I love it when awards for art are given out with ethical intentions.

[massofmen]

https://nypost.com/2018/04/28/inside-broadways-cutthroat-campaigns-for-tony-nods/

Oh wait..the awards are all about money greed and excess capitalism. Everyone wants the award because it means money. More money for the actor/choreographer/set designer when they renegotiate their contract, more money for the show so they can say to ignorant tourists 'we got nominated for this so it means....something good! Please pay us' which in turn means more money for the producers and investors!

Sorry ..carry on. If anyone thinks the tony awards are about art I have a bridge to sell to you

[adamgreer]

This...isn’t new information. It’s been this way as long as there’s been awards, long before the internet and social media. That article doesn’t break any new ground, and I feel like a variation of it gets written every year.

[massofmen]

So then why do you think so many people care who wins? People on this board get truly upset when their favorite show or actor doesn't win and they think it actually has something to do with art? Like an actual artistic injustice happened because their show wasn't nominated. They aren't sad because of the economic ramifications (maybe a limited few are) but mainly because they believe that the award or nomination is somehow based fairly on made up merits of artistic expression.

You say it isn't new news, so do you actually think the tony awards should exist if we all know that they are mainly used and given, for basic exonimic purposes only? Why keep them other than this fact?

There is no need for them. Or the drama desks or the outer critic circle awards. They are all there for Economic gain, they have nothing to do with art...which I thought was what this industry pretended to be about. I think it's funny that this board, made up almost primarily of liberals who despise capitalism and the greed of it, love the tony awards which under the hidden veil of bs ethics, is the biggest proponent of capitalism in the industry.

Would anyone really care if they didn't exist anymore? Would anything happen to the industry? Probably not.

[TheGingerBreadMan]

massofmen said: "So then why do you think so many people care who wins? People on this board get truly upset when their favorite show or actor doesn't win and they think it actually has something to do with art? Like an actual artistic injustice happened because their show wasn't nominated. They aren't sad because of the economic ramifications (maybe a limited few are) but mainly because they believe that the award or nomination is somehow based fairly on made up merits of artistic expression.

You say it isn't new news, so do you actually think the tony awards should exist if we all know that they are mainly used and given, for basic exonimic purposes only? Why keep them other than this fact?

There is no need for them. Or the drama desks or the outer critic circle awards. They are all there for Economic gain, they have nothing to do with art...which I thought was what this industry pretended to be about. I think it's funny that this board, made up almost primarily of liberals who despise capitalism and the greed of it, love the tony awards which under the hidden veil of bs ethics, is the biggest proponent of capitalism in the industry.

Would anyone really care if they didn't exist anymore? Would anything happen to the industry? Probably not.

 

Yes, I do believe that the industry would be negatively impacted without the Tony Awards. As you said, the awards are used as a selling point and many tourists will be drawn to the show boasting that they won Best Musical/Best Revival etc. The abolition of the awards would lead to a decline in attendance and grosses. In addition, without major awards, there would be less incentive to create and therefore less original content produced. You said yourself that people are greedy and want the benefits that come with the awards... if they know that these benefits no longer exist, why would they keep working for them?

[After Eight]

Massofmen wrote:

"There is no need for them. Or the drama desks or the outer critic circle awards."

As you yourself have noted, there is a need. An economic need.

"They are all there for Economic gain, they have nothing to do with art...which I thought was what this industry pretended to be about."

Well, to a certain extent, they have something to do with art. To what extent, it's hard to gauge, because they're tainted by economic concerns, popularity concerns, agenda concerns, etc. The problem derives from the pretense that they're all about art, which they clearly are not.

Personally, I'm not fond of any of them. But the industry needs them, so there they are. As for ticket buyers often led astray by them, well unfortunately, where they are is up the creek without a paddle.

[bwayrose7]

massofmen said: "So then why do you think so many people care who wins? People on this board get truly upset when their favorite show or actor doesn't win and they think it actually has something to do with art? Like an actual artistic injustice happened because their show wasn't nominated. They aren't sad because of the economic ramifications (maybe a limited few are) but mainly because they believe that the award or nomination is somehow based fairly on made up merits of artistic expression.

You say it isn't new news, so do you actually think the tony awards should exist if we all know that they are mainly used and given, for basic exonimic purposes only? Why keep them other than this fact?

There is no need for them. Or the drama desks or the outer critic circle awards. They are all there for Economic gain, they have nothing to do with art...which I thought was what this industry pretended to be about. I think it's funny that this board, made up almost primarily of liberals who despise capitalism and the greed of it, love the tony awards which under the hidden veil of bs ethics, is the biggest proponent of capitalism in the industry.

Would anyone really care if they didn't exist anymore? Would anything happen to the industry? Probably not."

Economic gain is not inherently a bad thing. If the "name" or prestige of an award can keep a really good piece of art visible longer, then that's fine in my book. There's a nasty habit in popular culture of romanticizing the starving artist and implying that only works of art (and artists themselves) who don't make money are worthy from an aesthetic/ethical/creative standpoint. That's baloney, in my humble artist's opinion, and also seems to carry a very elitist connotation that the "common people" can't be trusted to discern true art. Sure, maybe people who spend more time around theatre are likelier to give non-brand-names a chance than tourists seeking a "sure thing" - but in that case, those awards are a great thing because they may attract those demographics to see something that's more artistically interesting or unique.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe that the Tonys, and other awards, are both financial and artistic in nature. It would hurt their credibility and dilute their prestige if they awarded winners based solely on commercial interests - but, as has been discussed every year on these boards, voters often do have financial interests in the winners too. I know a couple of Tony voters - the ones I know, at least, love theatre more than anyone I've ever met and balance their commercial interests with their passion for the art.

[After Eight]

Bwayrose7 wrote:

"Sure, maybe people who spend more time around theatre are likelier to give non-brand-names a chance than tourists seeking a "sure thing" - but in that case, those awards are a great thing because they may attract those demographics to see something that's more artistically interesting or unique."

 

But then what happens when "those demographics" end up loathing those more "artistically interesting" shows that those in the know have induced them to see? We all know which titles  fall in that category. Then that's not such a "great thing," is it? Well, maybe for the shows that pocketed their dough, but certainly not for the people who wasted their time and money.

 

[bwayrose7]

After Eight said: "Bwayrose7 wrote:

"Sure, maybe people who spend more time around theatre are likelier to give non-brand-names a chance than tourists seeking a "sure thing" - but in that case, those awards are a great thing because they may attract those demographics to see something that's more artistically interesting or unique."



But then what happens when "those demographics" end up loathing those more "artistically interesting" shows thatthose in the know have induced them to see? We all know whichtitles fall in that category. Then that's not such a "great thing," is it? Well, maybe for the shows that pocketed theirdough, but certainly not for the people who wasted their time and money.

No one is holding anyone at gunpoint and forcing them to see a show. It's each individual's choice whether to see a show or not and whose recommendations they take. Most mature, reasonable adults know whose opinions they do or do not trust and choose accordingly. 

One could make the opposite argument, by your logic. What happens to the demographics who are induced to see shows that are bright-and-shiny (or whatever it is that you like, honestly I don't know anymore) and end up loathing them and feel like they wasted their time and money? Would you just say they have terrible taste, seeing as those are the shows that are "good" by your standards?

And, no, we don't "all know" what shows fall in that category, that's all you.

[After Eight]

Bwayrose7 wrote: 


"What happens to the demographics who are induced to see shows that are bright-and-shiny (or whatever it is that you like, honestly I don't know anymore) and end up loathing them and feel like they wasted their time and money?"

Uh, there is nothing that will induce THOSE demographics to see shows that are bright-and-shiny. Not critics, not awards, not ANYTHING.

What's more, it'll be a cold day in hell when a bright-and-shiny show will win ANY award over some dismal dirgical/screed/affront of a show. All in the name of "art," right?

(I'd also like to know just how many "bright-and-shiny" new shows are being produced nowadays. If you know of any,  would you be so kind as to inform the rest of us?)



"And, no, we don't "all know" what shows fall in that category, that's all you."

Oh, yes we do. 

[Dancingthrulife2]

I think the more concerning thing is that only 60% of the voters see all nominated shows and that's only for good years.

[dramamama611]

Isn't it really more that the nominees/winners cash in on the distinctions more than the awards being given to cause a financial gain?

What would the point of awarding Hamilton be....it was crushing it at the box office for nearly a year before awards?

[After Eight]

Dancingthrulife2 wrote:

 

"I think the more concerning thing is that only 60% of the voters see all nominated shows and that's only for good years."

 

Yeah, isn't that rich?

So nice to know that those who confer awards, fame and fortune have such passion for the art.