A little revisiting of former topics to check on how things are going.
Back in May I covered the troubled times the Honolulu Symphony was having. I had actually started out exploring what appeared to be an attempt at a new organizational structure. However, that just ended up being a preamble to developing tensions.
Recent reports show the orchestra is starting on the way back. Donations and ticket revenue are up though attendance is down and their is still a $370,000 deficit.
The good news is that this is down from a near $2 million deficit a few years ago. There are new people on their board of directors and the organization is taking steps to improve their service to the community. The symphony is looking at revisitng their pricing structure for the seats.
And they are pursuing that elusive question of how to make the symphony interesting for regular folks.
Which brings us to the second retrospective, the ever popular, "But Do You Really Think It is Good For You" By way of Artsjournal.com is this book review in the Washington Post. What Good Are the Arts? is a book that examines, according to reviewer Michael Dirda "an intensely argued polemic against the intellectually supercilious, the snooty rich and the worship of high culture as a secular religion for the spiritually refined and socially heartless. Anyone seriously interested in the arts should read it."
Many of the concepts Dirda quotes sound a lot like those suggested by Joli Jensen in "Is Art Good For Us?" Five years ago I probably wouldn't have thought long upon it, but in days where non-fiction is peppered with fiction and plagiarism, I have to say I found myself wondering if her work (or those she cites) are in his bibliography.
Alas, my life has been busy and I haven't gotten too far into Jensen's book. Hope to soon. Keep watching this space ;)
Drew McManus has been hinting about good things in the wind for awhile now and finally let the cat out of the bag.
Drew is going to be doing a research project for Eastman School of Music’s Orchestra Musician Forum and Senior Editor of Special Projects for Polyphonic.org (coming April 2006).
His research project is going to address the issues which American orchestra musicians see as impacting their professional lives. The study will be used not only to improve conditions in orchestras, but also allow training programs to give their students the training and tools to cope with the realities of life as an orchestra musician.
What is really interesting is that the study is even being done at all, though there is clearly a need. I was thinking it was extraordinary that such a project be funded when I read Drew's observation that:
Most sponsors prefer to direct their funds toward “solutions” regardless if the issues are well defined or not. Directing resources toward identifying issues and developing questions isn’t a very sexy endeavor and this organization deserves a great deal of credit for understanding that without a strong foundation on which to build, any structure you put up may not be very sound.
To make this happen, Drew estimates he needs to interview 1,400 people from 90 orchestras so watch for a survey in the mail! This will probably be the biggest opportunity orchestra musicians have had a chance to speak out en mass since, well, I don't know when. Unless they are on strike, you don't see too many queries posed of multiple musicians on most any topic.
Congrats Drew. We will be watching and expecting great insights to emerge!
Andrew Taylor recently encouraged in a comment to an entry to take a look at Joli Jensen's Is Art Good For Us?. He had blogged on the book about two years ago.
Well I got it from my local library today and will dive in and take a read rather than writing at length today.
Based on the second page of the book, it may turn out to be an interesting read. Jensen states flat out "In the end I want to convince you that Tocqueville and Dewey have it right and everybody else has it wrong." We shall see if she does a good job arguing her case or is overly biased.
I don't buy or rent a lot of DVDs. I don't go to the movies all that often, truth be told. It isn't because I think live performance is superior or anything, it is essentially because growing up in rural New York, we didn't get out to the movies much. I have never really been in the habit of attending too many movies.
I did read a lot and as such did attend the Lord of the Rings movies when they came out and did ask for the box DVD set for Christmas. Amazon had it on backorder for quite awhile so it just arrived today.
As I was covertly previewing the first five minutes at work today, you know, just to make sure there weren't any problems with the disk, I got to thinking what a great tool the performers and production team commentary would be for teaching people the basics about the arts.
It would be an expensive undertaking to pull the video production resources together to produce a DVD. However, I think foundations that support audience building and arts education efforts would probably be happy to underwrite the creation of a tool that could be easily duplicated and distributed to serve large numbers of people.
In fact, foundations would probably be more interested in paying for generic educational videos that many organizations could use rather than ones that specifically prepared audiences for shows in an upcoming season.
I think it would be very helpful to people to have the ability to watch a play and then go back and listen to the actors comment on what they might have been feeling during the show (I nearly wet my pants trying not to laugh) or to the director and designers talking about their choices and how it contributes to the feel of the performance.
The same could go for dance and music. A dancer may comment on how their heart soars at a particular place in a ballet even after performing it 50 times or how a piece looks deceptively simple but actually involved hours of practice. Symphonies could break the commentary down by section and conductor, perhaps.
If the commentary was designed well, pointing out what people should look for, explaining the process and providing points of reference to which people can relate, (parallels between elation during performances and sports activities, for example), it could become a powerful educational and intimidation allaying tool.
At the speed with which video can be delivered over the internet, the videos wouldn't necessarily have to be only available on DVDs at the organization or local library. Arts organizations could have the videos available for download or streaming on their website or on a hosting site specifically designed with the bandwidth to host video.
Heck, maybe the local cable company would be interested in having it in their free video on demand library. Given that they would probably advertise it as a service to their subscribers, the cable company might go as far as add a little bit at the end saying "if you feel like checking out live ballet in your area, here is a listing of companies in your region."
As I write this, ideas are forming in my head about how it might turn this into a reality. As a presenter, I don't have an opportunity to do something like this with the groups I bring in because they visit for such a short time. But I do know some local companies that I might inspire and some video production people who might work on it.
Watch this space in the coming months, I might have something to report.
Have to give a shout out to DC Arts Jobs blog.
The purpose of the blog is "An informal collection of job postings at arts organizations in the Washington, DC area, focusing on development and special events, but encompassing other functions and other cities as well. Some light commentary is provided where the author thinks she has the scoop."
The listing isn't comprehensive, just what comes to the writer's attention. The thing I like about the blog is that while it is similar to some theatre blogs that only list area performances (in this case, jobs), Christina also highlights issues that could impact one's ability to find a job. (And the entry titles clearly differentiate the news and info listings from straight job listings)
Amidst recent job listings you can also find entries with commentary and links on the economics of dance, how to deal with getting fired, how to get a job in philanthropy, planning for succession when leadership retires and the labor relations problems the Washington Ballet is having.
There are also links in the sidebar to other arts issues blogs, arts job sites, arts policy sites, headhunting companies and arts organization sites broken out by discipline.
Just wanted to bring some attention to Christina's work because it is an interesting approach to arts blogging that I hadn't seen before. Hopefully it will inspire other people to create similar blogs for their geographic areas.
Back when the earth was cooling, the occasion of myfirst entry was having a letter I wrote to The Artful Manager appear on the Artsjournal website.
The letter essentially talked about tapping into community leaders, among them church leaders, to help increase attendance at performances. I am doing well with leaders in other communities giving me a hand in getting the word out, but the church situation has me a little puzzled in some ways.
We have a church rent the theatre every Sunday and see very little cross over to our performances. We have posters with upcoming events plastered all over the building so it is hardly a mystery about what is coming up. Yet we get very few comments made to us or on our surveys saying they heard about the show because they come every Sunday.
Our programming is far from being offensive and is quite appropriate for the family. We just aren't seeing the results one might expect and I don't quite know why.
What gets me to thinking about this is that for the next three nights, we have an entirely different church having a worship conference in our space. Most of it will be a lot of praise and worship gospel singing and preaching. Tomorrow they kick the whole thing off with a half hour performances from one of the biggest gospel singers around.
In preparation for this half hour performance, the church has come in and painted our dressing rooms (we have a lot of classes during the year so the facility gets quite a bit of wear and tear) and when I left work tonight, they were carrying in leather sofas for her use.
That's a heck of a lot of enthusiasm they are investing into making things right for a real short show.
It is also the type of energy I wish I could tap in to.
Next year we are looking at some gospel singers and that will certainly connect with the church audience. However, we are looking at these musicians because they are great musicians first and not to attract the churches.
I book with an eye to taking advantage of the opportunity to bring in great musicians that I think people will enjoy. If there are interested Latino groups available on an annual basis, I will happily grab them because I know people will buy tickets. But I am not looking to fill a Latino slot on my roster every year. Nor am I interested in discarding great opportunities because they don't fit into gospel slots.
Smart thing to do though might be to co-produce similar events in the future. Promote the event in my brochure, run ticket sales through my box office, let the enthusiatic church members handle hospitality, security and technical equipment since that is where their strengths lay and then split the box office proceeds.
A partnership that plays to our individual strengths might be beneficial to both of us. I don't know that we will ever generate a crossover interest from the audience, but what we are doing now isn't meeting with much success. A partnership of this type might also not make economic sense since we experience little financial risk in renting to the group. But we would also realize less of a loss than if we had engaged an artist on that date ourselves since we aren't bearing all the costs.
The question will be, if we do co-produce with them, is it replacing a show we would have done alone or are we doing it in addition to the shows we would have done and therefore are losing on the potential gains of a rental opportunity?
I will let you know how things shake out next season!
Mitch from McCallum Theatre made some comments on my entry yesterday and said something at the end which I thought would be the basis of a good entry.
I am a new reader of your blog. I read it because it was called "Butts in Seats." I'm not sure that is really what you are promoting.
It is a good observation because while I have been writing about what it is I am doing in emails to people, it has been awhile since I stated it in the blog. Given that projects like this can evolve over time, I thought the start of a new calendar year might be a good time to state what it is I am trying to accomplish at this stage.
The blog isn't simply about putting butts in the seats. The purpose is to talk about the environmental/financial/social challenges, debates, idealistic conflicts, emerging opportunities, solutions, what have you, inherent to running a not-for-profit arts organization.
For-profits are primarily concerned with putting butts in the seats. They aren't challenged with the necessity of having to balance serving the community with financial stability. They may decide to make it a paramount concern, but it rarely is part of their founding mission statement and not a statutory requirement of their corporate status.
So what the blog is all about is filling the seats and trying to address all that too.
Mitch is absolutely right in his comments, it is the job of the organization to reflect the desire of the community. There have been shows of certain genres that I have been involved with that appealed to absolutely no one in my organization, from the executive director to the maintenance workers, but filled the house because we booked a high quality act in that genre and the community clearly expressed an interest in that genre. Most of the time your job as a performance booker isn’t to showcase your personal taste even though you are hired based on your good taste.
What I was mostly addressing in yesterday's entry was the fact people can be convinced a mediocre violinist is talented because they look good in a slinky dress. They rush to buy tickets, but stick up their noses at the great violinist because Eastern Europe dentistry isn't what it is in West.
As I mentioned earlier, there is an internal debate that typically goes on in a lot of non-profit arts managers minds and hearts as they try to figure a balance between these two violinists. What enhances the community life more--1000 people whose experience is broadened by exposure to a poppy rendition of classical music or 300 people who choose to attend a concert that requires more concentration to understand, performed by a person with great mastery of the subject.
Will any of those 1000 people become interested enough by this first exposure to classical music to try out more challenging fare? If so, then booking that performer is a wise choice as part of serving the community pursuit of personal growth.
If the answer is no and booking the performer actually diminishes people's respect for classical music but fills the coffers and allows the organization to continue, then the decision to engage the performer is less clear cut.
When I talk about being cynical and elitist, I am actually just trying to show the internal dialogue going on so that readers can gain some insight into the process and perhaps not feel they are alone in these thoughts. It's no crime to have elitist thoughts as long as you recognize they might unfairly narrow your view of things and seek a more equitable method of making booking decisions. (Consulting with community members whose judgement you trust, for example.)
In the arts there is always going to be the debate between idealism and practicality. You can lean against the stage door and groan “why do people like this crap” but the truth is, you booked the performance despite your personal taste because it isn’t about you, it is about the community you serve.
Many times the value to the show isn’t in whether it is good art. Sometimes you are teaching kids about dinosaurs, sometimes it is about diverting a community’s thoughts from a great tragedy that has struck them, other times it is to create community bonding by getting everyone to bring their awful voices together to sing Christmas Carols.
I won’t make the claim that I am not an elitist in some respects, but I am very much aware of my own pedestrian tastes in many areas including the arts. One of my mottos is—Customers are idiots. I should know, I am one.
If you read back in the blog a bit you will see that I join other bloggers in acknowledging that many arts organizations take a condescending view of their patrons. Proposed solutions to this include trying to find ways to create an atmosphere in which more effective patron conversations transpire.
These programs aren’t aimed at making people smarter about factual information as much as knowledgeable about how and why choices are made and the relationships between things. Drew McManus’ docent program for example aims to foster discussions about things like the intention behind a particular mix of pieces chosen for a symphony concert. Why Haydn is an important composer is part of this conversation, but it isn’t the conversation.
Mostly why I write this blog is to help me clarify my position on things and give people something to think about to clarify theirs. I hope that someone is reading bits from time to time and it isn’t all just falling into the ether of the net.
Certainly I hope for constructive feedback and criticism because all this blog is really is a less anti-social way to publicize my internal thoughts and discussions than talking aloud in a public place. Talking to myself, no matter how impressed I am with what comes out of my mouth, will only get me so far in developing effective approaches to arts management.
As promised, I am addressing some comments from my But Do You REALLY.. entry. Actually, it will be one of the comments today, but that should be enough.
Mitch from the McCallum Theatre makes some provocative statements in the comments section.
A couple of things about the business we are in: 1) 90% of everything that is offered at WAA or APAP, in other words, the arts "marketplace" is crap. 2) 90% of arts administrators can't tell the difference between what is good and what is crap.
While I wouldn't completely agree with the 90% figures in both cases, I would say that yes, some of the conference offerings are of a poorer quality than I might expect and there are a lot of presenters out there who aren't as discerning as they should be.
However, I would say that the quality of performer at conferences is largely due to the fact that many big names don't have to show up--you will solicit them and technology allows smaller names to make an effective pitch to you in your office. DVDs, faster internet connections, streaming audio and video, email, etc. can showcase performers far better than, well, a 20 minute conference showcase where they lack control of most elements.
While a DVD is no substitute for a good live performance, (otherwise, why book the live performance), it may make more sense to people to forego the expense and time of making a trip to a conference and invest in a quality electronic media package.
As for the arts people with poor eyes for talent, well the self-same technology that makes it easy for performers to solicit bookings from presenters also makes it much easier these days for people to set themselves up as presenters.
What is actually dangerous about this situation isn't so much that they have bad taste as the fact they lack an understanding of the business and the costs involved. In the last few months I noticed that a group I had engaged last season was returning to appear at a place about 12 times the size of my venue with the expensive union crew to match. We easily sold out our performance, but I had my doubts about filling this new place. On the other hand, the concert was capping off a week of festivities so I figured these folks knew what they were doing.
Yeah, not really.
I found out this week that they were bigger on dreams and assumptions than experience. Some of the coordinators at the venue apparently made some attempts to ground the presenters but they went full steam ahead with the confidence born of ignorance and lost a lot of money.
Anyhow, back to the comment section there. What Mitch writes a little later is most interesting.
That said, it is entirely possible to engage the public in intellegently purchasing tickets to arts events they will enjoy and will be happy to pay for. Once you have the ability to determine what is good and what is crap (and remember only 10% of us can do that), then the rest of the job is just marketing.Know your market and respond to the needs of your market, and you will be successful...Listen to your customers and you will learn what they want. Program the good (not the crap) from the artists your audience wants, and you will be successful.
Without getting into a Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance type discussion of quality, I would argue that good and what your audience wants aren't necessarily the same thing and many times are mutually exclusive. The aforementioned conferences don't have to offer good stuff, just what people want to see or can be convinced they want to see.
Just look at Broadway. Most everything there is a retread of an existing story or a revival. Phantom of the Opera just passed Cats as the longest running show earlier this week. I really don't think the show is all that good. It has its high points, but generally drags through the second act until the sewer scene. The sewer scene itself is only interesting for the spectacle of the fog and rising candles until you get to the confrontations at the end. Yet this is what people will pay to see so that is what is programmed.
I took a look over at the McCallum Theatre to see what constituted good stuff. Right on the home page was Lord of the Dance which has often been the butt of many a joke. Really the strength of that show is mostly the spectacle of seeing 40 people Irish step dance. Having grown up in a highly concentrated Irish community, I can tell you under normal circumstances, watching that sort of dance gets pretty old fast. Honestly, more power to Michael Flatley for finding a way to make it interesting.
It is clearly something people want to see, too. Lord of the Dance and performances of Broadway shows are the only shows scheduled to run five nights. (Correction, I see Steve Lawrence and Eydie Gorme run longer.)
It may sound elitest and cynical, but I have sometimes despaired the fact that I have been involved with productions that are reinforcing the idea that a particular performer is talented rather than just easily marketable. All arts organizations go through that of course. They present the easily sold performances to help underwrite the better, less likely to be attended shows.
Often people know they are buying tickets to the happy, fluffy show with lots of wow and little substance. However, other times people may not be familiar with an artist but they know that the arts center has offered some truly great people in the past and trust that this performer is of that caliber.
This is the situation I hate because these trusting people come in and see a performer whose draw is more image than ability. They don't quite like the show, but they figure if X arts center is presenting them, and the show was sold out, they are worthwhile and maybe they should buy the CD, etc. This sort of thing only reinforces the whole idea that mediocrity wears the same face as excellence.
In a couple weeks a beauty pageant is renting my facility. I got a call from a faculty member saying her friend wanted to see the stage. It turned out, the friend was the mother of a contestant who wanted to try out her talent piece on stage. The young woman is a figure skater but lacking ice is doing her routine on inline skates. Given that plastic wheels on wood is different than metal on ice she was wise to want to test the surface. (Especially since the stage is 30 years old, riddled with traps and not as smooth as it was in its youth.)
There are obviously some ice skating techniques you just can't execute on a stage. However, it was interesting that the contestant's mother was encouraging her to do certain showy things that she acknowledged would have disqualified her daughter in a skating competition. She then asked me if I knew who the judges would be in the hopes that none of them would know ice skating rules.
The question that came to my mind was--are you honestly exhibiting your skill if you would be disqualified in your arena of expertise for doing something simply as a crowd pleaser and not based on practical safety concerns?
It is a tough question to answer since in the arts breaking rules is known as mapping new ground, collapsing preconcieved notions and engaging in activities that will have people calling for your NEA grant to be revoked. Doing crowd pleasers is referred to as responsibly attending to the financial health of your organization.
Don't you just hate it when your idealism recoils in revulsion at the same time your heating oil company fills up your tank for the winter?
I am getting some great comments on my But Do You Really Think It is Good For You entry. Better than I expected really.
I was going to do a response to some of the commments, but between wanting to wait for more comments to come in (since they seem to be doing so) and finding I wanted to ponder my responses a little more, I have decided to tackle something else.
When I was touching on how difficult it can be to be a blogger and professor and thinking about how people expressed their feelings about the arts, I couldn't help but think back to my own experience teaching a theatre appreciation class.
I have really enjoyed most of the theatre classes I have taught, but the one class I have felt most intellectually and idealistically torn over was the appreciation class.
Part of the problem I think was the expectations everyone had for it. For most students, it was an easy way to get fine arts credit for their liberal arts degree. Some came to class with an honest desire to learn more about the theatre, most came or were advised to come to get their credit and get out.
For the school the class was a way to keep their dollar per student ratio down. Since most theatre classes are intensive and low student to teacher ratios are necessary, the professor's salary divided by the number of students in class results in a rather high number. But take a department as a whole, if you offer two or three sections of a class with 400 people in each section, you offset that high salary ratio and make the department look productive.
As horrible as this may sound, remember this is essentially the same way many funding institutions assess the effectiveness of their grants--by number of people served by programs they underwrote. Non-profit arts organizations often take on programs that don't serve their mission well so that they can get funding to support their core interests. In the same regard, theatre departments create really poor environments for cultivating appreciation in an attempt to justify and maintain their exisitence in order to pursue their main interests--educating theatre majors. (And one wonders if this is where the future arts leaders learn the lesson of supporting the mission by doing what is not in the best interests.)
Four hundred people in a room isn't necessarily bad, of course. By many accounts you would call it a nice atmosphere in which to enjoy the arts. But if there are 300 people who don't want to be there and would rather talk on their cell phones or to each other, you got a pretty crappy atmosphere for the 100 who are interested in the subject matter. One professor and one TA have a hard time competing with and controling that sort of disinterest.
Asking people to leave ellicited the "I paid, I got a right to be here" response. Challenging people to defend why their dollar was more valuable than the dollar of the people who were interested and wanted to pay attention earned some uninterrupted time. Lack of regard returned in subsequent classes and different arguments for attention had to be used.
Lest people be tempted to look at my resume in an attempt to figure out where I am talking about. Let me simply state, it is like this all over. A similar situation existed where I did my graduate work and where my friends went to school. It probably exists where many readers go/went to school. Certainly it occurs more in large university settings than in smaller colleges just by stint of enrollment numbers.
The thing is, the existence of these classes is also harmful to students pursuing performance as a major. This is most dismally illustrated at college performances said students are required to attend. Because they don't want to ruin their weekends, these students will buy tickets to the Wednesday or Thursday performance thereby providing the student performers with the harrowing experience of playing to the most unresponsive audience they will ever meet. (While I can't speak for all fine arts appreciation classes, I have noticed the same trend in music appreciation audiences.)
The Intro students will attempt to arrive late or leave early and get their attendance slip validated. Since the house staff (mostly comprised of students) has been instructed to apply the attendance rules strictly, an antagonistic relationship often developes. The Intro students resents that they are being compelled to attend and the theatre major resents that it is necessary to compel attendance. (If the school doesn't enjoy strong community attendance, the theatre major may grow to feel this is true for all audiences.)
The real question is a takes the form of a debate of sorts- Are schools failing students by not giving them a more conducive enviroments in which to cultivate an interest and appreciation of art. OR Are schools wisely only investing an appropriate portion of their resources because so few of the students enrolling in the class have a genuine interest in detailed explorations and discussions of theatre.
Of course, this begs the question, if so few students are interested, why are they required to take the course? The answer most likely is that some group of people somewhere argued that exposure to the fine arts would make students better, more well-rounded citizens.
Which all gets back to the original question--is there a better way that makes sense economically and from an education philosophy point of view and creates a positive experience for all?
Is there anyone out there in large schools doing it?
Okay, I am outing myself. In the examples Drew McManus uses in his entry today, I am indeed the person mentioned in Example 3.
Of course, the only reason I am admitting it is because as Drew noted, things have turned out fairly well for me. Partially because there were a lot of people who were interested in new uses of technology on my hiring committee. It is also partially due to the fact there are enough things to write about that it is easy to exercise restraint when the temptation to gripe arises.
However, you might be surprised to learn how incorrect assumptions about the freedoms accorded those who work in higher education are. There have been a number of stories recently in the Chronicle of Higher Education (here and here for example) and in a recent series on education that appeared on Slate which have noted the very act of blogging, regardless of the tone or even subject matter, can ruin an academic's chance for a job or tenure.
In some cases, even tenured professors were viewed as wasting time on blogging that could be better spent on publishing in academic journals.
It is all enough to give a job applicant pause as noted in a Chronicle column by a doctoral candidate and blogger who received dire warnings about blogging at a career counseling session. She ultimately felt that the act of blogging made her a better scholar (boosted by the fact that one of her entries received fairly honorable recognition.)
I certainly feel that it has made me a better manager since reading my old entries helps remind me of some good ideas and concepts I had.
Over time I think blogging will become a more accepted method of scholarly discussion, research and publishing. This will be especially true as those who frown on the practice retire and are replaced by bloggers and those who may have benefited from reading them.
There would certainly be an opportunity for a much wider, more extensive peer review of papers than there is currently. Of course, there would be much wider, louder, and public debate over these issues. Unfortuantely, perhaps without the investment of reflective time that the current system includes.
Still the speed of receiving such replies could be helpful in scientific research, even with all the concerns about industrial espionage and intellectual property rights, by allowing scientists to posit ideas, discuss conumdrums or ask if anyone had come across materials with certain properties.
Other than Andrew Taylor, I don't know any other arts bloggers in higher education settings so it is difficult for me to gauge whether arts faculty are any more or less accepting of bloggers in their ranks.
I was looking through some of the blogs I have listed here today in order to catch up with what people have been doing. I really hadn't been reading since Thanksgiving so I got ready for a long session.
Much to my disappointment, some great blogs have disappeared.
My London Life hadn't been updated in a long time, but now it is completely gone. I only discovered it a year ago on my search for just such a blog. It was a great, frequently updated accounting of a London director's life in the theatre as well as discussing the process he engages in.
What was really a surprise was the disappearance of Spearbearer Down Left. According to George Hunka over at Superfluities, Spearbearer packed it in last week. George and Spearbearer frequently used their blogs as forums to debate similar topics with each other. It was often dense stuff and I had to really had to read what was being said.
I tried to see if the final pages were archived on the web somewhere by one of the search engines, but didn't have any luck. It is a mystery to me why he stopped. It seemed he hardly lacked for intelligent things to say.
On happier notes, I found more of those blogs I had been searching for a year ago via Greg Beuthin over at Extension 311.
By the grace of his eagle eye, I was lead to California Shakespeare Theater's actors blogs for Nicholas Nickleby and director's blog for Othello.
The entries were a little thin in my opinion. The director's blog only covered the tech week through opening so you don't get to see how things evolved through the rehearsal process. The actors' blogs, while informative and providing a behind the scenes look at challenges and insecurities, aren't updates as frequent as I would like. (With the exception of Jim Carpenter's who has a nice consistency.)
I think perhaps the entries by these folks were infrequent because they really didn't view blogs as a potentially valuable tool for removing the veil of mystery for patrons. And that's okay, these things take time to evolve for both practioners and readers alike.
But it is in contrast with the entries of a blog Kool-aid drinker like Greg Beuthin. His blog entries as alter-ego Palmito are both frequent and informative about the process. (His entry on why they are singing children's songs in rehearsal for example.)
All his hard work may not have put any more butts in the seats though, sez he back on Ext 311
Interestingly, most conventional wisdom seems to indicate that having a blog would encourage people to come see the show. While that may be true, it's unclear how much of an effect the blog has had on attendance (I haven't been asking nor handing out surveys...). What I do know is that people who have seen the show are reading the blog afterwards. Hmmm - I'll take it anyway. ;-)
I recently came to the realization that there may be an attitude out there about the arts which is nearly as detrimental as viewing them as elitist and intimidating.
The director of my division resigned so all the area coordinators recently met with administrator who would be essentially overseeing us until a replacement is hired.
The other two coordinators spoke at length about the challenges their areas faced. My turn came and I mentioned the difficulties geography and competition posed for us. One of the other coordinators told me that the solution was simple, if I could get people to come see one show they would come back for the others just like when many students came to take motorcycle safety, they decided to continue with digital media courses.
I was a little annoyed because I seem to constantly have to explain to people the Field of Dreams situation while once true, is not quite so valid any longer. I tried not to sound too exasperated while I pointed out there was a lot more competition for people's time and income than there used to be.
I also pointed out that her example was a little flawed because motivations to take motorcycle safety and digital media differ. In her terms the only product I had to offer was different varities of motorcycle safety.
In retrospect, I wondered if I shouldn't be at least grateful that she felt my performances were of a quality that people would naturally want to come back for more. Then I realized, she hasn't really been to a performance in the last 10 years or so (and she lives on the far end of the theatre parking lot).
So then I am thinking she may just attribute all performances with a sort of mystique and power. This seemed okay because the arts are always trying to convince the public that the arts have value in their lives.
And that is when it hit me--that doesn't do any good if people aren't actually adding arts attendance to their lives!
It sort of reminded me of the Just Say No drug campaign of the 80s. Kids would shout "Just Say No" on command, but since that is as far as the campaign went, the kids didn't internalize the concept and make it a part of their lives.
I am starting to think maybe I need to go back and look at all those surveys I have recently cited where there was a nice response among people saying they they felt the arts were an important part of their lives. I want to go back and compare the percentage of respondents to that question to the percentage of people who actually attended. (Taking a quick look back at my entry on an Urban Institute study, I get the impression they actually scrutinized that.)
To some extent, arts people only have themselves to blame because "the arts are good for you" is a major reason given when people don't want music cut from the schools or don't want funding cut for an organization. Certainly, these claims are usually accompanied by statistics showing things like how math scores improve for kids who take music.
On the other hand, sometimes arts people don't back it up with evidence or are the worst purveyors of this attitude themselves. One of my predecessors in a job I have held told me the story of how she had the opportunity to have a great choreographer's company perform at the theatre. Wondering if this person's work might be beyond the local community, she asked around to gauge interest.
She was told how what a coup it would be to have the company, how wonderful to have the opportunity, etc. Dance people especially were quite enthused.
Performance came--dance community didn't. When my predecessor asked the dance folks why they were so excited and yet didn't attend, the answer was essentially that it was important for the public to see this choreographer's works, but they personally weren't interested.
So two lessons from this-
1) When you ask if people are interested, you gotta explicitly ask if they will show up.
2) If you find they are really more excited about other people seeing the show, you ought to revisit your cost/benefit ratio calculations.