AI is Becoming Community Theatre’s Favorite Cheap Shortcut

by Chris Peterson

I’m starting to worry that the fight against generative AI in community theatre is being lost.

I’m seeing more theatres use it to create posters, social media graphics, and other marketing materials. It’s also beginning to move beyond publicity and into the creative work appearing onstage.

The explanation is usually financial. Community theatres have limited budgets. Designers and artists cost money. AI can produce something quickly and cheaply.

I understand why that argument is tempting. I also don’t believe theatres should accept it.

Earlier this year, I reported on TheatreWorks New Milford in Connecticut after sources connected to one of its productions said AI had been used to place cast members in different costumes for publicity images. In the process, the technology appeared to alter the body shape of one actress.

Cast members reportedly hadn’t agreed to have their likenesses uploaded into an AI platform and manipulated. The images were removed after performers objected.

Then there’s Fountain Hills Theater in Arizona.

Its world-premiere musical Shrew! used AI assistance to expand melodies written by creator Peter J. Hill into instrumental orchestrations. Hill described the technology as a collaborator rather than the creator. A music director later wrote the final arrangements.

I understand the distinction they were trying to make. I don’t think it makes the decision much better.

These aren’t isolated incidents.

The Instagram account AI Free Chicago, under the handle @aifreechicago, has been calling attention to AI use by theatres throughout the Chicago area. The account also directs companies toward a database of human visual artists who can be hired instead.

The fact that an account like this has enough material to keep posting should tell us how quickly AI has become normalized.

I know community theatres are under enormous financial pressure. I know many are trying to create more content with fewer people and smaller budgets.

But community theatre has always operated under those limitations.

The answer used to be scaling down a concept, partnering with a local artist, or giving an emerging designer an opportunity to build a portfolio. Sometimes the finished product wasn’t perfect. It was still made by someone.

Now, theatres have another option: type a prompt and remove the artist altogether.

I don’t think an organization can claim to support artists while replacing creative labor whenever software offers a cheaper shortcut. A theatre’s values are most visible when money is tight and difficult choices have to be made.

A poster created by a local designer may be simpler. An orchestration created by available musicians may require compromises. That’s fine.

Community theatre doesn’t need artificial perfection. It needs human choices.

Every time a theatre uses AI to avoid paying or involving an artist, it helps normalize the idea that creative labor is optional. Once that belief becomes accepted, it won’t stop with posters.

I don’t want to see community theatre become another space where artists are asked to donate their labor while software is trusted to replace them.

The fight against AI in community theatre may be slipping away. Theatres can still change that by choosing people, even when the cheaper option is only a prompt away.