Potentially coming to a municipality near you is another effort by Google to help you get where you are goin'. Currently Beta testing in select cities is Google Transit.
Punch in where are, where you are going, what time you want to leave or arrive by and Google Transit will tell you the next 4 times buses pass by your start address, how long the transit will be with transfers (if any) and how much money you are saving vs. driving.
There are a few bugs to work out. For example it told me to get off the bus at a stop 3/4 mile farther away from work than I needed to and really underestimated the walk to work. I chalk it up to the data Google was provided by the transit company since the more distant stop is listed on the schedule and the closer, heavily used location is not.
The benefit for arts organizations, once the service is more refined and wide spread, is that it will help remove a barrier to attendance. You can encourage people to take the Rte. 42 bus, but if they are uncertain if the line near their house intersects conveniently with 42 they really need to be motivated to attend. This is especially true for weekends and nights when buses run less frequently.
For now, tuck it away and keep it in mind as a future resource you can direct patrons to so they can get to you.
Via Arts and Letters Daily is this article about how political correctness is undermining the quality of ballet in Britian. (As an interesting sidenote, the article is the result of an interview with a gentleman participating in a roundtable for Battle of Ideas at the end of October.)
Dance instructor turned critic Jeffrey Taylor attributes the decline to taboos about touching dance students and subjecting them to rigorous training regimines the teachers themselves experienced.
"Taylor is horrified. 'Touching is essential! The classical ballet technique is one of the most unnatural physical regimes ever invented by man...Children cannot be coaxed into these positions by words alone: they have to be shown. There is no way a child can understand how you straighten out your lumbar region, how you tuck your hips underneath you.�"
"Another of Taylor's laments is the non-judgemental current creeping into ballet. Just as touching is now banned, so too are the physically punishing regimes that were once the mainstay of ballet training. 'Today it's almost official: you never tell a child what to do unless they are willing to do it.' This just doesn't work. There comes a point [in ballet] when you have got to do as you are told, whether you understand or approve."
I haven't heard of too many similar cases in the US, but then I am not in the dance world. One thing I do know is that the concerns about inappropriate touching, while protecting the teacher, can tend to confuse the students.
One of the dance teachers on campus is careful to ask if she can touch a student before making contact to correct a posture. It turns out that some of the students find this creepy. A rank your professor website had a few comments about the professor's sexual hang-ups based specifically on the fact she poses the question.
I am interested to find out how prevalent this is in the US. I think I will drop a note to Doug Fox over at Great Dance and see if he would be willing to address this either in a response or on his blog.
I am also going to ask some acting teachers I know if this sort of thing has become a bigger concern of late. There isn't as much touching necessary when teaching acting as with dance. I wonder though if David Mamet's works are banned from the scene list for fear of offending other students.
I was talking to a friend yesterday and he happened to mention how great a mutual acquaintance in the arts was at her job. It just so happened that I had been talking to her earlier that day and she had mentioned that her parents didn't think her profession was suitable for a proper woman and that she should come home and get serious about her life.
This is a woman in arts administration whose steady paycheck is accompanied by pretty good medical, dental and vision. She doesn't get paid much, but she manages to sock some away. Much to my envy, she easily impresses people with her personality and professional skills within 5 minutes of meeting them.
I could understand from previous conversations why her parents might think acting was improper for a woman. The computer and business skills she has developed would be respected in most industries so I can only think that they don't quite understand what she does.
The threshold for my male friend's parents was a little lower. They grudgingly stopped nagging him when he started getting a steady salary and health insurance.
I had a friend in grad school from Canada who characterized the prevailing attitude in her country (or at least British Columbia) as theatre was fine for other people's kids, but not your own. People who would think nothing of driving three hours one way, she said, would give her father a pitying look when they learned she was studying theatre.
It is easy to claim that the lack of arts education in schools is creating generations who don't have any appreciation for the craft. While this may be true, I have seen and spoken to people whose parents spent hundreds of dollars each year to send their kids to acting and dance classes and then rounded up family and friends at $15-$20 each to watch them perform.
Heck, some of best rentals come from these schools. Most renters come in for a day or two, these guys rent for an entire week to allow for construction and rehearsal time.
Then I have seen these kids enter college and tell me their parents want them to quit their major or stop hanging out with the drama kids. I wonder at the dichotomy. Undoubtably in some cases it is due to the child leaving the discipline of home and having their grades crash. In many cases it appears to be a situation of "When I became a man I put childish things behind me." What was fine to support for years suddenly becomes frivolous.
Now I will be the first to admit that it is a damn tough path in life to follow. Heck, I have tried to dim the stars in the eyes of some in the hope of allowing them to see the rough road before them a little more clearly.
Just like teaching, it is a life of low pay, long hours and respect in low proportion to expectations and effort expended. People often try to dissuade friends and family from becoming teachers for this reason.
But they never say teaching isn't proper. Teachers are useful, after all.
We have all had that conversation. An internal dialogue at the very least. What are we really contributing to the world? When it all hits the fan, will my words/movement/painting help restore and set things aright? Personally, I take consolation in the fact I can pickle, can, bake bread from scratch, make candles and spin flax into thread. And I am not something totally useless like a lawyer.
I have no easy insight for solutions to offer here. I just wanted to introduce the topic in the hopes of spurring a conversation. Quite a few of my posts and news stories you read deal with arts funding being cut for organizations and schools. We talk about getting funding restored, attracting grants and audiences and doing a better job for less.
We often don't talk about, at least that I have seen, is dealing with the self-doubt we experience or the subtle/overt messages we get from family and friends about our choices. It is one thing to watch a sitcom with the periennially out of work actor who moves from sleeping on each of his friends' couches in turn and another to be living it.
Starving artists can't afford career counseling from anyone who doesn't think they are a bum or isn't starving themselves. They either get told to find a new line of work and start paying rent or to hang in there, they will make it one day because their fellow starving artist wants that hope for themselves.
I have never heard of the service being offered, but have any artists who have done well for themselves (besides college professors) turned around and given career advice to the starving ones? If they have or ever do, did anyone listen to the advice? We have all heard the story of the one person who was rejected by 99 arbiters of taste only to earn the belief of the 100th and become fabulously rich. Nevermind this was the 1 case in 100,000 and the 99 arbiters were wise to reject the other 99,999. Slim hope tells us we are the 100,000th case.
In any case. Thoughts? Ideas? Addresses of starving artist support groups? This is the place to express your mind.
You occasionally will read a story about organizations going through Founder's Syndrome where the continued involvement of an original founder or group of founders of an organization are inhibiting growth and evolution.
What I had never heard about, until fairly recently, was a case* where the decision to form a non-profit corporation resulted in the formation of a board that acted the shrink the organization rather than work to expand it. I was wondering if anyone has come across similar instances.
What I chalk it up to is poor board recruitment. Even though the board is apparently comprised of many successful business people with excellent social connections, I have wondered if they weren't properly briefed as to their role as board members.
The back story is this. A guy I have been acquainted with for a number of years had a little performance troupe that was modestly successful with the infusion of a lot of love and energy and money, but he wasn't reaping what he sowed. When last I saw him, things were growing to a point where he needed more help and funding to continue and he eventually made the decision to incorporate as a not-for profit.
To some extent, his decision was a good one. He had no desire to micromanage and turned over many responsibilities to his board. The board's connections brought greater recognition and funding to the organization. He is still working his butt off, but at least the burden he bears is somewhat less.
What is rather perplexing though is that the board is urging him to roll back his activities to approximately the place it was before they were recruited. My friend seems pretty much resigned to the fact that it was his decision to subsume his will to that of the board. Indeed, it seems the board is of the same general mind and there is little chance an opposing faction sharing his sentiments will emerge. The good news, I suppose, is that there is great stability and little rancor.
What also seems strange is that the board seems to be acting unusually conservative so early in its organizational life cycle.
I almost wonder if the board members fully comprehend the whole funding concept for non-profits. From what I can tell, they seem rather risk averse to the necessity of looking to unpredictable sources like grants and donations to make up for earned income shortfalls. I think they may proprose limiting activities as a way of limiting deficits.
My friend talks about how young and energetic the group is in administrative, advocacy and event planning roles. I wonder if the group suffers from not having older heads who have experienced fiscially tight times on non-profit boards. From what I can tell, the organization hasn't experienced any significant losses at the end of their fiscial years.
I think my friend is caught in a bit of a quandry. He has essentially given up control of a brand he established to other people who had no hand in creating it. He is frustrated that the organization hasn't grown to reach as many people as much as he dreamt it would when he decided to incorporate. However, I think he finding it easier sleeping at night now that someone else is worrying about finances and his own savings are no longer vulnerable.
I was curious to know if anyone had come across a similar situation or had some advice on how to productively effect change. Patience may see the board grow more comfortable or transition favorably as terms expire but there is no guarantee a passive approach will be successful.
*Some non-critical details have been changed to obscure identities.
From Slate today is a review of a book about how to advertise effectively. Now there seem to be scads of books about advertising out there already, so what makes this one particularly effective you ask?
For starters, the authors, Rex Briggs and Greg Stuart, who have written What Sticks promise logical analysis rather than relying on "illogical" and "faith-based" approaches. Indeed, they criticize author Seth Godin's wildly popular anecdote filled Big Moo as smoke and mirrors, convincing you that you can be successful by reading about other people's successes.
In contrast, What Sticks' authors "examined the marketing techniques of 30 major corporations, analyzed more than $1 billion in ad spending, and studied the effect of those ads on more than 1 million consumers...the book strives to find those parts of marketing that can be measured, and then to measure them."
I haven't read the book but it does seem worth a peek or two. One of the interesting things the review reveal is an analysis of the "three times" rule. Apparently, seeing the same message three times in the same medium is less effective than getting the message once from three different media.
Now the authors studied major corporations with millions to spend. One wonders if the results between the two approaches will be statistically insignificant when campaigns supported by a few thousand dollars are studied. If there is any validity to the observations on smaller scales, a good database would seem to be in order so that you can identify and track the newspapers, radio, television stations and web presences tgat will be most effective to reach your target audience rather than just relying on the weekend entertainment section of the Friday paper. (Though I assume by now people have recognized the diminishing influence of newspapers in people's lives and started exploring other avenues.)
What the reviewer, Seth Stevenson, says the book can't do is tell you how to make your ads good. Judging from the shotgun approach GEICO is taking these days trying to appeal to everyone with some angle at some point, it doesn't seem easy. (Though granted, their target market is larger than arts organizations'--everyone who drives.)
Scrutinize statistics and listen to anecdotes all you want, talent and ability will tell.
In response to a postscript I made yesterday on the entry from the day before, Michael Clark asks:
Copyrights are such an "interesting" problem. For community theatre, would still photos of the final set and performers be subject to the whims of the copyright holder of the playwright? Or of the designers for that show? Do you know of a good (or bad) web site that details some of the copyright issues for live theatre?
It is a good set of questions. While I did work for a play publisher and filled out tons of copyright forms, I don't know of any website that specifically deals with the copyright issues of live theatre. There are a few good ones that deal with copyright in general. The one here deals with visual, audio and digital topics in an easy to understand manner.
In answer to Michael's specific questions: The playwright really doesn't have a lot of interests vested in the use of still photos provided you have paid for the performance rights. It might actually be more accurate to say while there are some instances a playwright might have cause for complaint, you are more than likely going to come up against costume and set design issues first. Audio and visual recordings on the other hand, because the action is driven by the playwright's work will usually require additional permission from the playwright or agent.
In the example Michael gave, the set design is protected by copyright. Costume design is a little tougher according to the United Scenic Artist's website on copyright. (The link talks about the famous case that established that set design is copyrightable, along with some other design related cases, if you are interested.)
In the case of a photograph, you may need permission of all the people in it to use the photo. Actors' Equity has guidelines about the use of their member's images for publicity and at what point additional permission (and payment) needs to be sought. With the advent of viral video like YouTube as a common way to promote shows, I have no idea if the restrictions have or will become looser or stricter. Don't make the mistake of thinking just because people aren't members of a union they don't enjoy protections.
Be aware that with a photo, you need the permission of the photographer to reproduce it. Many photo labs including your local Walmart and Costco will often ask for a signed form if photos look like they are professionally done or if the group in the picture appears to be professionals.
The same is true with video recordings. You not only need clearance from the performers, the designers, the show director and whomever wrote the material being performed, you also need permission from whomever filmed it in order to have it broadcast and reproduced. This is less a factor if you are filming with the intent of broadcasting and everyone involved knows and has signed off on it. But if you decide you want to do something with the footage shot by the kid who has been fooling around with his video camera for the last week, you're going to need his permission.
With photos and video the choices for lighting, composition, angles, etc all contitute unique artistic decisions which are copyrightable. And every work, once completed is considered copyrighted even if one hasn't formally filed for it. However, it is easier to defend your copyright if you have filed and created a notice.
Now if you decide to edit raw footage into a commercial, you need the editor's permission too, because his/her decisions about cuts, transitions, ordering, etc all belong to him/her. You go to have your tape transferred to a format your local television station can use and the lab will definitely ask for clearance forms.
Now if you are organized, you will have let your actors and designers know that at some point during the rehearsal and performance process their work will be used in X formats to promote the show through Y channels and get their permission to do so. You will also get agreements with the folks who are recording, filming and editing that makes it clear what they produce is going to be transmitted by Y channels as well.
You should note, though, that unless the person is an employee of your company, you must have a contract with the creator of a work that specifically says it is a work for hire, else you do not have copyright on the material.
So if you hired someone to shoot footage for a commerical and then later decided to make a retrospective video with snippets from shows over the last 25 years, the person who shot the footage could deny you permission to use it even though you paid him to do the job.
If it is starting to seem like it is not worth trying to promote a show with any work you don't produce yourself, you begin to see why lawyers get paid a lot to navigate these topics and sue you if you run afoul them. This is EXTREMELY general and not meant to spare the cost of hiring a lawyer. There are a lot of exceptions and nuances. I have seen visual artists specify how their works will be displayed and cared for in a work for hire contract. Such contracts shouldn't be seen as a way to secure carte blanche to do was you wish with someone's work.
That said, what really allows the world to keep turning freely is that despite the high profile cases about copyright and intellectual property offenses, most people readily give tacit permission for reasonable use of their image and performance. Of course, this is more true in community theaters where a person's image, performance or designs aren't necessarily their livelihood.
I have been rather busy lately and I fear the quality of my blog entries has been suffering. I am helping to produce a world premiere piece that will debut in 3 weeks so right now I am embroiled in program book layouts, marketing and donor reception planning. Since I won't make a cent from any subsequent touring it might do, I don't feel any conflict promoting it a bit here.
I do feel a little conflicted though about the fact the show is based on a Hawaiian legend after I have bemoaned the lack of originality in new shows these days. On the other hand, there aren't any major works outside of Children's Theater shows based on Hawaiian myths so the stories are due a little recognition. Second, the style of the performance pretty much requires it be a traditional story.
Also I am damned proud to be associated with it. We filmed a commercial two weeks ago and I was astounded at how far along the show was at 5 weeks out.
The story itself is pretty recognizable. Two lovers of different classes are transformed into flowers for engaging in a forbidden relationship. These particular plants, the Naupaka, only bloom in semi-circle flowers so the tradition is to get a flower from the mountains and a flower from the seaside and bring them together to form a full bloom.
The execution of the show is the interesting part. We are billing it as a contemporary Hawaiian opera because it has that feel and scope and will be rendered entirely in Hawaiian with English supertitles. There is a lot more dance and movement than you will find in opera. The dance encompasses modern, ballet and pōhuli.
Pōhuli refers to hula inspired dance. Because of the great respect the company has for the traditional Hawaiian dance form, they are very clear about the fact that they do not do hula. An eminent Hawaiian scholar chose the word pōhuli, which actually refers to a new shoot on a banana plant, as the term to use for hula inspired off shoots.
The musical elements are a mix of traditional and contemporary as well and includes Hawaiian slack key guitar, flamenco guitar, violins, bass alongside the traditional 'ipu heke and chanters.
I will tell you right now. Hawaiian chant will give any other language a run for its money in opera when it comes to creating a powerful mood or atmosphere. The hair on your arms will stand up when some of the adepts perform. If anyone was at Wolf Trap this past weekend to see Halau o Kekuhi, you can probably attest to this fact.
The set will be very contemporary with flowing fabrics and projected images creating time and place to make the set easily tourable.
If you are interested in learning more you can check out our website which includes set sketches. Wait about a day and we will have an informational guide available for download about the Hawaiian cultural elements present in the show.
I received an email over Labor Day Weekend from Chad Bauman, Marketing Director for Virgina Stage Company asking me if I would add his Arts Marketing Blog to my blog. At the time there weren't too many entries and I wasn't about to link to a site that only had two entries. After a week I visited again and saw it was coming along so I added it to my list of links on the right.
As I delved further, I discovered that not only does the theatre have their regular website and Chad's blog (though his is general topics as well as about VA Stage), but they also have a MySpace site. (VA Stage is apparently a Capricorn) According to Chad, MySpace drives twice as much traffic to the organization website as Google does. I have actually had people suggest we advertise on MySpace and am now really beging to ponder it.
Even more compelling is an article on the Chronicle of Higher Education website today detailing why Allegheny College went to a lot of trouble to create a rather detailed page on MySpace.
The site has become an integral part of Allegheny’s public-relations plan, Mr. Richwalsky says, but it was created "out of necessity": Campus officials worried that if they didn’t lock up the "alleghenycollege" login name, someone else would create an unofficial (and less flattering) profile for the college.
The plethora of unflattering material on MySpace was part of the reason I have been reticent to advertise on the site. But I suppose there is just as much danger of someone putting up a regular website at www.Joestheatresucks.com.
Back to VA Stage though. They fill out their online presence (at least that I have discovered thus far) with a blog of their own. The blog contains entries and sketches from the costume designers, a copy of the annual report and video and audio clips from the rehearsals of their current show.
I have been pushing for theatres to put together blogs about productions for awhile now so I am happy to point out examples when I find them. Now granted, it takes a lot of time to maintain and monitor all these sites. But it doesn't have to be expensive. Both VA Stage and Chad's blogs are hosted on Blogger which is free as is the MySpace account. The video clip is hosted on YouTube-also free. So if you have more time than money (or skilled volunteer help at least) it is possible to expand your organization's exposure and presence on the cheap.
NB-It occurs to me now that I have published this entry that there are obvious impediments to the whole concept of simple and cheap. The reproduction and transmission of an artists performance is often protected by copyright and/or a union. Set and costume designs are likewise protected by copyright. In these days when intellectual property rights are so strongly defended, an organization would do well to secure permissions before posting any sort of image or recording online.
Just some FYI materials to provide a little guidance to those who are looking for ways to position their events.
The NEA just came out with a report on consumer spending on the arts in 2005. It seems when adjusted for inflation, spending on performing arts events was flat with 2004 spending. 2004 only saw 0.9% growth so it isn't terribly surprising that it is flat. What is sort of depressing is that the economy grew in both 2004 and 2005 but arts spending didn't. By 3.9% and 3.2%, respectively, according to the report.
As bad as that may seem, adjusted spending attending movies and sports events both dropped. Movies dropped for a third year by 4.7% and spectator sporting events by 1.6%, down from 1.6% growth in 2004.
So where is all the money going? As you might imagine, to at home entertainment equipment which saw 12.7% growth. But there was also comparable growth (11.7%) in non-durable toys and sports supplies.
It seems the biggest growth moves in different directions. People are staying at home and enjoying audio and video equipment and/or getting out and getting active. (Or at least they are buying a lot of expensive equipment with that intent before being seduced by their home entertainment centers!)
This makes it a little tough to decide how to position events. It is fairly easy to portray watching television at home as passive and inactive and show attendance at a show or gallery as exciting and engaging (if your current patrons find it so). The problem is, sports and outdoor activities are even more active than event attendance.
Perhaps portraying arts attendance as a continuation of an active lifestyle? Coming home from running/biking/climbing, etc., you are too amped up to sit passively watching two dimensional images. Only the passion exuding from live performers makes your nerve endings tingle and makes you feel alive!
I recently came across this example of an employee training manual on Inc.com. The article is a few years old, but the manual excerpts that you can download immediately show that the company (Zingerman's Deli) is interested in making the training process fun and empowering employees to contribute to the success of the company.
It isn't tough to see how emulating Zingerman's general approach for employees and volunteers can contribute to strengthening a relationship with and between them.
Via Salon today is a review of a book by Daniel Levitin, This is Your Brain on Music. It is an interesting sounding book about how music is essentially hard wired into humans.
Among the interesting observations Levitin makes is that:
"When a song begins, Levitin says, the cerebellum, which keeps time in the brain, "synchronizes" itself to the beat. Part of the pleasure we find in music is the result of something like a guessing game that the brain then plays with itself as the beat continues. The cerebellum attempts to predict where beats will occur. Music sounds exciting when our brains guess the right beat, but a song becomes really interesting when it violates the expectation in some surprising way."
But the part that may be most interesting to arts folks in the music field deals with the vogue trend of getting kids to listen to Mozart in the womb. The music is actually recognized, though it doesn't make the child smarter. The impulse to have kids listen to music if you want to imprint an appreciation for a certain type throughout their lives isn't far off the mark.
"Studies suggest that we start listening to and remembering music in the womb...Humans prefer music of their own culture when they're toddlers, but it's in our teens that we choose the specific sort of music that we'll love forever. These years, Levitin explains, are emotional times, "and we tend to remember things that have an emotional component because our amygdala and neurotransmitters act in concert to 'tag' the memories as something important."... Consequently it's in our teens that we're most receptive to new kinds of music (in much the same way it's easier to learn a new language when you're young than when you're old)."
So there you have it. Symphony outreach programs should be structured to allow teenagers to make out to classical music or engage in some other activity rife with emotional opportunities and they will be well disposed toward the music for life. Though if we have learned anything from A Clockwork Orange, it is that a teen's love of classical music doesn't guarantee a well-adjusted member of society.
While I don't expect symphonies would ever sanction "Make Out to Mahler" sessions, having outreaches in a comfortable environment might go some distance toward engendering positive feelings for classical music. Unfortunately, this probably rules out school auditoria and intimidating symphony halls. The concert hall lobby next to the coffee bar might be nice though.