Theatre and Money...or lack thereof...

In a comment to my last post, Ben brought up an interesting phenomenon in big-budget (er, Broadway) theatre: the infiltration of Hollywood onto the stage (for the article that sparked his comment, see http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/theater/12Shre.html?_r=1).

To me, this begs another, more personal (or philosophical? political?), problem: to what extent should theatre be a money-making venture? To what extent should art be a money-making venture? I find myself, at the beginning of my career, unsure of where I stand on this issue. Theatre, particularly good theatre, takes time...and a lot of it. I need a certain amount of money to survive, and of course, if I had my say, I wouldn't have to do anything but create theatre. Ideally, then, I would make a living wage doing nothing but creating art.

But this begs another question...what type of theatre do I want to be making? The people who created Shrek: The Musical are clearly trying to capitalize on the money-making success of Hollywood (albeit, from what I've heard, unsuccessfully). And who can blame them? Theatre, as a money-making venture, fails. It is very expensive and time-intensive to create, the product is by its very nature uneven (even within the same production the product is inconstant), and even if a play does succeed, in many instances those successes do not begin to cover the costs. Even in an ideal scenario (hit show, sold-out houses), the Berkeley Rep, one of the most successful theatre companies in the country, only raises half of its expenditures through ticket sales. The rest comes from donors and grants.

On the one hand, I love creating theatre and would obviously love to see audience grow and a culture develop around the attendance and support of theatre. But in an economic climate where people can hardly feed their families, can I really begrudge families who avoid the high ticket prices and often sub-par content that is often found within theatre walls? Particularly as the economy continues to tank, how does one expect to make money creating an intangible product? Furthermore, what does it mean for the state of theatre if it requires heavy government subsidies just to stay afloat? Now I more than most will defend the necessity of art to a thriving society, but I'm just not sure where I stand on the intersection of money, the state, and the arts.

I get the feeling that this discussion is more related to political philosophy than I would like to admit. As usual, I have no answers, but I do find interesting the question of where intangible products fit into our capitalistic society, particularly intangible products that exist to challenge, rather than support, the prevailing order--to question rather than comfort.

What are your thoughts on the issue(s)?