 | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | topic: “Péter Halasz’s living theater” by László Najmányi
| mehlma | | In the article on your website dated 05.11.2006, “Péter Halasz’s living theater” by László Najmányi, there were misleading and erroneous statements regarding the history of Squat Theater and Péter Halász in America. I worked intimately and on a daily basis with Squat Theatre from December of 1977 through all of the company’s productions Pig, Child, Fire!, Andy Warhol’s Last Love, The Three Sisters and Mr. Dead and Mrs. Free” in New York and on tour in Europe. In addition, I worked with Peter Halász on and off from the time he left the main group in 1984. Principally I was responsible for supervising the production of The Chinese staged in Central Park in 1987 and was the producer of and performer in Ambition (Önbizalom) which premiered at LaMama Theatre in October of 1987 in New York.
Just prior to my work with Squat Theater I was the Administrative Director of New York City’s Department of Cultural Affairs and at the time I met Squat I was the Vice President and Associate Director of the Cultural Assistance Center, a small but high-powered private foundation.
The most serious misstatement, in Najmányi’s article, is the degree and extent to which Squat Theater, for the productions mentioned above, or Peter was supported by any governmental or private foundation. The Squat Theater Company received a total of $5,200 from Governmental and private sources from the time they arrived in June of 1977 through their 1982/1983 season. The first grant was given in 1979 by the New York State Council on the Arts for $1,200 for the entire year while, at the time, their monthly rent was $1,500. The other grants they received were $1,000 from the City of New York, $2,000 from the National Endowment for the Arts, $1,000 from the Reader’s Digest foundation and in 1982 the company had to give back their $1,500 grant (for the year) to the State of New York because they did not produce a new play! They did however receive two television monitors for the production of their play Mr. Dead and Mrs. Free in 1980 from the New York State Council on the Arts.
Both Squat and Peter were able to survive, as was the case for most serious non-traditional and critically successful performing artists, through the magnanimity of individuals and organizations who donated equipment, services, help and rarely some money. However, both Squat and Peter sustained themselves mostly through whatever outside work they could get. This meant working as house painter, mover, plumber, electrician, housecleaning, paste-up artist, typist and you name it. This was also true of their American colleagues.
Squat Theater and Peter did derive a very meager income from their audience when there was one. Squat benefited from their international reputation by getting financial support for some of their work from European presenters. However, the largest source of income for Squat was from touring in Europe but the sad truth was that the indebtedness back in New York was always, at least, double whatever was earned.
The situation at Squat’s theater and home was nothing short of catastrophic for most of the time with periods during winter when there was no heat or hot water and too many times to count the evening meal consisted of “hig a leve” thin broth and bread! This is both in spite of and in the face of Squat Theater’s international critical and popular successes!
All of what I have said so far desperately begs the question why did not Squat Theater get more public and private support? Squat Theater did not receive significant funding and support from either the public or private sectors because their work was too provocative, truly avant-garde and therefore ‘suspect’! Squat was a source of embarrassment and scandal for anyone who became a part of or supported this theater in America. The company faced many hardships and impasses with funding sources and governmental authorities because of their work. The theater came very close to being closed down because of one of their pieces and I myself was fired from my position as Associate Director at the Cultural Assistance Center because of my involvement with Squat.
My being dismissed from my position at this foundation was one of many signposts that a liberal period in the United States was coming to a close. By the time Squat Theater arrived to America it was already much more difficult for alternative artists and arts groups to garner support than a few years previously. With each passing year the political atmosphere became more and more conservative.
In Peter’s case, after 1985, he had to start from scratch. He lacked both the necessary formal not-for-profit company and an artistic track record on his own. Without the necessary not-for-profit company from which to request support it was impossible for him to apply much less receive funds from any public or private foundation. Peter had to rely mostly on his immediate family and a small circle of close friends and colleagues for help.
Having lived in Hungary since the summer of 1988 I have no argument with Mr. Najmányi’s derision of the Hungarian system of funding for the arts. However, the United States is no sweet smelling rose either! Governmental support for the arts in the United States of America only began around 1964 and that is to say both nationally, individual states and locally. However, America has had the benefit of private foundation support for the arts for some time but like government support, the foundations provide funding for mostly mainstream arts projects and organizations.
One must fully understand that in democracies censorship may often take a more insidious form than in a dictatorship. Under a ‘democratic’ umbrella, financial and other forms of support are either denied or only given in token amounts. The bottom line is that censorship is censorship. I rather doubt that Squat Theatre would be permitted to perform in New York today!
The problems that beset, most especially alternative, American artists and arts groups are something that is neither well-known nor fully understood in Europe. I can remember well how visiting artists from Hungary were aghast to find that despite their meager Hungarian subsidies, they had more to work with than Squat or Peter did.
Hungary does not receive any more or less private support that just about any other European country. There is simply no tradition for private foundations as is the case in America where there is no tradition of public funding. But it does not matter which system you face tragically the rule of “politics” deals the cards.
Squat could never escape from their precarious financial situation. The strain this placed on everyone played a principle role in the dissolution of this company. However, it is to their enormous credit that despite this they were able, against all odds, to produce and put on the stage the kind and quality of work that they did. After the break-up of Squat each went his or her own way, however, they all continued to face the same difficulties and obstacles only without the support of a group.
Peter’s case was far more difficult as he continued in the theater with out any formal support. And it thus required truly enormous courage, stamina, hard work, tenacity and a true passion for the theater for Peter Halász to create and put his work before the public in the New York theater world.
One of the most important reasons the work of The Squat Theater and Peter was successful was because they brought to it the honest truths from their personal lives, experiences and perceptions and had the courage to put it before a public. Truth has played an endemic role in the success and failure of important artists and creative individuals over the course of human history. Strange when I attended Peter’s “living funeral” it was held at the Arts Hall and not the ‘Palace of Arts.’
Michael Alexander Mehlmann
June 14, 2006 Etyek, Hungary
|
| |
|
|
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
