Britain clamps down on fringe and profit share theatre.

Well I agree, the simplest way to come to an agreement on the two terms is to leave any value judgements of 'quality' out of the equation, as they are more often than not a matter of taste; it then becomes terribly simple to divide professional and amateur by means of their simple definition: Professionals get paid a professional rate. Amateurs do it for the love of it. But of course, even then the line can get blurry. An amateur might actually be paid something. If the amount really doesn't compare to what a professional rate should be (at bare minimum above the National minimum wage, and technically at the minimum rate specified by the industry Award standard), then they should still really be considered amateur until they break over that line...they are doing it 'more out of love than for money'. That's not to say that professionals don't also do what they do because they love it! In fact I'm pretty sure if the professional DIDN'T love what they do, they'd soon leave to find other work, because the rewards for effort, in the main, simply don't compare to other professions. So are they doing it 'more for money'...? And you haven't put the question into any time context. If someone is an amateur performer, and then does a single show that pays professionally, and then goes back to being an amateur performer, what is their status? I know of some who would claim to have entered into the ranks of professionals, although their track record would imply otherwise. There are also professionals who work as constantly as possible (I know one extremely well!) who nevertheless find themselves with gaps in their professional schedule, and due to their love of the craft, fill them by participating in amateur shows. Are they considered an amateur just for that month, or is that as ridiculous as ignoring the track record of the amateur in the above example? But is there conceivably a time when someone considered professional, in all senses of the word, loses that status? How do we judge when that has happened? Can they win it back? Are you only defined by your last gig? Is amateur/professional something that ought to be constantly reviewed? In my own case, I consider myself to BE a professional, although I am known to DO amateur or volunteer work. So now we've split the two into four...depending on whether we are defining the terms 'amateur' and 'professional' by the nature of the work itself, or by the nature of the worker. So that partly solves an amateur doing professional work and vice versa, although it probably confuses things at the same time! I justify calling myself a professional not simply because I am more often paid than not, but because when I commit to paid projects, I commit to a full working week which excludes me from taking on any other full time work (moonlighting notwithstanding). It therefore cannot be anything BUT my profession, and this is reflected in my tax returns. An amateur would no doubt have another primary income source, and participating in theatre would be akin to moonlighting, or a serious sideline hobby. But then I know of performers who act professionally, exclusively (i.e. when they act, they always get paid proper rates; they never do unpaid or amateur work). Yet they earn the majority of their income from something not at all arts related. They have remained in the industry long enough to be recognised as a professional performer, and when they enter into a contract, they commit to it as a full time job - but at the end of the year have spent more time at their other occupation. Does this contradict the final sentence of my previous paragraph? And there are some (sometimes controversial) cases where a production seems divided...some are paid full rates, while others 'volunteer'. There are honourable cases, where the production was essentially amateur but hired some professionals to provide skills, experience and mentoring to the rest. I have participated in projects like this, notably in universities or schools, but also in regional community theatres, where the visiting professional is paid as they should be (not necessarily to be a lead role), while the others participate as part of their learning process. I have heard of other cases however, which seem not dissimilar in structure, where only certain individuals get paid while the rest are considered 'volunteers'. The controversy occurred because to the general public these shows were presented as professional, with professional ticket prices. Yet the producer was able to make profits because the bulk of the cast and chorus weren't being paid, and felt exploited. So now we have yet another layer of meaning - the professionalism or amateur standing as applied to the integrity of the company or producer - as well as those terms applied to the individual production, and to the individual performer. Confusing, yes? Lollipop said that "professional productions may have the sort of budget which should...enable them to meet a higher standard". Yet a conundrum arises in the case of some well-supported amateur groups who find that from their success at earning or raising funds they can have quite lavish budgets and plenty of time to create quite stunning sets and costumes, and to afford to hire the best theatre venues...because they are not required to pay their volunteer labour. Professional companies, on the other hand, can find themselves forced to utilise minimal effects in second rate venues, with smaller casts...because of the overheads of paying professional rates to everyone throughout the rehearsal and performance periods. You can't judge standard by a budget...some have more money than sense, and some can astound you with their frugal innovation. It simply stresses what we said at the start - quality should not be considered part of the equation. Have I reached a conclusion? Perhaps only that it's more complicated than it seems! But I do hold the opinion that truly professional work must meet a certain level of criteria, which necessitates a level of elitism. This therefore defines the greater majority of work into the 'amateur' camp. I think there are groups who would have denied they were amateur, but really do not fall out of that basket. But remember, I am totally ignoring any discussion of artistic quality, so there is really no shame in accepting this amateur status. It's where the majority of work lies...and a lot of outstanding work too! Cheers, Craig ~<8>-/====\---------