The Blog

Great idea. What we need is a rich person who wants immortality by having his/her name plastered on it. (I have no idea who Vivian Beaumont is, though I believe I once met Mitzi Newhouse.) It seems to me that this is something rich people frequently like to do. So, who is rich and goes to the theatre and actually has taste?

Wonderful idea. I don't think many know how innovative and influential Chicago has been in the arts and in popular culture generally, and a museum could highlight that. What a plus that would be in presenting the City as a sophisticated candidate for the Olympics... perhaps support could come from that source?

The problem isn't just money, Mr. Sweet -- it's territorial politics. The library guards its assets jealously and might be reluctant to partner with the Department of Cultural Affairs on such a project unless someone with real political will and power (the mayor?) pushes for it.

There are a number of people who are vitally interested in the health and welfare of Chicago theater (with minimal territoriality)among the Jeff Committee members. One among them, Jeff Marks, has the wherewithal to make something happen. Just add money!

Wonderful idea. I wonder if there might be space in a newly revitalized Fine Arts Building.

This is a great idea, and what a wonderful suggestion the Fine Arts Building is!

The story of Chicago's performing arts--I mean the homegrown kind--is itself dramatic. Except for finite flowerings like Maurice Browne's Little Theatre at the Fine Arts Building, which nevertheless spurred a national movement, or what we did here in the Thirties thanks to the Works Progress Administration, for over a century what Chicagoans saw by way of theater, dance and music was imported. I know more about the theater evolution, but it seems clear that the city's dance and the orchestra made the greater, the earlier strides, and so did the opera. Made-in-Chicago theatre became conceivable as a permanent, ongoing thing because of Paul Sills and others in the fifties, Bob Sickinger in the sixties and the Lincoln Avenue phenomenon early in the seventies--the glory that was "Grease," the grandeur that was "Warp!", etc. We freed ourselves from being mainly a whistle stop for Broadway trains, and one day we may even put the Second City Complex to utter rest (see, I'm still not sure we have). Meanwhile performing arts being what they are vanish with the moment, unlike the Pieta or a Calder or a Matisse. A museum cannot house performances as originals but as photos, videos and audios. That's the closest we can get to recapturing the real things, but having imagined such a place try then to imagine it suddenly being yanked away from us. That of course is where we are now.

One of the main problems with Chicago theater is the lack of historical perspective new generations of artists bring to it. The kids just out of college who are starting their own theater companies now have little understanding of -- as Gary Houston says -- "the glory that was 'Grease,' the grandeur that was 'Warp!'" and so on. (Lots of young people only know "Grease" from the movie, and have no idea that it started in Chicago, with Mr. Houston in the cast.) While youthful new perspectives are necessary and inevitable, a Chicago theater museum -- with files of reviews and articles from newspapers and magazines as well as videos, photos, posters, etc. --would encourage young artists to learn about the history that brought us to where we are now.

Albert Williams should change the name of his proposed project to "Chicago Library and Museum of the Performing Arts." Museums intimidate people. Libraries are user-friendly. It's a shame those videos of classic Chicago theater performances are on video -- they should be transferred to DVD so people can check them out.

I'm one of those people who's been around since before the before. (We lost our teacher/director Paul Sills last Monday, a difficult one for all of us to deal with and a loss to probably everyone reading this.) We started with Playwrights Theatre Club in 1953 after working together at the University of Chicago, then The Compass, then Second City, which will be 50 a year from December. So much for my historical credentials for now. I think Bill Williams's idea is a necessary idea, not just a good one. And I'll bet the money will be fairly easy to get from people who want their names on buildings and rooms and chairs, provided the politics is in line. That's a big "provided," and Mayor Daley and Mrs. Daley might be where to start. I'm sure the Department of Cultural Affairs and the Library would be more interested in working on the idea if they knew the City was behind it. The Fine Arts Building is an excellent idea, and the gradual restoration that's going on of its two beautiful old theaters, The Studebaker and The Playhouse, is an exciting prospect. The problem is that it rather defeats the probably correct idea of having it in the north loop theater district. I don't think we should be using this space to talk about what could or shoud be in the Library/Museum. I could go on a lot longer about that, as I'm sure could you, dear reader. I think this space needs to be about how to make it happen. And about how to get it to the powers that be, since they're not likely to be dear readers of this blog.

First, instead of trying to take the current tiny collection away from the library, start with petitioning the City to expand the current room to a more substantial size and depth. Work with the folks at Harold Washington. Second, once the collection has had a few bucks thrown into it from the library's budget (tapes to DVDs, archived show posters collection expanded, perhaps some "in the can" interviews and library-sponsored documentaries, both audio and video), begin to spend time and energy getting people to go and use it. If only seven people in a year bother to show up and check it out, there really isn't any rationale for the City to throw in support for a move to a larger location is there? Theaters could contribute to the collection and then throw in a blurb about the collection in their programs or add it to their curtain speeches ("Word of mouth is our best form of advertising...and it has been that way in Chicago for over a century. Check out our rich theatrical history at...") Third, scout out and find at least three viable locations to house a larger museum (personally, I'd love to see a venue that has performance opportunity built into the physical plant as well as archival materials) and begin to expand the collection so that, by the time a substantive proposal goes to the City for a stand alone museum, there is actually a need for it rather than just the desire. My guess is that by the time all of this is in place, Sheldon is right on the money, there will be some wealthy donors lining up to get their name on the door.

It never occurred to me before I read Bill's article that there was such a gaping hole in our cultural landscape. After reading it, however, you can't help but slap yourself on the forehead and say "Well, of COURSE there should be a museum dedicated to the arts in Chicago! Why hasn't anyone thought of this before?" From the early days of the large, downtown venues (where vaudeville performers would make Chicago legendary stop) through the Compass Players, Second City, the Goodman, Steppenwolf, all the way up through the present day, Chicago has stood athwart theatre history in this country and continues to be a leading creative light. David Mamet, John Logan, Neil LaBute, Tracy Letts...we enjoy a long and fruitful literary legacy as well. The question is: who can make it happen? Who's got the vision (and the pocketbook) to make it a reality?

It's so odd to me that this was just posted, because I was just thinking about this very idea a few days ago. Populating the collection wouldn't be difficult at all, and someone like Steve Scott would be a great curator. The difficulty is finding the money for a building, but there is plenty of philanthropy in this wonderful town, and this would be an ideal fit for corperate sponsorship. The idea popped into my head the other day that if anyone over at the Athenaeum could pull their heads out of their behinds, It could be THE Chicago theater an dance center, complete with three, soon to be four small studio theaters and a 1000 seat mainstage that has long been a home to dance companies. The building needs some work, but as a whole, the skeleton and nuts and bolts are there. Along with some BEAUTIFUL old theater equipment that just sits collecting dust that could have a home in a performing arts museum that would live on the south end of the first and second floors. What a great place that could be for small off loop companies to rent studios, and larger tours and of course the Jeff Awards on the Mainstage. If you could persuade St. Alphonsus to give up the gym in the basement, that could turn into a 200-300 seat "open run" sort of venue like the Apollo or Mercury. The mainstage is great because the main floor seats under 500, so it can still feel full with a smaller house, it really just needs some cosmetic work in the house, and some electrical and a new floor on stage. There is currently no real other viable venue in town for one night or one or two week events on that midsize scale. I would also demolish the office/box office area and expand the reception area to be a good size theater themed bar and restaurant. Anyways....enough about the Athenaeum, if people are serious about the idea of getting a performing arts museum together, and it sounds to me like they are, i'd be interested in putting together a meeting of the minds of sorts. Feel free to email me at jason@eppersontheatrical.com if you are interested or have ideas.

Yes, this is long overdue, though considering the trouble Bruce DuMont is having reopening the Museum of Broadcast Communications, it's easy to get discouraged about a Chicago Theater museum's prospects. If it did come to fruition, I predict the deluge of archival material from theaters, actors, audience members and even generous passers-by would be astounding. I hereby pledge my mementos from MOON UNDER MIAMI, which Richard Christiansen himself once called "the biggest train wreck in Chicago theater history".

TAKE IT TO THE PEOPLE! Gary asked me to join in the talk here--as a cultural artist and arts activist-and member of a theater fam. The comments from you all about immortalizing our theater history sounds great! As you may know my clan's contributed to theater/arts for over 100 years here (including, but not limited to, a great aunt at the Dill Pickle Club downtown, my father, the late James' contributions to Court, Body Politic and Off Loop Theater, to sister Cecilie at Columbia and dialect coach to Steppenwolf and others, and brother Beau at Curious and SAIC, to mother Winifred director of Primus at the Cultural Center's Senior Theater, to my own contributions to Victory Gardens and Curious Theater Branch) But I've been working as a concert singer/producer in the broader area of cultural arts--and here's what I've noticed...It is true that territorial politics go into MANY decisions in the Arts here, and I find people will often tell me they have something covered. I’d suggest working with DCA and the Library—but insist performing artists to be involved in the decision-making. It’s a point well taken that the younger crop DOESN’T know from whence story theater, off loop, or fringe theater, for that matter, came. I also know the value of public buildings to get people up and out. (Tony Fitzpatrick’s exhibit at the Cultural Center is an example of Chicago’s history of neighborhoods and working class—and is rendered so poignantly, and well it is world class, in my opinion.) People get cut off, and they tell me this. They finish school, or finish their forties, and if they're not doing a show--or teaching—or going to the gym, they are by THEMSELVES, with the Internet or their TVs. As for a museum building, it seems to me that “our tax dollars” argument is waiting to be made—(I for one would like to see mine go to something OTHER than the Olympics). I think the Loop gets overly represented and there are SO many great spots where people create here. Modest places, lovely places. Lots of us who work independently—we go from place to place, and bring our work with us to the folks—to the neighborhoods. I record CDs. I host salons; I make up small portable shows that move around. Low overhead—wider visibility, that’s my two cents. Bringing it to the folks is a grassroots Chicago tradition. Can a museum/library (and I like a library idea) be a movable feast? Can artists bring an archive/museum TO the folks—like the old book mobile model? Can the Harold Washington Library house the performing arts collection (plus I vote adding materials for we hyphenators,) in its smaller space, but develop a means to send it around? As for funders, sponsors can take turns, maybe be local businesses, and locales where a mobile museum can include kids in summer camps and seniors in retirement complexes in winter, or be parked –and spruced up at a theater or arts organizations’ yearly gala/fundraiser? One more thing. I have enjoyed Chicago Artist resource--an online asset, managed by DCA. ! (I wrote an article on pricing yourself) They, under the guidance of Barb Koenen have just launched a performing arts aspect to this valuable resource. It seems that making the Resource a co-sponsor of the museum—with an archival database, in collaboration with the live interactive one, is something to consider. So, yeah, count me in. It’d make the late Fred Fine, Chicago’s first Cultural Affairs Commissioner proud and the forgotten ones feel like their lives contribute to our great legacy!

Mr. Wiliams's proposal for a Chicago musuem and library for the performing arts is excellent! Expanding the Chicago Public Library's archive collection into a larger one with more public access would be invaluable both to artists and the general public. My "boss" the late founder of Theatre Building Chicago, Byron Schaffer used to say that Chicago had no "institutional memory" about the lively arts -- well, this new idea would go a long way toward filling that memory gap. Forgive me -- while I've lived in Chicago quite a while now -- I grew up in New York City and have wonderful memories of studying, writing, researching, reading and just generally browsing in the collections at the Donnell branch (alas closing soon) and the Lincoln Center branch -- both with extensive arts collections. Now that I'm definitely a Chicagoan, I'd definitely vote early and often for a similar home away from home in Chicago.

Bill, Count me in on providing whatever contacts I can to include the strong history of Black Theater in Chicago on this project. Chuck Smith Resident Director Goodman Theatre

Gary Houston suggested that I read the comments in this blog, pass this information on to others, and perhaps add some comments myself. I have read all of the comments, but I am not quite sure who to pass these comments on to since I am not sure what the geographical "boundaries" for this museum (or whatever name it will be called if it is created) are. For example, do all performances, theater and otherwise, have to be performed exactly within the city of Chicago? I have sung in the North Shore Choral Society for the last 11 years, but the rehearsals have all taken place in Evanston, Skokie, and in a few rare instances, Ravinia. As far as I know, the closest we have come to performing near the Chicago/ Evanston border would be at St. Luke's Church in Evanston and Pick Staiger Auditorium at the Evanston Campus at Northwestern University. On the other hand, there are roughly 150 members of the North Shore Choral Society, and some of these people may have some connections to people with money who may be willing to part with it. However, if I contact the President of the Board or another Board member about what sounds like a wonderful "start-up" project, I imagine that the North Shore Choral Society would want a "piece of the pie" so to speak. If anyone out there has any idea as to whether Evanston and the suburbs can be included in this endeavor, please let me know. I have given poetry and/or fiction readings at Women and Children First Bookstore and the Chicago Cultural Center. I think that Women and Children First Bookstore would be a great contact for this kind of thing since people who have given public readings include famous people like Sara Paretsky and not famous people such as myself. Then, too, I do not know if this particular art form qualifies for your project. I have roughly 90 people in my email address book. Add to that the 120-150 people I might be able to reach at the North Shore Choral Society, and the "ripple effect" of reaching enough people could produce some results, however small, as I have seen this kind of thing happen in the past. Also, I have a picture of the co-editors of Black Maria Magazine, a Chicago-based magazine that unfortunately folded several years ago. We did some readings/performances several years ago (the 1970's and the early 1980's). My best recollection of the magazine is that it had writers in it that were both at least somewhat well-known and others that were not. But the important thing is that while the magazine was in existence, it was a damn good small Chicago literary magazine with quality writing and photos! (I am totally impartial--ha,ha!) Black Maria is the name of the paddywagon that the suffragettes were hauled off in way back when which adds a nice historical context to the magazine. Also, many of the writers published in the magazine lived in Chicago at that time, and some of the settings of the poetry and fiction were Chicago-based. The magazine did well when it existed, and lasted over 10 years which is no small achievement for a small literary magazine. I don't want to write a dissertaion here, so I will conclude, stating that once I have a better sense of geographical boundaries and the various genres of art to be represented in this "museum," I would be happy to contact people. In any case, I wish you all of you the best in what sounds like a much-needed project, and I hope that the finances, talent, and what I know will be hard work will follow.

Bill, I also agree that such a place is needed and should happen. It seems like the place to start is to form some kind of presenting committee, meet with DCA, and see what happens from there. Daley has been a long time supporter of the arts and I think would listen with an open ear. I also agree that once some things are in place the money folks will be generous.

If not in Chicago, where! The only thing 2nd city about Chicago should be the improv company. Much of the world thinks of Chicago as the most truly American city. We have to earn that distinction every way we can. This performing arts museum is a right step in that direction.

I join my colleagues in praising the richness of Chicago’s theatre and performing arts heritage; but to address the question, “Why not a Chicago Performing Arts Museum?”, I’d say because, frankly, they’re a little boring. “Look, there’s a mannequin in a costume.”, “And there’s a drawing of a costume.”, “And, oh boy, there’s an old program.” “Whoopee.” It is the very nature of the temporal arts to resist the fossilization of museums. The Theatre Museum here in London was not very well attended and has now closed, and apparently facilities in New York are suffering the same fate. One of Chicago’s unique strengths has been its tradition of improvisation. To put that in a glass case would seem especially perverse. Even video is a pale and misrepresentative reduction of what is being catalogued – doing more to diminish the art form in the eyes of the general public than to commemorate it. Let’s have an adequate research facility, by all means, but a museum? May your Sunday afternoons never get that dreary. I hope my comments will stimulate lots of outraged and indignant rebuttal, because that’s what’s going to be needed to prompt any action on the matter.

Colin's points are very valid--which is why if there is a museum, the smart thing to do would be to emphasize the videos and film clips--and have as many live performances as possible. Which is why Jason's idea of integrating a museum with a building like the Athenaeum is a great idea, even if I'm afraid the current Athenaeum management would be cold on it. (For you kids, Colin was one of the Mamet stock company who did his plays back when Mamet was actually living here, along with Joe Mantegna, Dennis Franz, Jack Wallace, Billy Macy and their girl friends.)

Colin, i do dissagree. What about Picasso's costumes for the Joffry's Parade, some of Michael Merrit's drawings and models, the original manuscript to American Buffalo, artifacts from Chicago's famous Babalon and Katz, and Adler and Sullivan theaters. Of course the term "museum" is boring for a live artform, so absolutely, a performance center should be attached, perhaps a home for a showcase of plays, the best of the best, like Theatre on the Lake but bigger. A children's series, and classes, and lectures, perhaps a home to the Jeff Awards, and the Michael Merritt Awards. I'm sure the dance community will have a lot to bring to the table too, especially since there's a shortage of mid-size dance theaters in Chicago. perhaps a home to the Illinois High School and College theater festivals? If we try to make this be just an archive, yes, it will be boring. You could say the same thing about paintings on walls, it's all about how they are presented, the support that goes into education, stewardship of record to facilitate research and development, and the capacity to inform and inspire.

What a brilliant idea. Chicago is perfect for such a venture. What a tourist attraction it would be. What an educational institution it would be and what an inspirational center it could be. Joe Mantegna should chair the effort! Of course, the museum would have to have the support of the Mayor. The only downside to that -- do we want another intrusion in Grant Park?

Surely the idea for an encompassing performing arts collection is worth considering. It could provide a primary source history which would elucidate and objectify the various histories and memoirs that tend to have personal bias and cherry pick facts and events. I agree with Colin that a museum is a place of the past, and theatre museums have difficulty in attracting visitors. The performing arts are the here and now, and that's their virtue. That said, "Be careful what you wish for." Your comments about finding a donor who wants a name on a building (or collection) reminds me of a conversation with an extremely influential donor who had been an avid supporter of theatre in Chicago for years, and who was switching to the visual arts..."because then you really have something"...(to hang on a wall? show to others?) Once the "place" is in place, you have to find money to operate it. This means that funds which may be now going directly to performing groups could be channeled to this new endeavor. Personally, I would always rather have money going directly to artists and their work. Knowing full well the effects of how raising money for the whole creates animosities, (expressed or not), it would be imperative to have this collection become the project of an existing objective entity which has the expertise to carry it through. A lot of work. A lot of decisions/discussions. However, Chicago's 'can do' attitude could make it happen.

I'm afraid Ruth Higgins has a point about funding. There are a lot of philanthropic efforts competing for the money in Chicago's deep pockets. But I certainly would love to be involved if this happens. (I have many years of experience in design of exhibits and exhibit-related graphics: see HannahJennings.com)

In the wake of the Tony Awards with heaps of plaudits for Tracy Letts and August:Osage and a bevy Steppenwolf artists -- as well as regional award nods for Chicago Shakespeare and Victory Gardens...does it not seem ridiculous that we don't have our own Performing Arts Museum and still rely on benediction from New York? Sheesh. (Note to Mayor Daley: Richie, Baby. Love the posies on L.S.D. Still, if I was on the Olympic Games selection committee, I'd want the games in a city that had a Performing Arts Museum. Wink, wink...nod, nod.)

I'm a little late to this party (and to give kudos to the Reader for creating this blog as a fantastic supplement to their in-paper coverage) - but I wanted to note that there is already work afoot to create a record of the artistic life of our theatre community. Nick Keenan and I have been working over the last few months on the Chicago Theater Database - a sort of IMDB for Chicago theatre - which we hope will not only be an important resource for planning and organizing the events of this and future seasons, but will, over time and with the help of the community, reflect the rich history of our scene as well. The benefit of this project is that it's relatively cheap (compared to a brick and mortar building) and it's something folks can contribute to right now. We've already got some very strong support from individuals and companies, as well as PerformInk and the League - and the more the merrier. What we need right now is information! You can read more about the project at here or here.

Links- http://i-homunculus.blogspot.com/ http://nikku.net/blog/

I have long thought that Chicago should have its own Museum of Comedy Arts, but a Museum of Performing Arts would be even beter--as long as there is an obscenely large wing devoted to comedy and improvisation. Chaplin once worked here, the Marx Brothers once lived here, Chicago is the birthplace of improvisation, and the list of Chicago comedians and improvisers is way too long to even attempt. But if Chicago doesn't brand itself as the pre-eminent American city for Comedy Arts, someplace else--far less deserving--will...

The idea of an online Chicago theater database is great, but it doesn't do the service a real performing arts museum/archive would. The museum proposed by Mr. Williams would be a downtown space for exhibits and archives relating to Chicago theater, dance, comedy, etc. -- something tourists and locals alike could enjoy and utilize, as well as a venue for live performances and programming. The website Mr. Granata proposes seems pretty much aimed at serving those who are already invested in the theater community, not the city at large. Bottom line: theater is live, not virtual.

The early responses to Bill’s call for a museum indicate the challenges that must be met The obviousness of the idea – acknowledged by several writers – will be, paradoxically, an obstacle to realizing it. Behind the obviousness lie dozens of visions of what a “museum” is, should, or could be. As theater lovers let’s take cues from our own experience. We know that set designers can realize a stage direction – for example: “Place: an apartment in Chicago. Time: Night. The Present” – in dozens of different ways depending on the playwright’s and director’s visions, the budget, the space, the time available, etc. And we know as well that disagreements about how the most obvious tasks should be accomplished can sabotage collaboration among even the most passionate and skilled creators. And we know that there is only one way out of this paradox: There must be a vision upon which a dedicated group of creators agree. Once that vision is agreed to, a – one – director must lead the group, finding solutions to every category of problem, from the metaphysical to the practical, in keeping with that vision and by a process that may often lack the hallmarks of pure democracy. Yet, the rest of the group must have confidence in that leader – because once the project begins, someone must make a dozens of decisions between the scheduled board meetings. Somebody must have the power to say “No” and “Yes.” Theoretically, allowing one person the power to decide shouldn’t be a problem for theater people who are accustomed to non-democratic processes such as “auditioning”, “memorizing”, “taking direction,” “arriving for work a half hour before curtain” and “pleasing the audience.” Realistically, allowing someone to lead will be the biggest obstacle. However, with the right leader, many other obstacles will dissolve: vision, mission, location, size, financing. That last item – financing – won’t happen until the first four have been described in some detail. Movie producers (bless their hearts!) may be willing to advance millions on the mere utterance of a concept. Philanthropists, foundations, and governments demand details. Fortunately, we have some models 1) Chicago theaters themselves – the processes by which the Chicago theaters – especially the Tony winners, Steppenwolf, Goodman, Victory Gardens, Chicago Shakespeare - have grown and established themselves provide the models of vision and operation which inspire confidence among philanthropic organizations and the worldwide theater community. To be successful, any museum will require the approval of the leaders of those theaters, at the very least. 2) Other Chicago cultural institutions – especially the Art Institute, the Field Musuem, the Museum of Science and Industry, the Museum of Contemporary Art, The Chicago Public Library, The Lyric Opera, The Chicago Symphony. These institutions have become central to the life of the entire nation and, it’s no exaggeration to say, to the cultural life of the world. They may be intimidating to some, at first, but the crowds flocking to their exhibits and performances suggest otherwise. In the spirit of Daniel Burnham – “Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will not die, but long after we are gone be a living thing, asserting itself with ever-growing insistence” – proponents of a Chicago theater museum must consult with the leaders of these institutions. To ignore their experience and judgment, a precious resource right on our doorstep, would be the clearest sign of our lack of seriousness. 3) The Globe in London – Chicagoan Sam Wanamaker spent the last 23 years of his life realizing his vision of recreating Shakespeare’s Globe. Who will step up to be the “Sam Wanamaker” for a Chicago Theater Museum? Even his barebones Wikipedia entry hints at the struggle facing the creation of a Chicago Theater Museum. Wanamaker conducted a long and often bitterly discouraging campaign. The results remain controversial. He also never doubted the value of the struggle and he inspired thousands to support his vision. You can see their names in the bricks of the Globe itself. Here is a “theater museum” with all the liveliness and relevance you can imagine. As we sort out our definition of “Museum,” I strongly recommend studying closely the kinds of programs that the Globe has designed and produced. Shouldn’t a Chicago theater museum, at the least, regularly produce the “classic” plays of the Chicago theatrical renaissance. I missed “Grease” and “Warp” and “American Buffalo” and “In the Belly of the Beast” and “Bleacher Bums” and “City on the Make” and “Grapes of Wrath.” I may not be interested in any theater museum that won’t help me see them. Arvid Sponberg Professor of English Valparaiso University Director, www.chicagotheatrehistoryproject.org

Sounds like a project for Alan Turner....

A public "town meeting" of persons interested in the creation of a museum and archive devoted to Chicago theater and dance will take place Monday, August 4, at the Mercury Theater, 3733 N. Southport. Contact Jason Epperson, jason@eppersontheatrical.com, for more information.

Sorry, I got the address for the Mercury Theater wrong -- it's 3745 N. Southport.

Following are links to followup postings on the "Onstage" blog, including reader comments, concerning the creation of a Chicago performing arts museum: http://blogs.chicagoreader.com/onstage/2008/06/20/chicago-performing-arts-museum-update http://blogs.chicagoreader.com/onstage/2008/06/20/step-toward-chicago-performing-arts-museum http://blogs.chicagoreader.com/onstage/2008/06/27/performing-arts-museum-website-launched