Given rising concerns in the arts industry about the lack of succession planning and dearth of qualified people to assume organizational reins when the current leadership retires, I thought a recent piece on the Chronicle of Higher Education on recruitment had some relevance.
The article is mainly aimed at academic departments looking for faculty but there are some basic ideas that are good places to start when analyzing one's search and hiring practices in any profession. Books on the topic may ultimately be more helpful, but reading the article may also make you realize you need to consult those books.
The core focus is on recruitment for positions rather than just advertising them and waiting for people to apply. The author, Gary A. Olson, who is dean of Arts and Sciences at Illinois State University, suggests disseminating information in discipline specific journals and online forums.
The most labor and resource intensive option he suggests is letters soliciting nominations and applications for the position, the more personal, sincere and un-form letter like, the better. Before you dismiss this out of hand as something only big businesess might do, I received two such letters for arts management jobs in the last six months. One was for an executive level position, the other middle management. If it weren't for the fact that I had no desire to be involved in either field, I might have considered applying. More to the point, active recruiting efforts in the performing arts are out there and the practice is likely to become more prevalent.
Something that I would not have really considered which Olson says is mandatory if you really want to sell the position is the creation of a website exclusively devoted to the search.
"Effective sites will contain more than a position statement and a list of committee members. The objective here is to make the site useful for the candidate, not the committee. The search site should contain links to sites that will best promote the institution and the community, so the key question to ask in constructing a site is, "'If I were a first-time visitor to the institution, what information would help me understand what I might be getting into were I to accept a position here?'"
Olson also cautions against various self-destructive practices like succumbing to the desire to grill, rather than woo, a candidate; airing organizational dirty laundry; extending poor hospitality and failing to search for solutions in final negotiations for the position.
What I hope not to see, however, is the emergence of recruiting practices similar to those connected with musical directors in the orchestra world where a very small group of big name people are wooed by multiple organizations to the exclusion of all others. That will only serve to exacerbate the panic over succession. (Unless I happen to emerge as a member of that small group, in which case it sounds like a grand idea.)
Scott Walters over at Theatre Ideas has caused a stir on blogosphere the last few days. He did a 10 Questions Interview on Theatre Is Territory that was critical of the NYC orientation of the theatre profession and the training of artists in general. He says a lot of provocative stuff, including "Dogs are trained, not artists," which make it worth reading. Long time readers might remember Walters from his discussion of Tony Kushner's suggestion that all performance degrees be abolished that I covered about a year ago.
Actually, I should back up a little, most of the interview was about artist training and the environment in which the arts now operate. Most of the comments on the Theatre is Territory posting, Walters' response posting, and Theatre is Territory's response to his response dealt with one answer he gave suggesting that all roads to working in your hometown go through NYC.
Walters actually gets around to expounding on the more central ideas of the Theatre is Territory interview on his blog today. His thoughts on not taking potshots at conservatives in performances and other art works just because it is easy is something to consider.
His expansion on what he envisioned when he said that encouraging students to be innovative, experiment and take risks was the only way to move performance forward aided my understanding of his argument. I initially thought he was calling for more of the same attempt to be avant garde until he qualified it by saying
"Experimenting doesn't just mean "doing weird shit." You have to do it for a purpose, and pay attention to the results. And if your purpose is simply, solely something like "to confuse the audience" or "to offend the audience," then I am going to say "That's too easy. Raise the bar."
Ultimately, I have to confess though that the whole NYC centric debate, while interesting, made part of me grumble inside. It wasn't a big grumble, but still part of my mind was grumbling that the debate wasn't contributing any solutions to the problems facing the performing arts.
Frankly, it isn't fair to expect that every conversation on an arts blog help industry professionals sharpen their minds and hone their perceptions so that they ready to synthesize the next great artistic movement and then promote it utilizing the best techniques and emerging media channels.
On the other hand it is tough not to have an ever present anxiety about the future of the arts permeating your psyche even if you only read half the stuff I do every day. Pretty much everyone agrees the current environment is in what Seth Godin terms a conceptual dip.
Maybe Walters is right about how to educate the next generation of artists. A lot of smart people are giving well considered advice about how arts organizations can make a transition from the current mode of operations to a new way. No one really knows which projections about future trends and how to prepare for them is correct.
For many it's hardly worth panicking that neither you nor they know which strategy is going to be most effective because you most certainly don't have the time, money or personnel to effect whatever suggested changes you decide are best. (That is if you had time to review the most recent theories about the future of the arts in the first place.)
In this larger context of the arts creeping toward its inevitable doom, it seems rather pointless to debate the NYC effect. Even the commenters pretty much admit the city doesn't have a nefarious plan to suck the artistic energy out of the rest of the country. Though there is something to be said for leading by example. If you want audiences to stop thinking the only things worth seeing come from NYC, theatres have to stop going there for the majority of their talent pool.
I wonder if the owners of the proprietary arts organizations, the model that preceded the current non-profit arts organizations, had similar discussions as their businesses were dying out. (For the record, I am in the freshness and relevance are needed camp rather than the end is near.) In Performing Arts, The Economic Dilemma . economists Baumol & Bowen note that at the start of the 20th century there were 327 touring theatre companies, less than 50 by 1915 and less than 25 in 1930s.
I imagine those folks were blaming the movies, records and radio for stealing their audiences as much as arts people blame DVDs, the internet and big screen televisions for diverting attention today. I'm sure they made much ado over factors that had no real bearing on the success of their businesses too because they had no idea what was coming.
Hindsight allows us to take comfort in the fact that vaudeville survived and appeared on television on the Texaco Star Theatre/Milton Berle show and Ed Sullivan. At one time there was a more golden era for the current non-profit arts model with subscribers packing the halls.
But it is no guarantee for the future. All this proves is that there is a law of conservation of artistic energy--it can not be destroyed but manifests itself in different media. Our real worry when we complain about empty seats and lack of art in schools isn't that art will disappear. It is that it will change form and we don't know what line to stand in to participate.
Since today is Memorial Day there are forces inspiring me in directions other than blogging. It was by a bit of serendipity that I came across this video last week illustrating that there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to B-Boy dancing.
This excerpt from "Detours - An Experimental Dance Collaboration," alternates between B-Boy and dance/movements that preceded and inspired them from ethnic dancing, martial arts and films. Some of the sources have been obvious, but it was intriguing to see some of the more obscure origins of some of the moves.
While B-Boy dance has always been impressive to watch, viewing this video segment has increased it in my estimation as integrating that which is best of human physical expression.
Warning: Strong Language in Interview Section at Start and End.
I was getting my 80s fix on YouTube watching Kate Bush's video for "Running Up That Hill." Even though the song is fairly old in MTV years, the comments section was very active with responses as recent as an hour before I viewed the piece. (Which serves to confirm that I have good taste in music.)
The video features a lot of modern dance (which was probably even more modern in 1985). While I imagine most everyone was coming for the music, I was trying to think if there was a way to have a high rate of success in juxtaposing a little arts performance with something a lot of people wanted to watch/listen to on YouTube. For every coolness factor I could think of, there was a possible negative influence that would suck the cool right out so I am not quite sure what the answer is.
While looking around YouTube to see if any other dance companies had put anything intriguing up, I found an interesting effort by the Cincinnati Ballet. The have posted YouTube video contests corresponding to each one of their shows. Each video asks you to cast a vote between three possible choices and when you do, you get $10 off a ticket to that show.
The most recent contest had people voting to decide which of three slobs turned suave would get to take the artistic director to the ballet. Over 3500 people voted which isn't too bad a result. I would be interested to know how many of those who voted weren't regular attendees. Even if they didn't end up going to the show, they visited the ballet's website which is a good first step.
You can take a look at some of their earlier episodes here. My personal feeling is that they did a good job for a first time out. I didn't like the textures applied to the Twyla Tharpe video because it made it hard to watch. The "Smackdown Ballet Style" was a fun idea to promote Bolero but I think it went on a little too long to engage an curious new attendee's interest.
The one I liked the best was the "Nutty Dance" where three people from the community (music reporter, musician and vice mayor) were pitted against each other trying to do a segment from The Nutcracker. Each did a credible job and put their own stamp on the piece.
Remembering some of the first music videos on MTV back in the 80s, I don't fault them for the somewhat rough first attempts. I salute them for their imagination and initiative and hope they and others will work to refine their technique in using tools like YouTube to promote their work. I am betting these clever folks devise an entirely different approach to marketing their product altogether.
A couple entries in the recent past on Donor Power Blog about interaction with one's constituents caught my eye.
The first, Do Your Donors Think You're Indifferent, links to Customers Are Always blog which notes a recent study found that perceived indifference by a company causes far more people to sever their relationship with a company than cost and quality issues.
Donor Power points out that indifference is in the eye of the beholder. "It's important to note here that indifference only be perceived. People cannot know other people's motives; they can only deduce them from the actions they see. So you can care passionately and still be perceived as indifferent."
It was hard for the second entry titled, How to position yourself as human, not to catch my eye. Especially since the first sentence was "What are you doing to persuade your donors that you aren't human?"
The entry links to another blog, What's Your Brand Mantra. Like Jeff Brooks at Donor Power, I too focused in on the point about writing to appeal to your audience rather than using language which only has relevance to insiders and alienates or confounds your target audiences.
This is a point I have made in the past about press releases and marketing material. But I figure now that organizations are gearing up to announce their new seasons in the next few months, the concept bears repeating.
I was listening to the CEO of the county YMCA finishing his comments about the athletic portion of the Kroc Center project I am advising the Salvation Army on when I started to notice some familiar themes so I began jotting down notes.
He was talking about how working out was becoming an increasingly social experience for people. Plenty of condos are being built these days featuring exercise rooms as selling points but no one is using them. As a result, the rooms are eventually being turned to other uses and the condos are asking the YMCA and other athletic clubs if they want the equipment.
This trend has also impacted the way the YMCA (and apparently other athletic facilities) are approaching developing memberships. There are now spaces called starter rooms where people can work out under specific direction with a small group of others with whom they share some connection (gender, age, ethnicity, weight).
These rooms and others like it (i.e. aerobics studios) no longer have mirrors in them. There used to be a focus on monitoring ones form and thus the mirrors. Many people didn't want to see how bad they looked in the mirror so out the went. There has also been a shift in focus from fitness to well-being.
Once people have been working out for awhile and refined their physique and technique, they move out under their own motivation into the familiar bigger room with the mirrors where they can monitor their form and progress.
Another thing he mentioned was that the YMCA was partnering with the Boys and Girls Clubs to offer programs to get entire families participating. The Y sees its strength as getting adults involved and of course Boys and Girls Club gets the kids.
So in terms of the arts--we already know that attendance is very socially based and that the lack of people in the larger audience with whom one feels they have a connection can cause individuals to feel less inclined to attend.
There have been a lot of discussions about strategies for attracting members of different groups be it age, race or income level to the arts. The parallel of the YMCA's new exercisers would be people who didn't attend the arts very much but were interested in doing so. Perhaps to engage this segment of the population what is needed is an opportunity to participate in a structured arts experience in a small group environment.
The type of people the group is comprised will depend on the community. In some places and age cohorts, income and profession differences may prove more of a barrier to bonding with other group members than race or gender. I frankly don't have any ideas at this point about what the arts experience should look like other than being structured to provide a safe environment in which to become informed and comfortable with attending an event. The eventual goal, of course, is to have people move to the "big room" with confidence.
I am betting there are organizations out there with programs that have proved to remove attendance anxiety that might be adapted for smaller groups. I imagine that any organization trying to build a similar program from scratch would find it took a long time and great investment of resources to simply let the target groups know an experience tailor made for them existed. It is generally known where one goes to exercise, but who knows where one goes to gain confidence in the arts? Perhaps a humorous ad in the spirit of the 98 lbs weakling losing his girl on the beach is the way to go.
One thing to note so you don't get too discouraged. People are motivated to start exercising for many reasons and the three month mark is a time when many people disappear from the gyms. If you do get some sort of regular arts experience program together, the reality is that some of your regulars may lose their motivation or decided they achieved at least part of what they set out to and drift away, too.
I wonder if a change in focus akin to the fitness to well-being shift is needed. For lack of a better idea, perhaps the transition should be away from the arts as a source of entertainment and culture to well-being of the whole person as well. This could prove a little tricky since the exercise folks encourage people to abandon sedentary activities like watching TV for walking. The performing arts will be encouraging people to abandon one sedentary activity for another.
Pitched correctly, the idea of the arts as part of the well-being of the whole person could be more productive for the arts community. For one thing, if the concept was generally subscribed to it wouldn't be so hard to justify why governments should fund the arts over human services like AIDS hospices. Both are important to the well-being of a person. In fact, government funding has made it easier for me to give free tickets to AIDS and drug treatment programs.
Disseminating the idea that it is good for people to spend 2 hours a week (just 30 minutes every other day!) in an arts activity, be it attending or creating, taps into the equivalent message people are getting about exercise. Well Being = Regular Exercise + Regular Arts.
The whole concept actually strengthens a message that is already out there, namely that arts exposure makes babies smarter, helps kids in math and socialization, etc. True, the whole Mozart while pregnant leading to higher IQ has been debunked, but the impulse is there to be tapped into. It is just as important to show those who are intimidated by the idea of Mozart that there are plenty of opportunities to access the arts in ways they are comfortable.
And just as families should exercise together, they should experience arts together. The family is the most basic social group. It isn't a fluke that so many of the advertisements about getting fit, (I guess it's increasing your wellness now), employ the image of family members motivating each other.
Creating this type of environment relies on effort from everyone and benefits no specific organization since the point will be to encourage people to take pottery classes, knit, paint, dance, antique, attend performances, sing, attend gallery walks, see art films, engage in graphic design, create videos to post on YouTube...
Oh no, we get back to encouraging the very things that distract people from the arts right now!!! I think part of why the exercise industry has moved away from fitness in favor of well-being is because it is tough to tell people exactly how they should be exercising so they seek victory in just getting them to do something. Likewise, the arts world may have to be satisfied with getting people to expand the scope of the something they do just a little bit.
I didn't come across anything today that would inspire me to write a lengthy entry. But thanks to Tyler Green at Modern Art Notes, I learned that the Museum of Contemporary Art San Diego has created a very cool and fun website to introduce their free admission policy for people under 25 made possible by underwriting by QUALCOMM.
I had a lot of fun playing with the website. Makes me wish I lived in San Diego. I also wish I was still 25, but that is for myriad other reasons besides free admission.
It is not everyday that I get an email from Switzerland, especially one asking me to promote a performance that is in turn promoting the release of a Swiss watch. I gave a snort of derision of some corporation trying to get me to help them advertise their product. I hardly believed the subject line that implied the release was an exclusive for my blog.
But I have to emit a beleaguered sigh, grit my teeth and help the watch makers out in the process of admitting there might be something to be learned from their approach.
The event is the virtual performance of Kevin Spacey in The Interrogation of Leo and Lisa on May 16. The International Watch Company is launching a new Da Vinci line so the show is about Da Vinci and Mona Lisa. Along with a short blurb about the show were some photos for my use in any post I might make about the performance.
It is not outside the realm of imagination that we will see more of this type of event where delivery of a performance over the internet is underwritten by a single sponsor with a related product to sell. BMW had their online film series not so long ago doing the same thing.
I was torn about whether I should wait to post on this until after the play premiered online, thereby blunting whatever promotional benefit my entry might provide IWC. But I also thought it important to give people the opportunity to assess how well the premiere is executed.
Right now the links to the Play and Making Of videos are not active but will presumably have content on the 16th. You can access still photos of the performance right now. According to a number of articles I found online, the show was taped at the SIHH Watch Fair where it was performed at the gala. Although the IWC website doesn't clearly indicate it, other articles covering the premiere noted that it can be viewed at 4 p.m. Central European Time, 7 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time, 10 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time, 10 p.m. Japan Standard Time.
A few interesting things to note if you are going to try this yourself. The website has mechanisms whereby you can remind yourself and tell friends, two features that are pretty much de rigueur on websites offering any type of information and services these days.
Their online program book has been translated into 10 languages, including two versions of Chinese. Granted the watch company has a more diverse audience and greater resources than most theatres. I suspect that in the future, much sooner than later in many parts of the U.S., providing information in multiple languages is going to be de rigueur itself in the pursuit of removing barriers to attendance.
There are many larger questions this whole situation raises like is there any point to taping a live performance? Is the format too much like TV for those who love the live experience and too limited for those who prefer the special effects possible with TV and film?
Is there some element of live performance the camera can capture that makes it worth taping? If so, then why aren't recorded performances more popular? Do the camera people need to film from more exciting angles rather than straight on? If so, won't the crouching cameramen interfere with the enjoyment of the live audience?
What I would really be interested in seeing is if the video of the performance is available outside of those time slots. It would be rather ironic if a watch company sponsored an event that you didn't have to be prompt to participate in. If it is available at other times, was there really any value in generating a buzz to get people to watch on May 16? If it were Spiderman 3 being released, people would certainly flock. Kevin Spacey grilling historical figures probably doesn't have as great a draw.
Just because it isn't outside the realm of imagination that we will see more of this sort of thing doesn't necessarily mean it is an idea with long term viability. Still the whole effort bears watching in order to ask these questions which all stem from a central question of Should We Consider Doing This and What Will It Look Like If We Do?
Over the last few months I have been serving on a subcommittee advising the Salvation Army on the theatre section of the Ray and Joan Kroc Corps Community Center they plan to build with a portion of the $15 billion the widow of McDonald's founder Ray Kroc bequeathed to them.
The scope of the entire project which will also include immense athletic facilities, swimming pools, classrooms and daycare, is frankly intimidating so I am glad I am only focussed on the performance space planning.
The San Diego facility providing a prototype for the local project was built while Mrs. Kroc was alive. She set very high standards for the project mandating that the normally modest Salvation Army cut no corners. The Salvation Army has some tough decisions to make given that while they want to spread the money around to as many communities as possible, they also need to allocate enough to each to satisfy her wishes.
I think she would be pleased to know that the center will be placed directly adjacent to a burgeoning community that will derive immense benefit from all the services it will provide.
On a related topic, at least three people on the Kroc Center subcommittee, myself included, have been approached by consultants hired by another organization planning to build a theatre nearby. I had been contacted a year earlier by another consultant who was engaged to put a business plan together. After a long discussion I told her I felt one phase of the plan would be valuable to the community but that a second phase was dicey because people didn't realize what resources were required to run a theatre well. She called me back at the end of her study and essentially told me she agreed.
The second consultant told me they were just double checking the information from the first consultant. Later I wondered if the first consultant hadn't given her employers the answer they wanted when another arts leader told me the second consultant was trying to persuade him to urge their employers to scale back the project. I wonder if like those living outside Phoenix, the residents of that neighborhood don't identify with the city core.
I reference this second case not only because I have been pondering if it aligns with the findings of the Rand Corporation regarding arts environments in places like Phoenix, but also to note the different processes organizations go through in construction planning. I don't know if depending on a consultant is better than putting together a committee of professionals or not. Consultants are probably less likely to have potential conflicts of interest with a project but can impart more sagacious advice based on experience.
Frankly, I was a little concerned that I wasn't qualified to advise the Salvation Army until I learned the plan had to be vetted by the state, regional, national and international headquarters.
One of the interesting things about serving on the Kroc Center subcommittee is that the people we were advising had no preconceived notions about how the theatre would be used other than wanting to hold a few religious services. At the first committee meeting we were told to outfit the building with everything we wished our theatres had. Most of the meeting was spent with the committee members asking questions about the core purpose of the facility-- producing, presenting, rentals, support of the arts classes-- with the Salvation Army staff member assigned to us scribbling everything down to pose to her superiors.
By the second meeting the organization had clarified their thoughts in relation to all of our questions and suggestions about the niches the space might fit. It appears they intend to primarily rent the facility to interested parties. This suits me well since the facility will be in my geographic proximity. They won't compete with my presenting activities but will provide a place for me to refer renters I have to turn away for lack of available dates.
One of the things that impressed me was that they are truly planning for the needs of the community rather than their organization. For example, the seating capacity needed to serve the potential community users will probably exceed attendance at their services for the foreseeable future by a fair amount leaving a lot of empty seats.
There is one more meeting in this phase of the planning and this time we committee members have homework. We have been asked to review three space designs, mostly pertaining to square feet allocated for different rooms and comment on whether it is sufficient for the proposed uses of the facility. We have also been asked to staff the facility with employees and volunteers and generate a list of all the furniture, fixtures and equipment that would fall out if you took the roof off and turned it over.
It has been quite entertaining imagining what would fall out if a giant child caming along, opened the roof of my theatre like a dollhouse's and inverted it. Given that the assistant theatre manager's niece turned one of her set models into a dollhouse, it isn't so far fetched. I've been practicing my knots so I can lash myself to the nearest railing or pipe just in case.
I recently received an email asking for examples of best practices in arts management. Two years ago I was really impressed by a story about a collaborative effort between the Charlotte & Mecklenburg County Library and the Children's Theatre of Charlotte (NC) called ImaginOn. Essentially, the two groups came together and would occupy the same building performing their separate functions but also leveraging their collective strengths to offer classes and creative outlets for young people.
Before I suggested ImagiOn as a best practice, I thought I should follow up to make sure it the partnership was a successful one.
According to an article in Backstage from a year ago, it apparently is. Box office revenue increased 61% for the theatre and walk in traffic for the library was approaching 400,000. The joint ImaginOn organization is consulting with Children's Theatre Company regarding the Minneapolis theatre's literacy oriented program --just the type of project a co-habitating theatre and library should excel in.
Libraries all over the country are actually benefiting from the partnership. Teens in the digital media program at ImaginOn and the Children's Theatre of Charlotte produced PSAs promoting summer reading being used this year by the Collaborative Library Summer Program.
Given all the recent discussions about the importance of getting younger audiences involved in the arts, a growing trend of children's arts organization and partnerships like these may emerge. Instead of huge performing arts centers that have been constructed of late, we may end up seeing more of these mutually beneficial alliances pop up.
When I made my entry on artist neighborhoods and the evicting power of gentrification a couple weeks ago, I meant to link to an additional article in Business Week. Now I am sort of glad I didn't because it provide me the opportunity to raise the subject of what environments artists really value.
The Business Week article, "Bohemian Today, High-Rent Tomorrow," obviously deals with the issue of artists making neighborhoods too cool for them to live in.
One of the things the piece discusses is that artists will trade affordability for the chance to live near other artists or at least near people with money to consume their artistic product. The piece is coupled with a slide show of the best places for artists to live. (buttons to advance the slides in upper right hand corner.)
Interestingly, since the list came out in February, people have been regularly posting comments to the site expressing their dismay that NYC and LA and others to a lesser extent were included on the list. (Kingston, NY is the real winner in the comments.) The feeling is that some of the cities on the list are too expensive and inhospitable to artists.
The article had acknowledged this but rated other factors as compensating for these things. Given that one of these factors was a concentration of artists and arts establishments, some people are apparently willing to make the trade off. Whether they enjoy a similar standard of living as artists in the other cities on the list, (i.e. size/condition of housing and number of roommates), is unknown.
So the question for my readers is, what trade offs are you will or not willing to make in regard to the city in which you live?
In the beginning of March the Rand Corporation released a report on the need for greater collaboration and centralization of arts related activities in large cities. The report examines 11 municipalities in an attempt to provide advice to Philadelphia.
I am not going to do a full review of the report titled, "Arts and Culture in the Metropolis: Strategies for Sustainability." For those who may believe the document may have something of interest for them, but fear they may not have the time to read the whole thing, I quote the introduction.
"Readers interested in the roots of the current problems facing metropolitan arts sectors should focus on Chapter Two. Those who are particularly interested in the methods we developed with regard to applicability to other regions should look at Chapters Three and Four. Those interested solely in Philadelphia should turn to Chapter Five."
One of the interesting things their study found was what impact audiences identifying with a region vs. a neighborhood has in support of the arts.
"...despite the difficulty of traveling from the suburbs to the city, suburban Bostonians identified with the city and were frequent attendees at city arts events, whereas residents of the Phoenix metropolitan area...identify not with the area as a whole but rather with the specific communities in which they live. One by-product of this phenomenon is that many...are building their own arts centers even though they duplicate similar centers in surrounding communities."(pdf pgs 49-50, doc. pg 27-28)
They go on to talk about how this causes a lot of competition for resources in the region. It occurs to me that the question cities should ask before constructing new arts centers, if they aren't already, is what dynamic their greater metropolitan area has. You don't want to build a huge performing arts center counting on attendance from suburbanites who aren't inclined to show up.
I am also wondering what the best plan of action is for the future. As people's entertainment orientation turns toward their home entertainment systems, logic might dictate an arts center close to home to make attendance an easy decision. Yet clearly you want to avoid having many arts centers competing for funding and audiences near each other.
Is the solution to have the central arts council and largest city government of a region engage in a long term campaign to encourage closer identification with the city in the hopes of preserving the financial health of the region? I am not talking about squashing competition and variety here. Having too many arts centers in competition for the marquee performers needed to attract ticket buyers and donors necessary to support operations threatens to drive up costs.
For those organizations and governments looking to set up or revamp an Arts Council of some type, Chapter 4, (pg 55ff of pdf, p33ff of doc) contains a survey of all the permutations these entities take. It is amazing to see all the different ways they have been organized as part and apart from local government and how they are funded. The myriad combinations of functions they serve including fundraising, re-granting, advice, information coordination, advocacy, promotion, alliances and even arts presenting/producing themselves.
My recent entries on the statistical analysis and general content of the Knight Foundation Magic of Music Final Report has gotten me thinking quite a bit lately.
I am looking forward to the report the Rand Institute produces about their study of the creation of effective arts education programs for children. I am wondering if they will present any findings about the effect of the programs on learning and the students' lives.
One of the things I have been wondering about is the impact of modeled behavior on much debated meaning of the statistic claiming that 74% of orchestra ticket buyers had played an instrument or sung at some point in their lives.
The music department at my college holds about two choral concerts a year to which the director invites community and school choral groups to participate. This is not a competition and is programmed for balanced content. The event usually starts and ends with performances by the college groups.
Inevitably, many friends and family come just for the performance of their loved ones and then depart, sometimes paying to see someone sing for 20 minutes. Often people arrive 90 minutes into the performance having missed the first time their loved one sang--or missing them altogether. This is the case for friend/family of middle/high schoolers and college students alike.
It is entirely common to see parents taking their children home immediately after the performance. (Shades of the Joshua Bell/Tasmin Little experiments. Perhaps there is something to the claim of parents dragging kids away!-scroll down to words "The Second Issue").
I wonder if the parents of the people surveyed by the Knight Foundation supported their activities and encouraged them to attend performances aligned with their interests when they weren't performing themselves. (Though granted, the survey question encompasses people's entire lives which might also include college glee club and church choir, etc).
So I likewise wonder if participation in these activities by young people today will have as strong an influence in attendance (if it does) as it did on previous generations. If parents are giving their kids the message that other people's performances don't warrant attention, the students may not be motivated to hone their skill or appreciation by watching another. They may also not feel that their performances have any value to the general public since so many people exit between groups. Finally, they may not have any interest in seeing someone else perform when they reach adulthood.
I have a suspicion that the Rand report on arts education may find that truly effective programs have a strong element of parental investment if they think to factor that in. Though parental support won't necessarily resolve this problem. Many of the students I have seen get a lot of support and encouragement from family and friends making it necessary for us to shush the loud photo sessions in the lobby during the performance prior to going home.
What is interesting to me is that after 6-8 of these concerts, I have never heard anyone complain about the shifting audiences. If people are focussed on paying attention only to their loved ones, they don't seem to be insisting that others do so as well. It would be interesting to know if this behavior and expectations of the rest of the audience is specific to the local culture or if various regions of the country act differently.