Are We Talent?
Tue, 24 Sept 2002, 07:28 pmGilly26 posts in thread
Are We Talent?
Tue, 24 Sept 2002, 07:28 pmAs the lovely Jenny McNae pointed out at the judging of the 2002 Youthfest, actors and models have long been called simply 'talent'. Is this acceptable by todays standards? Personally, I do not believe that those of us taking the stage should be refered to as simply as 'the talent', and we do in fact have names. This is similar to pole run a while ago of how actors should be known as, be it their character name right through a 'hey, you'. The question I am putting forward is how should the actors/model/dancers of today be known? Is 'the talent' simply enough?
Ponder for a while...
Alan
Ponder for a while...
Alan
Re: Young Talent Time
Wed, 25 Sept 2002, 01:09 pmJG wrote:
>
> In times past, actors, singers and dancers were thought of
> as... well, a lower class of people. Entertainers, almost
> selling themselves to make a living. We all know this is not
> true.
We like to believe it's not true, and I certainly have no problem with my self-esteem as a performer, but the standard wage for a professionally trained (ie: three year degree) performer is hideously below any other similarly qualified occupation. Performer's rights are constantly undermined as they are taken advantage of, and it does rather point to us as a lower 'class' in many ways.
I'm pushing the Union angle again, but without it it's almost inevitable that exploitation will occur, unless you're of the calibre of a Nicole or a Russel, and can negotiate a better deal. Entertainers DO sell themselves to make a living, though not many of us actually make a living. We sell ourselves short, and many work for virtually nothing.
> ... we cannot simply brush them off as "talent." Performers, of any kind, are artists.... That "buzz" you get when watching a wonderful show is almost indescribable and this is not created by "talent." It is
created by sensitive individuals, who are truly human and in
touch with themselves.
I don't actually have any problem in being called "talent". It's just as general a term as being called "artists". I don't see much difference in the definitions, and I'm just as proud to be called either.
As far as the notion of it being slightly derogatory, when it's used in that context it's just a low-level means of broadly categorising different groups of people, so I don't take offense or even give it that much thought. It's the same as calling everyone else "crew" or "management". It's only derogatory if you choose to look at it that way. The low status implication doesn't come from the word 'talent' in particular, it comes from the imprecise method of pigeonholing people in such a general fashion.
> I think they deserve a great recognition
Can't argue with that. All aspects of the arts deserve due recognition, be it talent, crew, writers, musos...etc.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
>
> In times past, actors, singers and dancers were thought of
> as... well, a lower class of people. Entertainers, almost
> selling themselves to make a living. We all know this is not
> true.
We like to believe it's not true, and I certainly have no problem with my self-esteem as a performer, but the standard wage for a professionally trained (ie: three year degree) performer is hideously below any other similarly qualified occupation. Performer's rights are constantly undermined as they are taken advantage of, and it does rather point to us as a lower 'class' in many ways.
I'm pushing the Union angle again, but without it it's almost inevitable that exploitation will occur, unless you're of the calibre of a Nicole or a Russel, and can negotiate a better deal. Entertainers DO sell themselves to make a living, though not many of us actually make a living. We sell ourselves short, and many work for virtually nothing.
> ... we cannot simply brush them off as "talent." Performers, of any kind, are artists.... That "buzz" you get when watching a wonderful show is almost indescribable and this is not created by "talent." It is
created by sensitive individuals, who are truly human and in
touch with themselves.
I don't actually have any problem in being called "talent". It's just as general a term as being called "artists". I don't see much difference in the definitions, and I'm just as proud to be called either.
As far as the notion of it being slightly derogatory, when it's used in that context it's just a low-level means of broadly categorising different groups of people, so I don't take offense or even give it that much thought. It's the same as calling everyone else "crew" or "management". It's only derogatory if you choose to look at it that way. The low status implication doesn't come from the word 'talent' in particular, it comes from the imprecise method of pigeonholing people in such a general fashion.
> I think they deserve a great recognition
Can't argue with that. All aspects of the arts deserve due recognition, be it talent, crew, writers, musos...etc.
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]
- ···
- ···