I am off until about June 8 so that I may slavishly bestow affection upon my 4 month old nephew.
Come back then!
I am off until about June 8 so that I may slavishly bestow affection upon my 4 month old nephew.
Come back then!
The cleaning of a virus on my computer while I was writing my entry yesterday apparently prevented me from posting it. In some sense it was fortuitous because I was posting a follow up to an earlier entry on the Honolulu Symphony's new management structure.
At the time, most of what I knew about the situation was unsubstantiated gossip so I didn't want to post details. Regrettably, most of what I had heard was true according to an article in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin that came out today.
Due to some conflict on the board, the woman who was going to be the new CEO resigned along with at least one board member. The consultant who suggested the formation of the CEO position was apparently offered the interim president position but has declined.
This whole situation is really a shame. It appears as if the CEO appointee had begun to approach the position with quite a bit of zeal, especially considering it was an unpaid position.
I would have personally been interested to see how the position worked out. I had stated my misgivings in my earlier entry and they were shared by some of the other arts administrators with whom I discussed the developments in the story. But I can't imagine that the consultant, who was once the executive director of the San Francisco Symphony, would have suggested a management structure with the obvious flaws I feared it might have. It would have been interesting to see if his solution was viable.
One aspect of the story I didn't quite like was the implication that people were perhaps using their large donations to get their way. Yes, it is true that people who give 1 million dollars wield a great deal of influence and might often remind people of that fact when things don't go their way.
However, there is no explicit evidence that they did so in this case. It seems unfair that their actions are modified by the amount of money gave (X, who gave $Y did...) while poorer folks just plain take action. It just implies they only based their decisions on money invested while everyone else is motivated by other myriad reasons.
My state arts council sponsored a meeting with a Jonathan Katz, CEO of the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies yesterday on the topic of arts advocacy. The state arts council and the gentleman were working together on their presentation and this was the first time they had delivered it so it was a bit of a mixed bag in terms of value, but it had its high points.
Organizations were encouraged to have their board members attend the meeting, but it didn't appear too many board members were there. I imagine the 1 pm meeting time might have been an impediment to attendance.
A person from the state discussed the process the government went through in order to fund the state arts council. Personally I prefer the Schoolhouse Rock version of how a bill becomes a law rather than the convoluted flow chart describing how it travels through committees, etc.
Mr. Katz pointed out that each of these stages was an opportunity to have a conversation with people about supporting the arts community. His biggest push though was to have decision makers/persons of influence, be they reporters, politicans, bankers, civic leaders, educators, tourism officials, etc., attend an event because that experience changes the whole context of discussing the arts with them.
He got into a discussion of using the value of the arts as part of the conversation with these persons of influence. Since he started talking about economic benefits, I asked him his views on the Rand report Gifts of the Muse - Reframing the Debate About the Benefits of the Arts that was recently discussed on Artsjournal.com.
His feeling was that the report didn't go far enough in terms of suggesting how to integrate their findings into an advocacy discussion in practical terms. His feeling was that you do need to mention the economic benefits because the arts truly make contributions in that arena. But this discussion has to be balanced by the intrinsic value argument as well. It is just as important to bring recordings of kids chattering excitedly about their experiences to the table as it is to have financial spreadsheets at hand.
One of the most interesting statistics he brought to the talk was that between 1993 and 2001, taken as a whole state arts organization funding grew faster than state government growth. The combined state arts funding grew by 6.6% while state governments grew 6.5%. Mr. Katz's point was that folks were making some pretty good cases for arts funding.
Mr. Katz also provided some interesting insight into the workings of state governments when it came to arts funding. He really reinforced the idea that advocacy can never stop. One of the things NASAA has observed is that the state arts organizations that made the biggest gains in funding also had the biggest losses when the time came to cut back.
The mistake people made was equating the increase in funding as a sign that the state finally "got it" when it came to the arts. The legislatures on the other hand were of the mind that the arts were the last ones to get a lot of money and now it was their turn not to have money.
They also found that organized advocacy groups were more effective over the long term than individual arts organizations advocating on their own behalf. At the same time, there has to be a single advocacy point person who is rallying the efforts of the group in an effective manner presenting a well-organized united agenda.
How do you do good advocacy you ask? Well, NASAA has some good articles on their website, including a survey that helps organizations and state arts councils evaluate their advocacy activities.
In addition to reaching the opinion leaders in the community, you have to employ the community leaders on your board to flex their persuasive skills on your behalf. They might be able to talk their friends into writing a hundred thousand dollar check, but talking passionately about their involvement with your arts organization will generally have greater yields over the long term.
Every board member has to be able to advocate to friends, family, business partners, etc and answer the question "why are you spending your time working them them?" It isn't an answer that the staff can give the board members and they will sound more convincing if they can talk specifically about why they view organization as a worthy cause rather than to simply say it is a worthy cause.
Advocacy for your work is also more compelling coming from people not directly associated with the organization. If an educator, tourism official, business owner, etc., talks about how money for the arts helps them in their jobs, it goes a long way in convincing the holders of the purse strings.
This is the essence of the best advocacy efforts according to Mr. Katz -- telling decision makers how helping you will help them. It will come as no surprise that public figures welcome any opportunity to maintain their position by helping their constituencies and increasing their visibility. Everyone essentially wants to be seen as doing good. If their help will help you to empower kids, then show them how it can be done.
People want to be loved so if they care about you or if you affect someone who they care about, then chances are they want to do something to sustain that affection.
One last lesson I learned from the talk--don't just concentrate on your allies. Work on converting perceived enemies to your cause as well. This is particularly important when working in the political arena. The reins of power can change hands. If you have set one person or one political party up as your champion, there is an implied message that the other folks that are not-champions.
Converting them will take different messages than the ones you use for your easy allies and it won't be easy, but in the long run, it can be worth the effort.
In the course of deleting all the spammy comments the blog gets from day to day advertising poker, viagra and other sites I don't wish to have promoted on my blog, I accidentally deleted a comment from a person associated with the Honolulu Symphony.
All I saw was "As A Member of the Honolulu Symphony.." before my frantic attempts to stop the delete command from executing failed.
I apologize to whomever the author was and hope they will consider sharing their thoughts again.
As I thought, Drew McManus featured my account of my orchestra attendance on his blog today. I hadn't expected him to essentially quote my entire letter to him. I am pleased that he did (and corrected some of my lapses where my mind sped along faster than my fingers).
What really tickled me was that Patricia Mitchell quoted from the letter I wrote Drew on her blog, Oboeinsight.com. I guess what I had to say made her happy because her only comment is "YES"
I obviously think my letter on Drew's blog is worth reading so go take a look!
Just for the record, I did email the marketing person at the Honolulu Symphony and suggested they take part in what I bet will be a national trend by next May. I haven't heard from her, but considering that they are approaching their season finale and departure of their music director, it is not surprising that she would be concerned with other things.
I would take myself to cultural events more often, but I am such a ungrateful date. I never thank myself for the lovely dinner before hand or the thought that went into picking the event. Sure I am easy and will go home with myself on the first date, but all I get out of the evening is listening to myself snore.
I am sure I will enjoy the experience more if I take a friend the next time as Drew suggests.
I was sort of heart broken to read that the South Jersey Performing Arts Center is going to be closed. SJPAC is located in Camden, NJ and has always been in the shadow of the New Jersey Performing Arts Center in Newark when it came to state funding.
In fact, most of the arts organizations in New Jersey's rural south have been given the short shrift by the NJ legislature until recently. By law, funding was supposed to be distributed equitably between the northern and southern parts of the state. Lawmakers tried to get around that by giving the northern groups more money in return for taking programs to the southern part of the state. A lawsuit straightened that arrangement out a few years ago.
The thing that really makes me sad is that for the second time in three years, through no fault of his own, the executive director, Mark Fields is out of a job. Three years ago, the president of Rowan University decided to close the Glassboro Center for the Arts, a performing arts facility located on the campus.
This raised a bit of a furor because he cited lack of funds despite the fact he had just spent HUGE amounts of money on his own house, including a very expensive piano which neither he nor his wife could play. He also chose that time to pour a lot of money into the football team. As a result, there were fewer opportunities for arts exposure in South Jersey, especially given the fact the facility did a fairly large number of school performances.
The impact of the whole situation was made somewhat better by the fact that Mark would be taking his passion to SJPAC. Now that is gone as well despite the success he brought to the organization.
What's more, SJPAC is almost the last presenting organization of any size in South Jersey. The state is pretty much deciding to export its citizens' entertainment spending across the river to Philadelphia. And, of course, it is sending out the message that a cultured populace is not important.
The facility is also about the only one with any ability to serve a large number of school children. And let me tell you, Camden is in pretty sorry shape as it is. Having an oasis of culture upon which to anchor improvements was about the only thing it might have had going for it and now that is gone.
From time to time I like to make entries about my involvement in the Performing Arts Presenters of Hawaii booking consortium because I have never come across another situation where arts organizations cooperated so closely with each other for the benefit of all.
I spent most of the day at my consortium's annual meeting. Essentially, it was a day to look back and assess the success of our cooperative efforts and project forward to next year.
Since we often share the costs of bringing performers in, there was discussion of who bore what percentage of the total share. Also, since we had applied for a hub grant to support the tour of a New Zealand group, we discussed what expenses that money would cover.
There was also discussion about the membership fee structure, if it was valid and if there should be any changes made to the way fees were assessed and how the monies were used. We actually ended up deciding to apply more money toward supporting the attendance of members at the regional booking conference in September.
A new slate of officers was elected, the structure of the committees was debated and the terms of the board of directors were renewed.
The thing that took the most dang blasted time though was trying to set a time in August to have a pre-conference meeting and then a post conference meeting in October to discuss what type of acts we wanted to see and then what really great groups we saw. There are so many people with their own busy schedules, it was a very time consuming process.
So all in all, sure not an exciting time. But it is instructive as to how to form a cooperative environment. I did, however, get more information on the symphony story I have been following from some musicians who attended the meeting. More on that later..
Drew McManus over at Adaptistration anointed May as "Take a Friend to the Orchestra Month" He has devoted many of his blog entries this month to following people's experiences.
Since he listed a concert by the Honolulu Symphony Orchestra as one to see, I thought I would try to take it in. I was coming down with a cold so I wasn't sure if I was going to go so I didn't try to get a friend to come along.
Since he provided the impetus, I will probably send my impressions along to him first before deciding to post any of them here. Also, I have gotten sicker since I attended and don't have the stamina to write much today.
However, Drew took Jerry, brother of WNYC host John Schaefer, to Carniege Hall to see the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. Jerry had never been to the symphony before and today they met with John to discuss the experience on air. Check it out here. There are a lot of great observations made by Drew and Jerry about the experience and about the larger topic of classical music attendance. (And John congratulated Drew on getting Jerry into the symphony where his 40 years of effort have failed.)
Check the radio show out and the entries that fall under the Take a Friend.. topic on Drew's blog.
I know that there is a rumor that Tavis Smiley was not wanted at NPR because he didn't have the "NPR Voice" - that low, sedate, even toned voice that follows one of a limited few candences. The Voice was satired for a long time on a recurring Saturday Night Live skit about the fictional show "Delicious Dish." (My favorites were the ones with Alec Baldwin where double entendres were made especially funny by the deadpan, oblivious delivery of the case members.)
I was a little alarmed though when I heard an entry to Earth & Sky's Young Producers Contest where a fifth grader was using The Voice to narrate his piece.
I imagine kids that age are smart enough to recognize the common elements of all the NPR shows and will put together what they think adults want. While I am glad the kid is listening to the informative NPR program rather than music talking about sex and alcohol, comformity to that ideal is gonna make high school hard on him. Ironically, I have to say I hope it is a phase he grows out of and begins to embrace a little rebellion. (Certainly his parents won't thank me for that sentiment.)
While contests rewarding creativity do have many unwritten expectations, they are about showing yourself off rather than mimicing what you have heard. Thus, I was rather pleased to see that the grand prize winners didn't use The Voice. In fact, it was sort of hard to hear what they were saying because their enunciation was so poor.
Keep up the good work showing off yourselves kids!
Despite not having fulfilled my pledge to add links to the few theatre blogs I have found to my blogroll, I have gone in search of more theatre blogs tonight.
For the most part I was disappointed. Of the blogs I found, most had started with good intentions, but hadn't been maintained on a regular basis.
This is too bad because Sharpe's Theatre Blog has elements of what I envisioned when I suggested blogs be used for reflective exercises in learning. The initial entries make some observations about texts and what acting is. Later there is some feedback to other people in the project group which frankly, having been in theatre for a long time, seems to be heavily self-edited so as not to offend. Not that people need to tear into others or air their dirty laundry publicly. It is just conspicous by its santitation.
Similarly, the Applied & Interactive Theatre Blog starts out with a couple promising entries and then fizzles. (On the other hand, the Applied & Interactive Theatre Website proper has many resources of interest to Theatre folk)
Handcart Ensemble in NYC uses their blog to essentially post press releases online. However, there were a few interesting articles interspersed like this one on how to find a rehearsal/audition/performance space in NYC, (none of the stages may be in the same place) what questions to ask, horror stories and how much it may cost.
On the whole, blogs I have found seem to be predominantly focused on providing space for people to post their events- Ohio Theatre, Culturebot
(it does have news and opinion links, but majority are promotional), and the Washington Post's chic Going out Gurus (actually pretty much newspaper calendar editors posting on line rather than a blog.)
One unrelated, but interesting link I came across was Eric James Stone's blog on the progress he is making writing his first novel. A therometer bar currently indicates that he has 139,641 out of 150,000 words written. There is actually more reflection on short stories he has written while writing the novel than the novel itself. Some interesting stuff though, including some simple reflections on theatre attendance.
I don't know if you have been reading about this new book that is out, Everything Bad Is Good for You in which author Steven Johnson proposes that pop culture, TV and video games are actually making us smarter.
I had an idea that either might be an empty marketing ploy or a subversive, yet effective way to get people to attend shows depending on the degree of subtlety in the execution.
One of the barriers to attendance often cited by people is that they don't know how to act and don't know if they will comprehend what is going on. However, these people are getting an unstated, perhaps implied message from an arts organization that this might be the case. This is based on being unfamiliar with the method of delivery and the inscrutable traditions surrounding the viewing of the work. All the attempts at outreach and advertising lower ticket prices fail because of an unspoken, perhaps implicit message that people aren't up to handling the experience.
It may be counterintuitive, but I was wondering if explicitly delivering that message might be the answer. (Bear with me.) I wonder if it might be effective to program a show that is intellectually challenging, but readily accessible to most audiences and then promote it in this unorthodox manner.
The arts organization, perhaps in collusion with the media might put out the word that the work is somewhat intellectually challenging and that only people who are smarter than average might enjoy it. Underscore the fact that one definitely need not know anything about the arts or how to act to enjoy it, in fact it is being held in an less formal alternate space, but an attendee should be fairly intelligent.
In recognition that intelligent people come in all shapes, sizes and economic backgrounds, you are keeping the price low so that these folks can enjoy this performance.
If not presented in a condescending a manner or laid on too thick (you don't want to be too obvious about employing reverse psychology nor do you want to imply your regular audience is stupid), people might rise to the challenge. People tend to think of themselves as at least slightly smarter than the next guy and might feel motivated to test out this theory by attending. It is one thing to have someone use body language to imply you are unworthy--it is difficult to figure out how to combat a non-verbal statement. However if someone states you might be unworthy if you can't meet a specific measure, there is a clear course of action to prove otherwise.
Creating a series of such events for smart people can serve as an entree (and a channel for empowerment) for new patrons to the more sophisticated world of your "mainstream" programming. I have already suggested a "garage band" approach in a posting in an Artsjournal.com discussion (mirror on my site here because I couldn't include the links in my commentary.) I think this might be the way to promote that type of program.
Recent events have kept me from writing entries of late. Some have been tiring, but others rather energizing. I don't think I am going out on a limb when I say that some times when arts folks talk about how much what they do/are planning on doing is going to deeply impact the lives of others, they feel a little dishonest.
You propose a group on a grant application or to your board of directors talking about how exposing audiences to X is going to influence the thinking of people. But when the artist(s) perform, the results aren't too much different from the groups that came before or those that follow. Attendance might have been up a little, but comments aren't any different than those you get for the shows that weren't billed as being extra special. The whole experience could be interchanged with any other experience.
One can be fairly confident that at least one or more people were touched and perhaps inspired by the work in a significant way. But even the most idealistic among us needs a little concrete proof that efforts made were worthwhile.
Then you get that one show that removes all doubt and I had that experience this past week.
We had a band from New Zealand called Te Vaka perform this past week. The group presents Polynesian music and dance from Tokelau, Tuvalu and Samoa. They use traditional log drums along with electric, acoustic and bass guitars.
Given that there is a fair population on O'ahu from each of these island groups along with regular fans, we easily sold out the performance. (Which did not please those who procrastinated about buying tickets.) I could have set up extra seats, but I heard the audience liked to dance---and good lord did they--so I left some room.
Honestly, a performance where ex-patriots got to hear music from home and watch traditional dance and would have been enough. Especially since the rest of the audience got carried along with the enthusiasm and could recognize some value in a culture that was somewhat similar, but not entirely so to the one in Hawaii.
However, our co-producing partner arranged for a school lecture-demo this morning. There was no doubt in my mind that the event was what funders had in mind when they sought to provide arts opportunities for at-risk kids.
The program was well suited for the school groups we had. It was familiar enough to them that they had a frame of reference (unlike, say if we had a modern dance program which they might not know enough about to begin comprehending.) and yet different enough to hold their attention for an hour. One of the teachers was almost in tears from gratitude.
Apparently, the last time Te Vaka was in Hawaii back in 2002, they received an email from a kid saying he was inspired by the group and was going to devote more time to his music. Today they actually got a similar email from a friend of a woman who attended Saturday night saying much the same thing.
After the performance, Te Vaka was invited to lunch by the students in the college's halau (a type of school of Hawaiian culture). The students did a welcoming ceremony in Hawaiian chant and then had a lot of great conversation over lunch comparing notes about the similarities in each other's languages and culture. An ukelele was broken out and the students performed some music and hula for Te Vaka.
As I started to urge the group toward the door so we could make it to the airport, the kumu (teacher of Hawaiian culture) offered a fairwell chant which one member of the group returned. Native Hawaiian instruments and dictionaries were pressed into hands as parting gifts and pictures were taken (as I chanted "To the airport, to the airport.")
These wonderful and poignant moments reminded me that art doesn't have to be a one directional exchange (the portraits on money notwithstanding). There is so much emphasis on going somewhere to stand or sit passively absorbing what someone else has produced.
This might be why people are intimidated by what they hear or see. They aren't quite sure if they are receiving what is being transmitted correctly and if they are getting their money's worth. There have been frequently observations which theorize that people often give standing ovations to good, but not exception performances, out of a need to convince themselves they have received something worth the money they paid.
I wonder if it would help matters if young students, knowing they were going to see a performance in a week, were required to create something of their own to exchange. I wonder if people's view of art would change if they found themselves empower to create art that had value in an exchange for a different type of art.
Obviously, you don't want to have it happen every day lest it devolve into a ceremony of motions empty of meaning and significance. Say a student creates something and then presents it with a sort of understanding of "You are a master artist and I am merely a beginner, yet we share the same spark. I present this thing that has meaning to me unto you as a symbol of my respect for sharing your gift with us."
I wonder if that action, only performed a handful of times in the formative years, could plant the seed of a greater respect and comprehension of the artistic exchange in the adult.
There is something interesting/puzzling going on locally with the Honolulu Symphony organizational structure. I was going to let Drew McManus over at Adaptistration because he is the authority on the strange world of orchestras. But dang it, the whole thing is making me curious so I gotta say something.
And if Drew doesn't like it, well he is 5,000 miles away :P What's he gonna do? He has friend here though. If you hear I got killed in a freak oboe accident, you will know it is him!
Anyway, enough jabbering here is the story.
Honolulu Symphony President Steven Bloom is stepping down apparently to leave symphony management altogether. The chair of the board will be taking over administrative duties until a replacement can be found. Here is the interesting part--they are going to appoint a volunteer CEO of the Symphony who will oversee whomever the replacement is.
According to the Honolulu Advertiser:
"As the symphony's CEO, Cayetano would "oversee the administration of the symphony and ... the president of the symphony would report to and be accountable to her," Jackson said. "But her main role will be building the board and working on fund-raising."
The interesting thing is this. Usually, the president/executive director of a non-profit answers to a volunteer board of directors of which there is a chair. The board sets policy and approves plans for the general direction of the organization. The president/executive director oversees the staff efforts in the execution of these general policies. Often he/she may go to the board for approval of a program the staff has proposed that will help in the pursuit of the organizational mission.
As the top administrator, the president/executive director is usually paid. However, the symphony is proposing an unpaid CEO position to whom this person will report. Presumably, the CEO will report to the board.
A bunch of questions come up. Since it ain't easy running a symphony, how much time a week will the CEO be devoting to the job? Is the president pretty much doing the same as before, but essentially under more direct supervision of a board representative? Will the CEO oversee the staff then as well?
Is current president leaving because he resented the fact someone was being appointed to be his personal watchdog? (According to another article, the CEO position was the suggestion of an outside consultant.) If the person is only supervising the president, it could have that appearance.
But that might be better than the alternative where the CEO is supervising the whole staff. Since it is an unpaid position, the CEO might be part time and some decisions might have to be deferred for her return. Either that or any decision made by the president in her absence could end up conflicting with hers.
This is all wild speculation though. Knowing as little as I do, I wouldn't normally give voice to it. However, I did want to take the opportunity to talk about possible pitfalls in such an arrangement since exploration of management decisions is part of the blog's purpose.
Given that the board chair is only a part-time resident, it might be that they are just looking to have a consistent representative of the board authority on the island.
I am interested to see what the full story is. The articles talk about this person focussing on board development and fundraising. If the CEO is taking some of these responsibilities away from the President, I might applaud the move given my entry on how leaders don't have the time to focus on the organizational future for all fundraising they must do.
Between Drew and myself, I am sure we will get the full story out sometime soon. (Actually, I shouldn't speak for him. I don't know if he is intrigued enough to pursue it himself. I am sure I will end up consulting him to put what I learn in context in any case.)
I was reading today about how companies are trying to use graphic novels to get kids interested in reading. I was briefly filled with some hope, thinking that perhaps a child who read a graphic novel of a great work might become interested in seeing a play based on that work too.
Then I remembered it has been tried before.
In the 1940s, Classics Illustrated tried to turn great works into comic books. According to an entry on Toonopedia "The idea behind Classics Illustrated may have been to use the methods of the "enemy" against it, to expose young comic book readers to great literature, and thus awaken their intellectual appetites."
According to Toonopedia, it didn't work. There was too much book to squeeze into too few pages. Unfortunately, kids used the books as a subtitute for reading the books. A woman who gave me some old Classics Illustrated told me they were the Cliffs Notes of her generation. (Ironically, Cliff Notes were the internet term paper mills of my generation.)
According to the graphic novel article, there seems to be a greater attempt to stay true to the stories and so readers should get more from them than the Classics Illustrated. Though I suspect kids will still hand in papers based on the adaptation rather than the original.
On the other hand, if it provides a degree of cultural literacy where none might exist without them, then bring on the comic books!
I was a monster reader to begin with, but I will admit, I first learned about Crispus Attucks (A black man, he was the first casualty of the American Revolution when he was killed at the Boston Massacre.), George Washington Carver, Harriet Tubman and Johnny Cash's destructive alcoholic life before he found Jesus because I picked up anything that looked like a comic book.
In the 30 years since I picked up the comic book on his life, I have seen Crispus Attucks named mentioned in books maybe 4 times. So in some regard, the medium might actually be more effective at communicating information about important, but generally overlooked people and subjects. The visual format might help students remember the subject matter too. I still remember that Attucks was very mechanically inclined because I can still recall the picture of him working on a clock.
Hard to weigh the pros and cons though. Promoting academic laziness by implying that a graphic novel can replace a book vs. offering visual stimulus to reinforce the information being learned.