The Art of the Deal, or the Deal with the Art

New York is not Mecca. It just smells like it. -- Neil Simon

An anonymous editor at the New York Post -- I have a hunch I know whom¹ -- makes a strong argument condemning the strike of tech union Local One, which has kept most of Broadway closed through Thanksgiving weekend. The Post presents a point that would be self-evident anywhere but Broadway. A monopoly is an inefficient method for providing a service, and the New York theater scene is undoubtedly monopolistic.

To be clear, I do not mean that there is insufficient competition within New York; I would argue that's actually quite strong. Rather, I bemoan the pervasive perception that New York is America's performing arts Mecca. While I love New York, I think this common conception is unfortunate. I also understand why it prevails: it's true. No other city in the US can match New York pound-for-pound in quantity or quality of its museums, theaters, and concert halls.

It doesn't have to be that way, however. America's other major cities also offer strong cultural exposure. Those in the know have been long aware of Chicago's status as America's number two theater town, as Terry Teachout discusses in the Wall Street Journal this week.² Mr. Teachout goes on to lament the double damage Broadway's monopoly causes. With limited supply comes exorbitant prices -- Chicago is far cheaper, incidentally -- as well as limited exposure. Thus the monopoly is, in the long run, self-destructive, as Broadway undermines its own cultural relevance, becoming more and more a mere amusement for the wealthy, much the way American opera did a century ago.

Mr. Teachout sees an escape from this problem in the form of regional theater,³ where prices, if still appalling to the average middle-class tourist, are far more reasonable. As Ceaseless Rosemary⁴ brought to my attention, off-Broadway remained largely open in light of the strike. Astoundingly, it turns out front-row tickets need not cost $500 for a theater to function.

Cologne has taught me much in this regard. With only a fraction of New York's population, the Kölners keep over 30 independent theaters running. True, the quality varies between inspirational and insipid, and you don't see a lot of productions with 42^nd Street budgets, but the shows are well-attended, well received, and well within reasonable prices. And it's worth noting that this is not Berlin, or Munich, or even Hamburg, Germany's true metropolises.⁵ So why can't Boston or Dallas or Cincinnati achieve their own claims to culture?

With the amount of talented actors, writers, musicians and technicians who remain both non-unionized and unemployed, there exists plenty of opportunity for American cities to contribute, to have their arts scenes thrive and be recognized for that achievement. No city can topple New York. Mecca will remain Mecca, and the hajj to New York will continue to be the apogee of the American art experience. But I hold out hope that the monopoly need not continue, and a freer, more accessible arts scene can still thrive, both in New York and elsewhere.

--------

¹Update: all right, I guessed wrong, but I'm leaving the link in place because I enjoy name-dropping.

²Might need to register to read this one. Apologies.

³This one, too.

⁴Merely her nom de plume, I assure you. Her parents aren't quite that hippie-esque.

⁵Metropoles? Metropolii?