Being human, it is inevitable that we compare our experiences and progress with others. Whether it is in our personal and professional lives or measuring our organization against others in our community or region, the grass is always greener elsewhere in some respect even if you are on top.
Coveting another's success will often move you to examine how they obtained fame, fortune, life of ease, etc., in the hopes of replicating the ends by duplicating the path they took.
Some times this works, but many times it does not. There is a story Joseph Campbell tells in a number of his works about King Arthur and his knight's search for the Holy Grail that has stuck in my head for years. As they begin the quest for the grail, they come to a forest
"'They thought it would be a disgrace to go forth in a group. Each entered the forest at the point that he himself had chosen, where it was darkest, and there was no way or path.'"No way or path! Because where there is a way or path, it is someone else's path."
This always seemed like a potent bit of wisdom whether one is seeking personal enlightenment, examining one's career path or running a business. Life is not like a marathon where the path is cleared and marked and progress is easy to measure and compare against others. It is more like that forest.
If you have ever pushed into a forest where a path is not, you often find to your surprise that once you are past the outer layer of entwined branches and brambles, the way through the forest is much clearer. Other times there is more of the same and a swamp to boot. Like the grail search, the distance, location and actual appearance of the goal is unknown.
It is hard to remember all this when you hear about the success others are having, the distance they are covering, the treasure they are finding. It is easy to think you should be using rope because the successful guys are using rope. But their forest passes over a mountain and yours is full with brambles where a machete is more useful. Even if your path takes you through a swamp where a rope might be helpful, you are going to use it in a different manner than those traversing mountains.
I use this lengthy metaphor to reinforce the advice I have issued before about carefully assessing technology tools rather than jumping on the bandwagon because everyone else seems to be doing so. The same goes with programming decisions, marketing plans, construction and pretty much every other choice you may have to make.
In the last few weeks I linked to a video where Malcolm Gladwell talked about how Prego overtook Ragu in the spaghetti sauce market when their research figured out that people's general preference is for either regular, chunky or zesty/spicy sauce. Now you can walk into the store and have 20-30 choices of sauce from Prego alone. Ragu hired Prego's researcher in an attempt to catch up and offers a similarly large variety of sauce.
Knowing that Prego met with success and knowing that Gladwell is considered a real smart, insightful guys these days, you may decide he is right and there is no one perfect product for everyone. But is offering a wide variety of arts experiences right for your organization? Is it even within its capacity to execute?
Inspiring stories of success can be great to hear but the strategies aren't sure things for everyone. The now cliched phrase "If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we X" only proves that different people with different expertise and different resources were able to put a man on the moon.
And there have been very few attempts to follow that path since.
The Chronicle of Philanthropy recently reported on some interesting research that has emerged about what motivates people's giving.
Scholars have found that fund-raising appeals do best when they are crafted around a single gripping image, informing donors about big gifts that their peers have contributed helps expand giving, and holding an athletic marathon — or even a walk over smoldering coals — might do more to encourage donations than a picnic or gala ball.
A quick expansion on these findings and summary of the article- A single picture of an impoverished person was more effective in getting donations than the same picture with stats or a picture with two impoverished people. People who were told that another person gave a large gift just prior to them were more likely to give more, up to a point, than if they were not informed. People will pay more to do something strenuous for a cause than a pleasant activity. One person's research actually found that people gave more after putting their hands in ice water.
So what are the implications for the arts? Well, first off I should issue the caveat one of the researchers gave, while physical discomfort may be effective for raising money to succor those who live uncomfortable lives, it may not motivate people "...to support an art museum or the Girl Scouts of the USA." That is actually the next avenue of research in which some intend to pursue.
What the research does suggest is that donors like to have a personal connection with what ever they support. The article mentions penpal programs and an ability to socialize with the beneficiaries can be effective. I know some arts organizations engage in adopt an actor or dancer programs already so that is a possibility.
I remember reading a blog or article mentioning some negative aspects in to these programs though. I have a vague recollection that it had something to do with the performers feeling like commodities. You also run the risk of having some performers, (or pieces of art if a gallery tries this), being more prestigious than others. I know of an acting conservatory that encouraged donors to "adopt" their students and the elephant in the room was often that some sponsored students were in better roles than others or appeared on the more prestigious stage.
One thing in the realm of personal connections I found interesting was the idea that non-profits often underestimated how committed people might be if they lacked a personal connection to a cause.
"Rebecca Ratner, an associate professor of marketing at the University of Maryland at College Park, found that some charities expressed doubt that potential volunteers without a personal tie to the cause could be serious and committed.
“Don’t underestimate how much people care about your organization, even if they don’t have a personal connection to it,” she said."
One of the things the researchers noted was that people like to spread their money out among a number of causes rather than invest it in fewer causes. They suggested giving people various ways to support a single cause in your organization may be a way to tap into this inclination.
"A donor who supports a single charity by sponsoring a child, paying for school supplies, and supporting advocacy may feel more satisfied than a supporter who gives the same amount to a single program within the organization..."
What seemed to be a core concern for all donors is that an entity in need was realizing the fullest benefit possible from their giving. People would rather have a program inefficiently use their money than to have it devoted to overhead like administration and marketing.
After spotting a mention of the list in a New York Magazine book review of economist Tyler Cowen’s new book, I searched Cowen’s blog to see if he had included his tips for visiting an art museum there. (Presumably the list is in his book, too.)
The entry appeared about two years ago. The impetus for writing on the subject, a post on Two Blowhards blog, actually has some interesting commentary about different people’s styles for moving around a museum.
Cowen’s post is a little more pragmatic attempting to strip away any pretense in one’s relationship to the art itself.
“A key general principle is to stop self-deceiving and admit to yourself that you don't just love "art for art's sake." You also like art for the role it plays in your life, for its signaling value, and for how it complements other things you value, such as relationships and your self-image. It then becomes possible for you to turn this fact to your advantage, rather than having it work against you. Keeping up the full pretense means that you must impose a high implicit tax on your museum-going. This leads you to restrict your number of visits and ultimately to resent the art and find it boring.”
As cynical as it may sound, it might be the most honest way of approaching art, be it visual or performing, that I have heard. I have yet to attempt embracing this view in practice.
He offers a couple suggestions about experiencing visual art that can make the encounter interesting for novices including trying to decide which work in each room you might take home and why and going with other people to see it through their eyes.
He also gives people permission not to like what they see noting that many museums display “large numbers of second-rate paintings by first-rate artists. Try to find them. Don't think it is all great, it isn't.”
A museum probably wouldn't be well served by having docents pass these last bit of instructions on to tour groups. Some of the other exercises he and other suggest would probably make the experience even more engaging. Intimating that each work is more masterful than the last is probably confusing and ultimately alienating to people who are pretty sure it simply is not so.
The Independent Sector recently published a report on the value of volunteer time. It turns out that it is $18.77 an hour as of 2006. A chart on the webpage calculates the value of volunteerism since 1980. (Rather depressing to see that for much of my life, my labor was worth a whole lot more than I was being paid.)
There is also another chart that breaks down the value on a state by state basis. These numbers are in 2005 values since the state reporting lags the Federal reporting by a year. It turns out that Washington D.C. had the highest value at $27.44/hour. I am guessing the salaries of all those politicians, lobbyists and lawyers skews the results a little.
These numbers can be useful in reporting the value of volunteers to your organization. However, as the report notes,
"the value of volunteer services can also be used on financial statements – including statements for internal and external purposes, grant proposals, and annual reports – only if a volunteer is performing a specialized skill for a nonprofit. The general rule to follow...is to determine whether the organization would have purchased the services if they had not been donated." (my emphasis)
Another guideline to note is that people donating their time to perform the specific skills from their profession can be valued higher than the general average, but only if they volunteering those specific skills.
"If a doctor is painting a fence or a lawyer is sorting groceries, he or she is not performing his or her specialized skill for the nonprofit, and their volunteer hour value would not be higher."
All the information is included on a single web page with links to the appropriate sections of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Federal Accounting Standards Board for those who are interested in learning how to calculate the value of volunteered hours more precisely (and legally).
My thanks to Grantstation Insider for the scoop.
I have been coming across a lot of interesting information lately. It's just that very little of it is pertinent to arts management. At least, not in a way that my brain has been able to perceive connections.
As a believer in the need to expose ones mind to myriad ideas in order to stop thinking about work and day to day concerns all the time, I will step out of the usual theme of this blog and suggest some thought stimulating material.
In this case, I would like to point you to the TED website. They hold an annual conference where they invite thinkers and performers who have something interesting to share. Every week they post need video of sessions that were conducted during the conferences.
I have been checking a couple out each week for a month or so now and can attest to the quality of thought being presented. I hate to admit it, but I haven't watched any of the performances yet because so many other topics are so compelling.
The videos are only about 20 minutes long so they fit a lunch break or short quiet moments you might be able to grab at home.
Among some of my favorites of the ones I have watched thus far-
Charles Leadbetter talking about creativity.
Sir Ken Robinson discussing the problems inherent to removing creativity from education (very funny guy)
Seth Godin and Malcolm Gladwell talking about marketing and answering unrealized needs.
Now granted, some of the above talks will cover areas of interest to people in the arts. But I was also intrigued by-
Barry Schwartz talking about being overwhelmed by choices. An interesting supplement to Gladwell's praise of offering more choices and Godin's discussion of how people are so bombarded with advertising, they tune out.
Steven Levitt talking about why crack dealers still live with their mothers.
Peter Donnelly discussing how, when even mathematicians are mistaken about statistics, the layperson can make enormous errors in believing them. (A caution to us, perhaps, about the validity of survey data.)
Hope you find something that fires your imagination and interest.
Interesting developments in Buffalo, NY coming to me via A Poor Player blog. Facing a large deficit, the management of the Studio Arena took a number of cost cutting measures including eliminating 14 positions and reducing the number of designers for each show.
They also decided to collaborate with local performance groups and present two of their productions as part of the Studio Arena season. This is the type of thinking I, among others, have encouraged performing arts groups to engage in-- partnering up rather than competing.
There was a little catch though that anyone seeking to follow my encouragement should heed. These partner organizations were comprised of non-union actors and the Studio Arena is an Equity house. Tom Loughlin who write A Poor Player includes links to three stories about the conflict between Studio Arena and the Actors Union to provide the back story. (All Acrobat documents)
The theatre and union eventually came to a resolution and arranged for the non-union groups to be paid according to the lower LORT D payrate rather than the LORT B rate that the Studio Arena usually needs to pay actors at. The non-union actors will have the option of applying for their union cards after the performance runs are complete.
In his blog Tom raises some issues the newspaper articles don't, issues I suspect won't be unique to the Buffalo area. He feels that local Equity actors have never been able to win with the Studio Arena. He points out that the regional theatre movement was started with the idea that local actors could find employment. Instead, actors from New York City were hired with few local actors getting more than token smaller roles. (A long time trend I recently noted.)
Now, in tighter financial times you might think local actors would see more employment given that there is no housing and transportation expenses to pay. Instead, Tom says, the local Equity actors are being skipped over in favor of even cheaper labor from non-union actors.
The whole concept of partnering on efforts remains a good one. I hate to have to qualify my feelings in the context of this incident by adding: as long as it is done with the intent of strengthening all those involved rather than circumvent obligations. There is no evidence that Studio Arena sought to exploit perceived loopholes other than the suspicions people have about its motivations.
As one of the articles notes, union membership has always been a mixed bag for actors hindering opportunities as much as facilitating them. With an increasing number of theatres finding themselves on financial unstable ground and the Studio Arena precedent, I wonder how many more concessions Actors' Equity might find themselves making in the near future.
With the movie studios calling for an end of residual payments to writers, actors and directors, it looks like some tough years ahead for union members on many fronts.
There was an article on Salon.com yesterday that tickled the edges of my intuition a little. It was one of those things that I wasn't sure about the applications to the arts but seemed to bear watching and considering.
The article was about a woman who develops Alternate Reality Games where they propose "What if" scenarios and use the combined brain power of participants to play the situations to help predict what might happen. In a "World without Oil" scenario, not only did people talk about where they would acquire resources and how they would go about their lives, "document[ing] their imagined scenarios in blogs, Flickr photos, YouTube videos, and podcasts," some people actually took action and planted gardens and converted their vehicles to run on bio-diesel.
The concept was used to hype the release of a Microsoft game and political action groups have made appeals to members/readers to help sift through large government documents. Darker applications have occurred to some who have begun exploring how the structure could be used to manipulate the public or use large groups for surveillance activities.
On a less somber note, the article mention flash buying mobs that have formed where 100 people will show up at a store and commit to buying products if they are given deep discounts. I know a lot of arts organizations who would readily extend discounts if that many people would pop up at their door.
While the temptation to use this sort of thing to manipulate the public may be great, I was thinking of something along the lines of leveraging collective brain power to discover how altering practices may make attending performances and exhibits more enticing. How to do it effectively rather than as a hi-tech survey, I don't know.
Partnering with a company so they will include your organization in one of these souped up scavenger hunts is probably also counterproductive. No matter how entrancing a performance or gallery show is, the participants' attention will be on gathering information. God forbid they decide they have gotten what they need in the middle of a performance and then head for the doors.
It would be fascinating to see if some sort of performance work or even a theatre facility could be created in this manner. I am not talking about creation by committee, which tends to generate awful results, but rather tapping into the collective knowledge to do research on a time period or on architectural features that work. I imagine people sending video and pictures of weaponry and costumes to a creative team. Or perhaps they send images of hallways, door knobs and light switch placements that work well in buildings.
Last month, the U.S. Conference of Mayors passed four resolutions regarding the arts.
The resolutions, which may be found on pages 7-10 of the Acrobat document were (my emphasis)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the United States Conference of Mayors supports the conclusions of the Arts and Economic Prosperity III study and urges mayors across the country to invest in nonprofit arts organizations through their local arts agencies as a catalyst to generate economic impact, stimulate business development, spur urban renewal, attract tourists and area residents to community activities, and to improve the overall quality of life in America’s cities.NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the United States Conference of Mayors urges mayors to consider these recommended arts policy strategies to help stimulate private giving to the arts and arts education in America.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the United States Conference of Mayors urges mayors to build partnerships with their local arts agencies and other members of the arts and humanities community in their cities to proclaim, to participate in, and to celebrate the month of October as National Arts and Humanities Month.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the United States Conference of Mayors reaffirms its support of the National Endowment for the Arts (and specifically the valuable Challenge America program), National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Office of Museum Services within the Institute of Museum and Library Services and calls upon Congress to restore full funding for these agencies in the FY’08 appropriations bills.
Now granted, these resolutions aren't binding in the least. That doesn't mean you can't use it to your benefit though. Plug your mayor's name (or city) into the search field in the upper right hand corner of the web site to determine if your mayor is a member of the conference. Then contact his/her honor and congratulate them for joining with their colleagues in ratifying these items and provide suggestions on how you can collaborate.
The better prepared you are with your proposal and the more unity you can show with other arts organizations, arts councils and even chambers of commerce, the more effective I imagine your efforts will be. It doesn't matter if your mayor voted for the resolution or not, as noted in an earlier entry, if you give him/her an opportunity to look like a good person, there is a good chance of success. Of course, the better the local economy, the better your chances of getting direct financial support from your city.
Getting the mayor to take these resolutions to heart and advocate on behalf of the arts community to businesses and other governmental entities may end up being of greater value than what the municipal budget could provide.
The these four resolutions were submitted by the committee on tourism, arts, parks, entertainment and sports. Unfortunately, the Conference of Mayors website only lists the committee chair. It would be interesting to learn who else serves on the committee since the citizens those mayors serve would have a greater claim on those politicians to step up to their convictions.
This being my 500th entry, I thought I would wax a little philosophical.
Back when I was actually taking philosophy in college, I was always intrigued by the basic idea of what it is that comprises identity. Generally, the concept is introduced with a question like-If your arm is chopped off and replaced with a prosthetic, are you still the same person you were before? Then what about a leg? The questioning goes on removing and adding body parts to start the conversation about how much has to be removed before you are no longer you. Accompanying the question is also the idea of whether the loss of certain senses changes you since you no longer experience the world in the same manner.
The final examine for the course challenged us to compare what different philosophers would say about the identity of crew members on the Star Trek television shows given that the process of "beaming down" demolecularized and then reconstituted them.
Sure it sounds strange, but the essential questions of identity come up quite often in conversation on many topics. Certainly, it emerges all the time in regard to art. One of the first questions most arts students are asked explicitly or implicitly is what is art? One of the initial separations people try to make is between art and craft and then pare their definitions down little by little hoping to find that one defining element wherein art resides.
Given that a pieces of clay shaped into water jugs by Incan potters 500 years ago are enshrined as art objects in museums and private collections, people are often uneasy making definite statements about the difference between art and craft and never get beyond that point.
If distilling the elements of art were so easy to do, someone would mix it with the ingredients of quality, bottle and sell it.
If things do get bogged down or boring during your debate about art, you can always introduce James Joyce's idea that all the art we see these days, including Norman Rockwell's paintings, is pornography.
The truth is, seeking the ingredients of art can be just as fun as boldly walking into a room and accusing Norman Rockwell of being an arch-pornographer.
Go into the rehearsals for a new play and try to figure out when it becomes art. Does it happen during rehearsals? Does it happen on opening night? Does it happen some 10 days into the run when everyone settles into their stride? Does it happen at different times for different actors? Has the set and lighting always been artistic from the start but the show doesn't become art until the acting ensemble integrates itself with these elements?
Was art created the moment the platonic ideal of the show coalesced in the director's head? Since performance is meant to be experienced by others, is it not validated as art until someone has witnessed it?
If the performance is awful, was art created? Given that the work of many visual artists wasn't appreciated until after their deaths, art can obviously exist independently of perceived quality and value.
Similar criteria can be applied to paint brush strokes, musical notes and poetic phrases.
Engaging in this sort of speculation with a light heart can make an arts experience enjoyable and I daresay will sharpen one's perceptions as one endeavors to spot the point at which the ingredients transmuted into art.
Now some may think that coming to these realizations is a great argument for the teaching of philosophy. I should note that I believe I got a C+ in the class and that was probably mercy on the part of the professor. At some point, the lessons started to sink in and make sense in the context of the world at large.
Hmm, I wonder if I can discern the point in my life when the knowledge finally turned in to comprehension....
Last month Barry Hessenius did a rather lengthy entry on his blog regarding lobbying for non-profits. I haven't seen any mention of it elsewhere and felt it important to call attention to some of what he mentions.
Hessenius recently completed his book, Hardball Lobbying for Non-profits, so the topic is fairly close to his heart and thoughts. His thesis essentially is that like it or not, lobbying and the expenditure of money that accompanies it is absolutely necessary to maintain stable governmental funding and legislative support. There are plenty of other causes as worthy as yours out there so success on an emotional or logical appeal is going to be less likely to succeed. And if the other worthies bring money into the picture, the job becomes that much more difficult.
"Rather than acting like a $160+ billion a year industry, the national nonprofit arts field has ceded the power of its economic clout by its failure to engage in serious advocacy and lobbying efforts in comparison to other special interest groups."
Contrary to what you may believe given the amounts involved in the recent campaign financing and lobbying scandals, he states that it doesn't take that much money to effectively lobby legislators. However, it would behoove the industry to have a well-organized and funded lobby apparatus in place at all times keeping its interests on law makers' radar at all times.
The worst thing that can happen, Hessenius says, is to be in the position of trying to marshal your forces in times of funding and legislative crisis. Many performing arts people are familiar with the maxim, "cheap, quick, quality, pick two" so the benefit of financing a consistent effort can be apparent.
Personally, I'd as concerned about getting my money worth from the lobbyist as I am from the legislator. I suspect that there will be a steep learning curve from mistakes made initially. Much of what he says makes sense. Organizations are urged to create a Crisis Public Relations plan in advance because there is little chance of manufacturing an effective one during one.
Hessenius says he is going to try to create the lobbying machinery for all non-profits, regardless of urban, suburban or rural setting. I don't know what his exact plan is, but he wants to do advocacy and lobbying workshops across the country and explicitly asks for his readers' help in arranging and hosting them. If you are in a position to help him out, read over the entry and contact him.
**He says to email him a reply to the message but there is no email listed which makes me believe he was referring to the fact many have the column automatically emailed to them. If you really want to participate, perhaps contact WESTAF which hosts his blog.
A lot of bloggers, myself included, talk a good deal about engaging audiences, being relevant to the community and getting people to be less passive participants but we rarely point to any examples that work.
You may not agree with their politics, but Bread and Puppet does all of these things pretty well. They are completely dedicated to doing all the things I have mentioned along with keeping art accessible to all. They have been doing it for about 40 years and until 1998, had tens of thousands of people showing up to an unadvertised annual event to participate.
Now granted, it can be easy to get people interested in what you do when they see an immense puppet hovering in the tree (third photo). And the lure of great homemade bread with garlic aioli can't be underestimated.
They get people involved with the performance of their pieces. During the summer they have shows every Sunday that are rehearsed with members of the community on Saturday.
Back when I was an undergraduate the theatre department at my college had Bread and Puppet come in to get the students involved in a performance. I couldn't help but be impressed by the costuming and scale of the puppets we were taught to manipulate. I still remember it quite clearly even though it was (mumble) years ago. I also recall how flexible company founder Peter Schumann was with his vision when the number of students who showed up was less than the amount he requested.
So the lesson here is to hone your papier mache and giant puppet manipulation skills, right? Well no. That is their core competency. They are good at it. Chances are you will look foolish if you aren't. Better to say the lesson is to find a way to tell your community "this is what we do well, come join us in doing it for a day or so."
Yes, it isn't appropriate for everywhere. Yet this might be one of the few suggestions I have made that favors the smaller arts organization with more direct ties to the community over the larger ones with the resources to implement new technologies. Getting things rolling might be as simple as an open house with activities. Though I suspect with so many other options available to people, it will take greater cleverness and long term effort to see satisfying results.
I can be pretty dang certain that it will also take an unflinching dedication to the ideals of your effort on the scale of Bread and Puppet's to realize success. Strange as it may sound, people seem to respond. Bread and Puppet has an apprenticeship program in which they promise apprentices hard work for no pay and a month of sleeping in a tent. Currently, they have filled their 35 apprentice slots for this summer and have a waiting list.
I did plenty of suffering for my art in squalid conditions that didn't seem to phase me when I was younger. From the description of what the program is not in an attempt to dissuade those with an incorrect understanding of the program, it appears that more than just young students are looking to participate.
I know we would all love that sort of zeal from our employees, audiences and admirerers.
