Having recently graduated from the California Institute of the Arts, I was reflecting back and trying to understand how it was I had gone to an art school that had promised me one thing and then force fed me quite another. You see when something or someone claims to be a certain way but in fact is not, it's called a "sham" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sham). The CalArts Theater School has, sadly, become a sham.
Now, all institutions have their problems and can only ever be, at best, institutions. However, CalArts is a special and commendable place in my book. I feel blessed to have spent four years there and to have successfully graduated. Short of your standard food, housing, money or administrative problems CalArts is not in actuality that defunct of a school, especially for an art school - which are always notorious for their lack of administrativ transparency, responsibility and accountability. There's only so much chaos in the arts that can be controlled I suppose, even by institutions. But why do we have institutions in the first place? Seemingly to create places where standards can be set and met and students can be guaranteed a certain kind of experience so as to help them become a certain something. At CalArts this something is an artist, obviously. But you can't just have a school and say "well we're going to make avante garde art!" Standards, objectives, rules and goals must be set and must be open to changing as time progresses. This is why CalArts has a "Mission Statement" which reads,
"California Institute of the Arts educates artists in a learning environment founded on artmaking excellence, creative experimentation, critical reflection and the diversity of voices. To advance the exploration of new forms and expressions, CalArts urges collaboration and reciprocity among artists, artistic disciplines and cultural traditions--both on campus and in ongoing engagement with communities near and far."
This statement exists, under the "About CalArts" section of the CalArts website (www.calarts.edu), so that prospective students can get a better feeling for what the school is about, what it stands for and to remind the institute itself as well. However, the School of Theater would be wise to revisit this statement having seemingly forgotten it. I will say forgotten as I would rather not believe that it's intentional. I will now explain, in detail, how the Theater School, according to this criteria, has failed itself, the institute and the students.
I won't even touch the "artmaking excellence" point as that is clearly just buzz vocabulary to make the institute sound first class even though "artmaking excellence" would have to be one of the most subjective ideas I've ever heard. So let's just say, yes, the artmaking CAN BE excellent, and to some degree the Theater School strives for that, I think, maybe. Moving on.
"Creative Experimentation" No, not at all, and here's why. What is an experiment? It's not pointlessly going into the void and seeing what happens, hoping that fame, fortune and success result, as it has come to mean in the Theater School. Rather, an experiment is a planned investigation of something, a test with an unknown outcome that we long to know. An educated guess, a hypothesis if you will, is made based on the available information and an experiment is created to test the limits of that knowledge so as to further our specific understanding of whatever the subject may be. This is not what the Theater School does when they "experiment." Most directors, students, faculty and guests at CalArts are encouraged to create pieces that generate auditory and visual stimulations that shock or surprise the audience, to be racy or controversial or political. An emphasis is placed on how the audience will be affected and what they will think of the piece and what the final piece will be. Few of the processes actually involve honest exploration of text and space. Few are very interested in exploring the edges of the known within a space or within themselves and the Theater School encourages this cowardice. There are those directors who pass through the school and do not fall victim to this. There are those who are sincerely interested in the experiment and in uncovering new corners of reality and the human experience. But this attitude is not encouraged, sought after or embraced. Sadly, the Theater School still sits, stuck, with the industry in a spiral of panic - grasping for whatever tricks made money yesterday and trying to find a way to present them as novel forms, which they certainly are not, today.

"Critical Reflection" Excuse me while I take moment to laugh so hard that I piss myself. First of all, you can't critically discuss anything without an established criteria and as far as I can tell the Theater School doesn't have one. I mean there is the CalArts Mission Statement but I for one was never a part of a talk about or discussion where it was used as a criteria. Instead, members of the Theater School are encouraged to engage in baseless discourse about the art going on within the school. "Oh I liked it." "It was very good" "You did such a good job." This is not discoursive, it's subjective judgments of subjective experiences of subjective art. The only purpose for discourse at the school is so that students can grow, so that work can deepen and the things which make the work less accessible can be polished away. Unfortunately, the Theater School is far more interested in ego patting, resource gaining and cultural pandering. I generally tried to avoid the "did you like my show?" rush after productions and generally tend to not listen to peoples opinions of my own work. This isn't to say I don't appreciate and value criticism. Constructive, artistic criticism is essential to the arts and artists as far as I am concerned. Frankly, I don't give a shit if you liked my work - maybe I didn't want you to like it, maybe it wasn't supposed to make you feel good or comfortable, maybe THAT was the point of the piece. As a fellow artist I would love to hear your response to what I was trying to do with the piece and where that happened for you and where it didn't, et cetera. But if I don't even tell you what I was trying to do with the piece how could you be expected to respond with any kind of valuable critique? This is the problem within the Theater School - they don't know what they're doing, literally. I don't mean this as a competency criticism - though that argument could be made as well - rather I mean that if you asked anyone in the administration what the school is attempting to do I am sure there would not be a ready, cohesive answer. I know this because I've done it and it became a four year conversation wherein I was never given a solid "answer." It changes, understandably, but perhaps it wouldn't need to change every month if it was somehow, solidified in any way, shape or form. But don't expect that to ever happen until the administration is once again held accountable for their actions and decisions which won't happen until true transparency is returned to the Theater School office. And that won't happen until students begin taking charge of their academic futures, stop bending over for authority and reject being bought off through unfair opportunity granting.
"Diversity of Voices" This is a tricky one. Sadly, CalArts suffers from the American cultural phenomenon which results in thinking of "diversity" as an issue of race. Because, truly, that will help us overcome racism (sarcasm). Anyways. If racial diversity was meant by this I think we can say fine, nice job TS - you have students from every race, color, creed and religion - well not every but quite a commendable mix, certainly enough to reflect that students aren't being rejected based on race and that is, of course, a great thing. But it does say "Diversity of Voices" so I will address that. At my time in the Theater School I knew rich kids, poor kids, atheists, christians, jews, hindis, agnostics, buddhists, capitalists, trust fund babies, socialists, libertarians, dems, repubs, commies, pot-heads, drunks, straight-laces, intellectuals, rockers, pets, pet lovers, rollers, politicians, trippers, squares, hippies, hipsters, punks, goths, nerds, long hairds, short hairds, the shaven, the unshaven, the shoe less, the many shoed and so on and so forth. CalArts in general is blessed with a variety of perspectives. Sadly, this is changing and the reason is clear. As tuition rises, less kids are able to afford to attend the school which puts a great limit to the "diversity of voices." The rich will always be able to attend CalArts, and the very poorest will, hopefully, be granted scholarships - however, everyone in between will be lost. I'm not trying to rail against the rich or the poor here but it is important to realize the limiting of perspective that comes when students who are accepted to the school because of the artist they are cannot come because of the cost of tuition. Now, this is a CalArts problem, the Theater School is not solely responsible for driving up tuition. But if this was truly a pillar of your program and a real concern then why not cut costs? I know we love our huge productions but maybe reduce the budgets just slightly? Or maybe go shopping for cheaper equipment? I'm sure we're over paying for sound equipment we rent from a certain Head of the Sound Department...Start there. You could also stop paying multiple, expensive guest artists to come abuse our students in workshops and shows like Blu and Silver Circus to name only two instances where the students were treated less than humanly by a guest artist and yet the artist received their full paycheck and the students told to suck it up. I mean, you could always get Lew Palter or Craig Belknap to direct a show instead, as they've been applying and getting rejected for a mainstage productions for at least the last 5 years. And hey, you already pay them! Or maybe replace just one of those guest director spots with, I don't know another directing student? I know it's hard as there are usually a wopping three of them...Point is if you give a damn about the "Diversity of Voices" then you need to cut some costs and make the school affordable for a diversity of economic classes, to start.
These are the principles on which the "learning environment" of the Institute is "founded." The remaining section of the statement is strange to me. Initially I say, yes, these are all positive things which, to some degree, the Theater School attempts to do. Inter disciplinary projects are of course always an issue, nearly impossible to get done without administrative assistance and that is in short supply, particularly if you aren't a favorite student. New forms will inevitably emerge anywhere, whether you help them or not and indeed the Theater School does reach out to other communities in So Cal - though one might wonder why they aren't more active in their own communities - i.e. the Institute or Valencia. Instead we reach out to France, New Zealand, Scotland, Rwanda, and Los Angeles - I would charge this is because those places gain the school more renowned, money and business partnerships than reaching out to Valencia or the other Schools of CalArts would (with the exception of the wealthy Music School with whom we are best friends and constant collaborators).
I loved my experience at CalArts and I truly believe in the principles behind the Institute and hope to see it grow and expand in the future. However, as Edward Abbey said, "growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell." If the Theater School hopes to survive it would be wise to align itself with the rest of the Institute and attempt to adhere to the Mission Statement set forth - or change it! But to retain the current statement and continue to operate the way the Theater School does is the equivalent of lying to incoming students. No, not the equivalent, it is lying. For those of you still at CalArts, especially in the Theater School, I challenge you to demand that the administration begin using a consistent criteria for what it is doing so that you may all freely, openly, fairly and accurately not only critique the artistic work but the school itself. Such a well founded and open discourse would encourage transparency and accountability in the administration of the Theater School and I guarantee you that the level of discourse would quickly rise as would the quality of the experiments and the training. One thing will always remain true of CalArts - it is yours to make and if you choose to lie down in complacency then you should expect nothing from the school at all. They will take your money, give you your paper and send you on your way. If you want a real education, the one you paid for, stand up and demand it. If they don't listen, if they don't hear - get louder and louder until you shake the foundations of the institute. For $40k a year you have the right to demand that CalArts be what it promised. It's your money, it's your education, it's your life. In the words of the mighty Gong, "Now you see the light, stand up for your rights!"