. The company needs someone to reconfigure the finances and probably how the season is produced. As an instructor at a CSU campus, I have seen how budget cuts have crippled our Theatre Arts program and that is why I understand (to a degree) this action but I do not think it is necessary. Be creative, isn't that the job of the Dean of an Arts division?
I take issue with the "they are a generation that has to be 'entertained' and does not realize that going to theatre..." blah blah blah. As a 25 year old fan of shakespeare, i would aim blame at the adults (when i was under 18) who voted for state and federal representative who cut funding to public education and changed the way certain subjects (english and theatre) are taught or not taught in school.
The foolish replies of those who say they don't care about Shakespeare should be completely taken out of this equation. They are a product of the generation that has to be "entertained" and does not realize that going to the theatre is a cooperative event. TV babies. Computer babies. As for SSC -- it has produced some of the finest theatre in the nation and created artistic partnerships and opportunities for the best designers, directors and actors in the theatre world. OF COURSE THE UNIVERSITY SHOULD STEP UP AND SAVE THE THEATRE COMPANY... and continue Marco Barricelli as the AD...