Musings on Practical Solutions For Arts Management
December 16, 2008
Creativity Now
Sort of busy as the holidays approach but a thought came up in recent conversations.
They say the next phase of the economy will emphasize creativity and so people need to acquire the appropriate skills.
I wonder if the recent financial problems originating from Wall Street compounded by the billions lost to the massive Ponzi scheme perpetuated by Bernard Madoff might actually help usher a higher valuation of creative backgrounds along. After all that has happened, and in light of what is yet to come, perhaps an MFA might have less of a stigma than an MBA.
I happened upon the YouTube video below by Imagination Stage. I surmised that it was part of a contest of sorts held by Theatre Communications Group for organizations to make a video about the future because it is organized in the TCG YouTube account and most of the videos seem to deal with the future of theatre. Also, I have a vague recollection about the contest being listed somewhere.
At first I was a little depressed by the world they portrayed. Then I realized they probably have a pretty accurate view of how things will be. The opening where the girl is getting poor grades, most likely because she is involved in theatre, is actually pretty comforting because it show that some things won't change.
At first I was a little put off by the idea that she was learning acting from a hologram, especially given that the hologram was pretty over the top. Of course, I figured holograms and virtual reality would be part of the future of theatre back when I started the blog. On the whole, I thought the video was well done and the details of the user interface they portrayed was spot on.
For a moment I was also a little turned off by the idea that acting instruction was structured as a video game with levels to advance through that people would try to gain shortcut cheats through.
Then I thought, we should be so lucky to have people that invested!
I was also heartened by the fact the young woman in the video wouldn't even consider giving her friend a shortcut hint. There are no shortcuts to hard work, after all.
What disturbed me the most though was the concept that a production would be subject to the caprice of whether talented people chose to log in or not and doing so at the last minute. The video shows the young woman manifesting in a theatre and the director saying they hoped she would log on, tossing out an auditioner who was less qualified for some reason. I assumed she hadn't obtained enough points/levels. Then the young woman rehearses as a hologram opposite live people and performs as Juliet at the opening the next night.
As I acknowledged though, it isn't outside the realm of possibility. If audiences are waiting until the last moment to buy tickets, could not artists delay the decision about which production they wanted to be involved with until the last minute? If performers have the ability to manifest themselves as holograms in 2028, opportunities become available across the entire country and perhaps the world.
As long as there are more actors than roles, then there will always be competition. But then competition for elite performers also becomes extreme. Get great reviews for your performance as King Lear in Madison, WI one night, you could receive an offer to play Lear in Hong Kong the next night and actually be able to do it. What worries me is the ulcer inducing environment this will create for arts managers.
But damn, wouldn't bring a real sense of excitement and unpredictability to the arts. The most notable companies won't be those who can maintain a stable cast, it will be those who can produce a consistently high quality product regardless of the vagaries of the cast.
Rare Relaxing Residencies for Arts and Culture Managers
Always on the look out for programs that benefit arts managers, I came across the following listing offering residencies to arts and cultural managers at a location in Key West. For some reason, they don't promote the opportunity on their website. You need a subscription to reach the website on which it was listed. But such is my desire to make people aware of the opportunity, I am reproducing selected portions of the listing here. If you are interested, you can contact them and they can regale you with all the benefits of their facility.
Artists and Managers in Their Natural Environment!
I am aware of numerous organizations that provide residency to artists but this is the first I have encountered that offers them to leaders and administrators. Since you would theoretically go alone, it wouldn't be a staff retreat where you engage in group strategizing or team building activities. It might be beneficial for administrators to mix with creative artists for whom they would have no responsibility. There would be no pressure to rein in, budget money for or contract the services of the creative artists. It is not often arts managers have an extended time in an arts environment free of these considerations. It might actually help managers and artists develop healthier attitudes toward each other. From my experiences in performing arts and from what I have read on blogs and articles, I don't think there is an arts discipline where the relationships aren't at least guarded.
Anyhow, here is the listing. Hopefully one of my intrepid readers or their friends will have the opportunity to engage in a constructive stay.
Mull Management in Mango Tree House
IT’S NOT A JOB, IT’S A CREATIVE ISLAND ADVENTURE The Studios of Key West, an emerging creative community at America’s Southernmost Point, seeks cultural managers and innovative arts administrators for 1 to 2 week residencies in our Mango Tree House. This residency requires no work, no problem solving, no meetings or presentations, and no reporting of any kind. Directors, program officers, and Alliance of Artists Communities’ leaders: Tell us your dates, plan your travel, and think Zen.
A SHORT TROPICAL RETREAT FOR ARTS ADMINISTRATORS As a companion to our longer-term Artist-in-Residence program, this short-term stay in Key West’s Old Town can include project research, program planning, networking and collaborating; or it can simply be a retreat-like hermitage on a warm and libertarian island, away from the usual workaday environment. TSKW is currently considering the short-term residency needs of academics, cultural managers, critics, instituional officers, museum professionals, and other professional people involved in forging high, low, popular, and obscure culture. Time and space in Key West will provide new influences and fresh experiences, and an appreciation for life here in the Conch Republic, 30 leagues North of Havana, America’s Mile Marker 0, Cayo Hueso
[...]
The Studios of Key West is proud to offer a handful of 1 to 2 week residencies for America’s Cultural Managers and Arts Administrators each year. If you have time off to travel to the Southernmost Point, and are interested in a singular retreat opportunity, please contact us for details on how to proceed.
IS THIS A VACATION? Yes, but it’s also a new form of professional development, in a place that will welcome and honor your presence, at a new kind of creative community. Learn about us here www.tskw.org, then contact Eric Vaughn Holowacz Executive Director at eric@tskw.org
THE FINE PRINT Cultural managers, arts administrators, artistic directors and producers, program officers and curators who can get away from their busy roles for a week or two are welcome to express interest in the TSKW Cultural Manager Residency. Participants must be able to cover travel to and from Key West, as well as some living expenses while on the island. [...]
Via Artsjournal.com is an interesting article on how actors deal with inflicting violence on one another. Even though it is simulated, the very personal, brutal actions the performers replicate can have a psychological impact on them.
Acting Comes Between Us
I have been involved with two productions of Extremities, a play in which a woman is attacked in her home by a man intent on raping her. She gains control of the situation and takes her revenge on him. The actors get physically close to enacting the rape and when the tables are turned, the would be rapist is half blinded, tied up in a fireplace with his intended victim threatening to burn him. In both productions I have been associated with the two primary actors had to take showers afterward to cleanse themselves of the psychic and emotional baggage of the show. People who were close friends found an uneasiness crept into their relationships during the production. They had to reassure and reconnect with each other after every performance to essentially ground themselves.
I know much of this because rape as a subject matter lent itself to many outreach and audience talk back sessions. On one production one of my responsibilities was to make extra sure that family and friends didn't make their way backstage before the actors had an opportunity to reoriented themselves.
Hopefully No Wrong Ideas About Method Acting
As far as I know, no one went out and engaged in violent behavior in order to prepare for the performance. I think what disturbed each person so much wasn't that they had so much simulated violence directed at them as that they found something to tap into within themselves to fabricate a credible portrayal. Knowing that the potential for that sort of thing exists within you and your friends can be pretty unsettling.
Coping Mechanisms for Violent Acting
As I read the NY Times article about how the how London actors insulated themselves from their actions, I wondered if that sort of strategy was widely used by actors. It certainly didn't seem that way with the highly charged productions I have been involved in. I also wondered if theatres who produce these types of shows make alterations to their normal practices and give the performers extra time and dedicated spaces to wind down after performances.
I would be interested in hearing about other people's experiences either in the comments section or by email.
It is available for download so you can put it on your iPod and listen to it before going into a meeting and exude the cool, funky confidence that comes with having a theme song.
Yes, we lost a good friend today as the guys from Coca Cola removed the vending machine from my building. This summer we had a fire inspection and were told that we couldn't have the power cable for the machine running under the door into the scene shop. The door wasn't pinching the cable in any manner and the inspector admitted that it wasn't necessarily a fire hazard. But apparently safe practice requires we not have the power cord run there even though it isn't a trip hazard either.
The powers that be decided they would rather get rid of the machine than drill a hole in the wall so it was adios to the Real Thing. Whether this will constitute a safety hazard as people working late at night have to run out to other buildings to get their caffeine fix remains to be seen.
Though I don't the fire inspectors were really fully aware of it, the history of horrific death tolls in theatres provide ample reason to closely monitor safety operations. One of the most famous theatre fires was Chicago's Iroquois Theater fire in 1903. This was a disaster of Titanic proportions as the theater billed as "absolutely fireproof" burned down within five weeks of opening due to a series of poor judgments and scrimping and not installing all the fire safety measures they were touting. The fire itself killed 572 people and the death toll from related injuries eventually brought it to 602.
All three of these fires occurred in December which may be a sign to stay away from theatres during that month. All of them were caused by light sources. The Iroquois fire by sparks from an electric light that ignited drapes, Richmond by a candelabra that flew out unevenly an lit the drapes and Brooklyn by a kerosene lamp that...lit up the drapes. These are only a few of the many fiery theatre incidents from history.
The theatre going experience is much safer now that technology has moved away from flame based lighting technology and have adopted safer methods and standards for electrical lighting. In the past, as with today, theaters and fire marshals come into conflict over the circumstances surrounding performances.
Of course, many a proactive theatre stays ahead of the fire marshal's objections by instituting and disseminating safety procedures. Some theatres even have a process for reviewing stage sets at the design stage.
The loss of my soda machine notwithstanding, the fire marshals were pretty fair in their evaluation of our facility. The changes they required were appropriate to the amount of traffic an area got and the training and familiarity with the facility possessed by the main users of those areas. The interaction was certainly not as antagonistic as some of the experiences I have had and stories I have heard.
Over on Fractured Atlas, Kamal Sinclair posted some of the responses they have been getting while researching the professional development needs for artists. The focus of the comments in this particular entry revolve around the frustration BFA and MFA students feel when they realize their formal education taught them how to be creative but not necessarily how to exist as a practicing artist and navigate their respective industries.
The entry contains about 10-15 quotes from graduates reflecting on how well or poorly their training program prepared them for careers in their fields. Hoping to provide incentive to read the entire entry, I will resist quoting some of the ones that resonate strongest with me here.
I will note that according to Sinclair, in the course of their research Fractured Atlas found that the problem may be that the training programs are slow to recognize the pressing need. "...sources imply that universities and colleges have a long history of resistance around educating artists in “the business.” The philosophy is that art should be taught for art’s sake."
Sinclair lists some of the suggestions the respondents had about how to improve the situation. Again, you should read the entry to learn more. Fractured Atlas' blogs contain a lot of great material on a daily basis and if I lose readership to them by pointing you there, I will still feel victory has been achieved.
I can't help but cite one of the suggestions that leaped out and smashed me over the head with a frying pan-- "Eliminate the myth of “getting discovered.” I tell you, that is just replete with all sorts of complexities. As much as training programs may perpetuate this, it is inherent in society at large. It manifests in shows like American Idol which allows people to believe they have a reasonable chance at becoming famous--the odds of which are only slightly better than winning the Powerball lottery.
Hopefully implicit in that comment was the idea that success can be defined as more than just a Broadway role, recording contract or big gallery show. Those that decide they are just biding their time in their current job until they are discovered are closing off other potential avenues for success. The current president of Valparaiso University went to grad school for acting and directing, for example. Seventeen years and three colleges ago when he was teaching me acting, I would never have figured he would end up as a university president. While a number of doors doubtless opened for him, I am sure he worked hard to position himself near those doorways.
I don't usually talk about specific actors on the blog but I heard some amazing things in an interview with Terrance Howard on NPR this weekend. I heard the 12 minute version that aired but went and listened to the 40 minute uncut version via the NPR website. (The broadcast version is there as well.) I haven't been following Howard's career with any devotion but I may just do so now to see what he is thinking. He seems to have a real sense of his place in the world acknowledging the bonds that run back to his actor/musician great-grandmother, Minnie Gentry, to his mother through him and down to his son. Despite his success, he does a lot of carpentry work professionally and pro bono. His greatest hope seems to be that his son will become the scientist that he wanted to be before acting deflected him from that path.
I am not quite sure if his explanations of scientific matters are completely accurate but I am impressed by his intellectual curiosity and rigorous pursuit of knowledge much the same as I was in Danica McKellar.
What grabbed my attention most was his observations on one consequence of acting being that you insulate yourself from life and begin to observe. In the interview he reflects on this in relation to his mother's death just two weeks ago.
Starting at about 24:00 full version of the interview-
“As an actor, the saddest thing. You stop experiencing moments. You start watching them as if you are storing them for future reference. … It’s like when I was sitting there with my mother for the last two weeks. There were moments when I couldn’t turn that actor off where I was watching her. You know. And wondering what was going through her mind…And trying to stop myself…"
[...]
The actor sometimes takes over in places that you don’t want it there. Maybe I was just afraid to face the emotion that was happening so then I began to watch."
This state is difficult for people to deal with, he says, and as a result, "And I think that's what happens to a lot of actors, and therefore they get hooked on drugs because they're desperate to get away from not feeling. They want to be excited or something."
I can empathize because I have had similar experiences. I have difficulty enjoying performances because I analyze how effects are being accomplished or I wonder what is happening backstage. The technical director at work often thinks about how he could improve the lighting for shows or events like weddings. But even outside of performances in real life, I some times realize I am watching myself experience an event. I can't recall doing so during a something as highly emotional as watching someone die. Certainly, I haven't filed it away for future use the way Howard suggests he does.
I don't know whether to pity him for not being able to feel or envy him for being able to insulate himself from negative events. I suppose if he is equally unable to fully experience joyful events, then it is a net detriment.
But I wonder if every vocation doesn't hold a similar threat. Had he become a famous scientist as he planned isn't there a chance that he would instead be talking about how science removes the wonder from his life. That he can't enjoy the rainbows, blowing bubbles and sunsets without analyzing the forces that went into creating them. Perhaps he might talk about how science has isolated him from those he loves because he can't experience the world with the same joy and wonder they do. As interested as he is in science, he still looks to explain events and occurrences in terms of grandness and wonder. He talks about a soap bubble existing because the universe is finite. Commenters to the NPR piece talk about surface tension.
Even as he looks upon the road not traveled with some bittersweetness, perhaps the lesson he and all of us should take away is that engaging in other interests in the manner of professional-amateurs, we can avoid those aspects which might remove the joy from the pursuit. By pursuing acting as a career, Terrence Howard may have taken on an obligation to examine and distill life in order to advance. By pursuing science out of love, he is not necessarily responsible for defining his relationship with it in a specific way.
I usually talk about the activities of my theatre in vague terms but I am really getting excited about the way an event is unfolding for us. This November, the drama department will be performing a version of Journey to the West adapted for the stage by Mary Zimmerman. If you have been reading my blog for awhile, you will know that the drama director is quite enamored of Zimmerman's plays. This will be the fourth we have done in five years.
Journey has been a play he has wanted to do for a while now. A few years ago he was accidentally (we assume) put through directly to her agent who gave the director the impression that Journey was his favorite of all Zimmerman's plays. Whether the agent said that or not, the director resolved to do the show. The problem was, the play was not in print so an appeal to Zimmerman directly was needed and much to our delight, she granted permission.
If you aren't familiar with Journey to the West, it is essentially as much a cornerstone of Asian culture as the Odyssey is for Western cultures. Nearly every Asian country has their own name for the central figure of the Monkey King. The influence on popular culture is vast. This year's Forbidden Kingdom with Jet Li and Jackie Chan is based on it. In 2010 a direct interpretation of the book is due out. Countless anime and manga stories draw from it. At the Charleston Spoleto Festival this year, a stage version was presented with music by Blur/Gorillaz member Damon Albarn. There have been numerous television series based on the story. Just go to YouTube and type in Journey to the West. There are so many options, it is pretty difficult to discern between them if you try to watch contiguous episodes of one series.
What makes the story so appealing is that it is both a tale of rollicking high adventure involving the heroic slaying of fantastic beasts and demons and a medium for discussing Buddhist philosophy. Since we did the Odyssey last year one of the parallels I saw immediately was between Odysseus taking 10 years to get home and the abnormally long time it takes the Monkey King and his party to make it to India. When the monk, Tripitaka, who the Monkey King is accompanying comments on this, the Monkey King points out that their progress is tied to Tripitaka's ability to cast off his hang ups and approach enlightenment. It occurred to me that Odysseus probably had much the same problem.
In any case, there was a fair bit of excitement brewing about this production. One of the contributing factors was the decision that the show would involve tissue work--essentially the fabric climbing that you often see in Cirque de Soleil shows. One the hope of being cast, people were taking tissue workshops this summer on their own dime. Once people were cast, they were required to complete a minimum amount of training if they hadn't already.
This is pretty serious work so people are training and working out every day for the next two months to strengthen themselves and refine their technique. The great thing is, this is adding to the excitement and energy backstage. It was too appealing to pass up so I asked someone to start taking candid pictures of the process so I could put them up on the website and in email messages to subscribers.
Fractured Atlas' Adam Huttler posted about the disincentives inherent to the traditional non-profit model partially in relation to the fall of so many financial institutions over the last few weeks.
I’ve often argued that the traditional non-profit model discourages necessary risk-taking. It does this for a few reasons:
1) Employees can’t own stock, so they don’t benefit from financial success. Yet they’re still vulnerable to financial failures (i.e. they can lose their jobs or suffer career setbacks). To a lesser extent, the same is true for non-profit Board members. When someone’s got no stake in the upside but is still exposed on the downside, the rational response is extreme conservatism.
2) The culture of the non-profit sector is such that managers go to absurd, herculean efforts to avoid admitting failure, mostly in an effort not to embarrass themselves in front of funders.
3) Non-profit organizations are chronically under-capitalized. By failing to build reserves or hoard surpluses, we end up in a situation where each budget is a tightrope. A single serious misstep is enough to pose an existential threat to the organization.
He goes on to talk about how free market enterprise incentivizes excessive risk taking in the for-profit industry and lists the form this takes. Huttler notes that while regulation can help keep the activities of for-profits from becoming too risky, you can't make for profits engage in riskier behavior. However, he feels that if the relationship with funders could be changed, risk aversion can be mitigated to a degree.
His observations paint behavior of for and not-for profits as two sides of the same coin. For profits have a short term view because they are trying to burnish their quarterly reports for the sake of enhancing earnings. Not for profits take a short term view because their funding only covers a limited period. Given the necessity to continue to seek funding, the organization has to frequently reinvent parts of itself to conform with grant opportunities.
What Huttler suggest as a solution seems very close to what the Independent Sector proposed a few years ago. The Independent Sector suggested that foundations engage in long term core support of organizations rather than program support. They also suggested foundations develop a uniform application and reporting procedure so that organizations weren't devoting so much time and energy on applications and reporting. (The entry I link to is one I am particularly proud of so take a look! Not to mention that the issue is more complicated than I have presented here.)
Huttler notes that it is difficult to provide performance incentives on par with the for profit world given IRS rules preventing revenue sharing. He mentions that Fractured Atlas provides performance based group bonuses which are apparently legal and I am sure sound like a good idea to most non-profit employees.
One of my initial thoughts upon reading Huttler's first point about how non-profit employees face all the risk and none of the profit-sharing reward that for profit employees do, was that this group was motivated by factors other than financial. I am glad he acknowledged that near the end of the entry though I assumed he understood this even if he never mentioned it. But as I read the entry I reached the same conclusion he did--it can be tough to translate this non-monetary motivation into risk taking.
One of the first things that popped into my mind was that attempting this could actually lead to the pursuit of grants that didn't really align with the organizational mission. A person is enthusiastic about serving X community and comes to the leadership with a grant supporting that very thing. But is it really in the organization's best interest? Do they really want to continue the program past the grant period? Will there be anyone to continue it after the person leaves? It is easy to get caught up in the enthusiasm of a person for a clearly worthy cause when your organization is fueled more by coffee and enthusiasm than money. Engaging an employee's interests can reward them for all their hard work when there isn't much else with which to reward them. But you have to weight that against the long term interests of the company.
Yet it is easy to dismiss the suggestion of a really risky venture that would be in the long term best interest of the organization based on the risk alone. A fantastic failure as a result of risk taking won't be in the interests of the company if it closes or most everyone gets laid off. Engaging an employee's passion when there is money readily available from a foundation looks like the sane choice even if the program it funds probably won't exist in 3 years--at least the organization itself will.
Not all risks are directly related to finances, of course. Just as every passion doesn't necessarily require grant funding. An employee might be interested in cultivating an online community on behalf of the organization employing software that is available for free. All you have to do is allow them a couple hours a week to work on it. But if an incident arises that causes your organization to become an object of derision online and spills over to the local print and broadcast media, that can be a huge problem for you. But if your employee manages to tap into the interests of a bunch of influential 20 or 30somethings, the effort could be rewarding for you, your employee and your new supporters. (Though this win-win-win situation could be detrimental if the established supporters feel the organizational character has changed for the worse. That is the risk you have hopefully anticipated and prepared for.)
Ultimately though this whole issue leaves me wondering if there isn't a better way than the non-profit model. Is there someway that allows employees to share in the success of the organization and have their non-monetary motivations engaged as well? Given the complex financial instruments constructed by the investment firms that got the country into its current financial crisis, I guarantee the brain power to design a way to finance such an organization exists (both constructively and legally, of course). There is simply has been no motivation for them to turn their minds to constructing such an opportunity. Perhaps the non-profit world at large should push to have these people prosecuted for criminal malfeasance and negligence and then advocate that they be sentenced to community service creating a proposal for such a funding scheme.
We had a thank you luncheon/orientation for our volunteers this past weekend. In the past we have had it in the Spring but the schedule last spring was replete with conflicts so we chose this Fall to hold the event. In some respects, it was a better choice. Because we held the thank you lunch on the same day as the orientation, new volunteers got to meet experienced people prior to an event giving them an introduction to a person who can provide guidance during performances. Also, it can't hurt to feed your volunteers before they actually do something for you.
A rule we have set for ourselves with our volunteer luncheons is to make sure there is something going on in the building when we are having it. Even though the volunteers see the building in action all the time, we want to make sure there is a sense of vibrancy and purpose, albeit subdued, while they are around. What is tricky about scheduling things this way is that most of the time we have something going on, we need the volunteers there to work. In previous years we have held the luncheon before events that only required a few volunteers like the annual classical and folk guitar concert. Some of the volunteers would have to leave a half hour early to prepare for the event but most could continue to hang out or go see the concert for free.
This year we did things differently and held the event prior to auditions for the Fall drama. There is nothing like the nervous energy of auditioners to fill a building with a sense of excitement. We scheduled our event to end just as the staff was setting up the theatre for the second day of auditions. There wasn't any overlap on space since the actors entered through the backstage door and we held our lunch in the front lobby. (Another little hook for the event. Since we don't allow food or drink in the lobby and have the volunteers enforce that rule, we billed the lunch "as the only time you will ever be able to eat in the lobby.")
An hour and a half before auditions began, there were already people pacing around doing vocal warm-ups, practicing dance and movement routines and acrobatics. For many of our volunteers walking among this activity on our building tour this was almost an entirely new experience for them. Not only had many of them not been backstage in a theatre, but they had little familiarity with the preparation involved to try out for a play. (I wasn't even going to attempt to address the differences between a cold reading and prepared monologue audition.)
Overall, I was pretty pleased. Based on criteria from the quality of preparation to interactions and relationship building we see in our volunteers over the next year, we may consider a Fall event better suited for our volunteer recruitment, training and retention needs. Even if we decide to go back to the Spring, I am pretty sure choices we make will be heavily informed by our experiences last weekend.
I have recently been reminded that it is often a small incident rather than a major one that coalesces people into action. There is often no way to plan and maneuver these events into happening. Rosa Parks sits on a bus. Surely there were other people who did the same thing and met with consequences. Why then? Why that day?
When our new assistant theatre manager started a year ago, he preferred to work at a desk I hadn't anticipated him wanting. Because we stored often used files and binders in and around the desk, I have often had to ask him to move while I retrieved it. We didn't have time to reconfigure things until this summer which is when I suggested alternative layouts a number of times. But he never really seemed motivated to do anything. Then Wednesday I asked for his help in running an internet cable through a hole in the wall. Thursday morning I came into work and the whole office was reconfigured. I have gone into work in jeans the last two days to continue with the clean up and rearranging.
Why was the running of that cable the spark that got things going? I have no idea. I would have preferred this all to happen over the summer when I had more time. On the other hand, it provides a welcome break from reviewing last month's expense and payroll reports.
I had the same thing happen in an online game in which I help create scenarios for players. My attempts to spark interest with subtle and blatant promises of lurking menace and untold riches have gained limited involvement at times. However a group of organizations decided to talk about setting minimum pricing for their wares and the whole game went up in arms with battle lines being drawn between erstwhile allies. I was flabbergasted at the retributive activities and threats that emerged almost immediately between people who had been friends for years and years.
It is pretty clear to people in the arts world at large that a change in the way we do business is both necessary and imminent. The problem is that no one knows what form the change will take or how to bring it to fruition. This is not to say that people aren't trying. Arts professionals are thinking, talking and doing all sorts of little things that are hopefully greasing the skids for what is to come. But if the change is going to come from an unexpected quarter, by definition there isn't a lot anyone can do to control its emergence. Despite the best intentions and efforts to facilitate a transition, it could be a rather bumpy ride if people are concentrating their efforts in the wrong areas.
I try to avoid any mention of politics if it isn't directly related to the arts but I have to say that the Republican National Convention going on right now is a great illustration of how marketing is the function of everyone in an organization. Members of political parties do this sort of thing almost as second nature but that seems even more reason why a smaller group working at an arts organization can't mobilize themselves in the same way. It should be easier for the latter group to get themselves on message.
I think the convention activities also reveal the importance of knowing what elements comprise their core identity. Let's face it, Gov. Palin's daughter being pregnant out of wedlock diverges from the party's usual narrative. Let's not kids ourselves about how it would be exploited by proxies were the shoe on the other foot. However, the party has employed other elements of their traditional narrative to fend off criticism and show how it aligns with other things the party values. How effective it is depends on the listener I suppose.
I have talked about the value of consistently and perhaps somewhat subliminally disseminating a narrative about the arts and ones organization. It is probably no mistake that the last time I discussed this, it was also in connection with a presidential candidate. In cases of obscenity, you probably can't deflect anger no matter how well you have developed the myriad elements of your identity. Performing artists have been identified with depravity and immorality since before the United States was born (at least from the European perspective). You may be able to blunt the strength of the ire by referencing your core narrative, however.
People being a diverse bunch, members of any group are not going to be able to conform to every ideal the whole espouses. There is always going to be one person who is less committed to recycling than everyone else. There are going to be people who are just a little too rabid about Led Zeppelin for the comfort of the rest of the fan club. And lets not even get into which Star Trek series/movie was the best. But as a whole, the group reinforces all they have accomplished on behalf of the environment and wildlife as outweighing the fact one of their members doesn't redeem the five cent deposit on their Coke cans.
Never doubt the potency of a single/handful defining image for cementing your entity in people's minds. When I was in 4th grade a kid who was generally a bully and gadfly was harassing me. I had enough and tossed him 5-6 feet across recess yard aided somewhat by muddy ground. Now it just so happened that my mother was substitute teaching that day and saw what happened on the playground and came running out saying, "Don't pick on Joey."
Somehow everyone forgot that my mother came out to defend me and focused on my "victory." I never got in another fight or did anything to reinforce the idea of my being a brawler except that I was particularly tough to take down when we played Kill The Keeper. Yet in my first week in high school a guy who didn't start at my elementary school until 6th grade warned people not to mess with me because I threw a guy 100 feet once.
While entertaining, perhaps the heroic tales of a 10 year old aren't entirely applicable. I don't really sit around wondering how much my reputation would have grown had I punched a few more people out in elementary school. We all have moments in our lives, where a pivotal moment defines our childhood, high school, college, volunteer, job experiences in our minds. The same can happen for organizations. You can get a lot of mileage out of the reputation garnered as the place Bruce Springsteen did a surprise show 20 years ago leaving dozens of people convinced they can die happy having been there.
You can't always been lucky enough to have superstars secretly appear at your theatre but you can string lesser events together into a narrative you consistently repeat and reinforce at every opportunity through various media.
It occurs to me that there is a lot of talk about how No Child Left Behind is eroding the arts in schools. Field trips and outreach programs are curtailed or eliminated. Arts classes disappear in favor of more instruction in test subjects. Recess time is likewise dwindling. (If you are wondering about the connection, I got my first black eye in 5th grade when we recreated the rumble scene from West Side Story. Kids still recreate cool scenes from musical theatre during recess don't they?)
But it got me thinking, to be fair do the arts gain anything from NCLB? Lets face it, the arts were getting the short shrift in schools for a long time before NCLB. We claim that music classes help kids with math. Does math in turn help kids with music. Does a good foundation in math help visual artists understand scale, ratio and proportion better?
In terms of reading and writing, obviously the arts can benefit from people who have a high level of comprehension and ability to express themselves well. We can hope these things provide basis to transition from reading well to being well read and possessed of critical and analytical thinking skills. Trading out social and hard sciences to make room for more math, reading and writing may make these skills harder to acquire. If NCLB does cultivate higher quality students then it would certainly be a pleasure to see students enter college without the need for remediation.
There are a lot of people who don't feel NCLB is going to produce a generally higher quality student which bodes poorly for every industry in the future. If you were going to fight to get the law changed, how would it be improved to benefit the arts? More arts exposure is a given, but what else do you fight for? An excellent artist really can't develop in a vacuum only experiencing arts classes. And what if you are told arts classes are definitely off the table in this new law? How do you salvage things and make sure students gain the knowledge and discernment they need to be artists via other avenues? What's more, artists shouldn't have to operate in a vacuum either, what do you advocate for that will help students become appreciators and consumers of art as they proceed through life?
When I was reading the Presenting Dance report I referenced a couple weeks ago there was a section of the work where idealism was crashing against realities. One of the suggestions dance companies made was that artistic directors travel to view a work before deciding to contract it given that the artistic fee was a significant portion of a presenter's budget. The report's author observed that dance companies apparently think presenting organizations have significantly greater resources than they do. I am guessing a lot of these groups interact with organizations like the Kennedy Center.
That was actually about the most unrealistic expectation anyone had. Some of the other suggestions had to do with removing adversarial relationships and dance companies and presenters working together over long periods to craft a performance and outreach program that best suits the community's character. The viability of these suggestions seemed to depend more an individual situations than anything else. There are some agents I have comfortable relationships with who don't seem to take a "No" personally whom I touch base with year after year. There are others who seem like they are only interested in reciting a list of artists they are promoting with whom I am less comfortable about approaching.
Then there are some that seem to regard me as small potatoes and I am lucky they are talking to me. I can only name the people I have a good relationship with off the top of my head so I guess it is probably healthy I dwell only on the positives.
Ability to interact over a long period of time to craft a program isn't always possible. Often the available information isn't enough for either the dance company or I to have an informed conversation about how the other operates.
There was an encounter I had which made me very anxious at the beginning but ended with me impressed by the artistic director's investment in his work. One year a dance company's agent told us the artistic director required the use of some very expensive lighting equipment for one of the repertory pieces the company would perform. There had been no mention of this in the contract or rider we had been sent. I can't remember if we had signed and returned the contracts at the time, but this equipment was definitely an unmentioned addendum to the text we had in hand.
Only one of three presenters in my booking consortium had the equipment. The inclusion of the equipment would make an already expensive event more so for the rest of us. We considered canceling the piece except that it was the one dance which would have the most resonance for our audiences. So we suggested less expensive versions of the equipment as an alternative. The artistic director came back and said it definitely had to be the equipment specified.
Now at this point I was starting to think the artistic director was being a prima donna and would suffer no alterations to his vision. People were coming to see the dance, not the lighting instruments. The show may look cooler with the lights but people wouldn't think less of the work if they don't know what they are missing. About the same time while doing research for a press release, I came across a review that said one segment of the piece really fell flat and dragged the rest down. This served to add to my anxiety a bit more.
Then we get an email from the agent saying the artistic director felt so strongly that the equipment be present in the piece, he would split the cost with us.
Well whatta ya gonna do about that? 1/3 of the cost was still pretty significant for us but it certainly wasn't small potatoes for the dance company either. With the help of our local light rental company which started shifting things around months in advance so the correct equipment would end up in the right place at the right time, we ended up with a more affordable option for presenting the artistic director's vision.
I was still a little concerned that when the company arrived, the artistic director would be running around fretting that everything was wrong and trying to refine picayune details about the production. When they arrived I was somewhat surprised to find that the artistic director was pretty mellow, spent most of the time chatting with my staff and pretty much let his company conduct their own business and stayed out of their way. The segment of the piece which had received criticism in a review was cut which made me think he wasn't terminally devoted to his work and was open to altering it.
That in mind, I began to believe maybe the special lighting equipment was crucial to the piece if he was willing to pay for a share of it. When I saw the piece, I wasn't really convinced the effect was worth the expense. If I wasn't watching for it, I probably wouldn't have made note of it. The audience really seemed to enjoy the piece which was good. There was actually another piece they enjoyed more. The applause was so long for it I panicked thinking it was the curtain call.
The dance company probably can't afford to dicker like that with every presenter, nor could we afford to do so with every company. Going the extra mile in this case probably enhanced the experience for both of us. I would have loved to have saved the expense. In the face of the artistic director's commitment to sharing the cost, it was hard to refuse the piece. Money may not build relationships but the gesture surely did make me feel like we were more like partners in bringing the work to my community. That combined with the audience's enjoyment and the enthusiastic response to the master class the company conducted made me feel more comfortable about taking on the extra expense.
While I have been encouraging arts organizations to create opportunities for local citizens who have decided fuel costs are too high to travel this summer, it has only been because I don't have a direct line of appeal to the local citizens. One of the things I am wondering is if people will look for entertainment closer to home if they have decided not to travel or if they will simply look for entertainment at home on the 72 inch television they wisely purchased when times were better.
I have been wondering if I should promote the fact that knowing costs were on the rise, we are keeping our ticket prices the same as last year. This is absolutely true. I figured we could probably weather another season at the same prices if it made our shows more accessible to our community. But I wonder if people would care that we were trying to strengthen our relationship with them. Given that people no longer subscribe and wait until a few days before an event to buy tickets, will our attempt to stay affordable even register?
I am pretty sure I know the answer. I have read a number of studies on customer service and retention which I have cited in talks that show price does not develop relationships. This is mostly in terms of customer loyalty in situations where you and a competitor offer a comparable product. If someone defects to your competitor and says it is price, chances are the reasons run much deeper and price is the easiest excuse to use. With that in mind, it seems price should be a minor player in a campaign to win loyalty.
Another complicating factor-- with the rise in fuel prices my partners and I are beginning to get requests to re-negotiate performance fees. So now I wonder if I can keep the prices the same or not and whether we will be able to afford to present as many artists come next year. I sense the developments over the next year or so will instigate a sea change in the way we do business in the future (as well as if.)
Going off on a little tangent from the topic of booking, one of the artists I was excited to be presenting decided they wanted to change the time frame that they toured. This will put them outside our planned season. We hadn't gone to contract but thought we did have an understanding with their agent. This wasn't related at all to fuel costs but rather the timing of other projects the artists were involved in. My partner presenters decided not to replace the group. I have a smaller schedule than they so I have been seeking a replacement and hoping I can do so before it is time for the brochure to go to press.
A substitute was suggested by some staff people and their friends. YouTube videos were reviewed and the artist judged to be of good quality. The sole booking contact channel turns out to essentially be the artist's email address. An email is sent inquiring about availability and bounces back because the artist hasn't been reading their email and is over quota. We may go back to them to inquire, but probably only if others don't pan out.
Word to the wise all ye starving artists. Keep your lines of communication open and your email boxes clear! Rising fuel costs and declining attendance ain't gonna be increasing opportunities to perform, there is no need to provide impediments to the process.
Shall I Not Be On A Pedestal, Worshipped And Competed For?
There are times during the year where I find myself singing "Where Are The Simple Joys of Maidenhood" from Camelot. Now if you have seen my picture on Inside the Arts, you know Julie Andrews I ain't. Part of the reason I start singing the song is because I spent half a summer in my younger days running spot light for a production. Another reason is that the image of me singing this song amuses me so. But really I can often identify with the raw romantic innocence Guenevere exhibits singing lines like
"Are those sweet, gentle pleasures gone for good?
Shall a feud not begin for me?
Shall kith not kill their kin for me?
Oh where are the trivial joys?
Harmless, convivial joys?
Where are the simple joys of maidenhood?"
Now given those lines fall at the end of the song, I rarely get to them for all the laughing going on by that point -- mostly mine.
When people hear what my job is they view it with the same romantic innocence. Surely such a cool job is not susceptible to mundane concerns like bugging agents for contracts and images so you can put a website and brochure together. Or if the mundane does intrude, it must be over shadowed by the joy of working with such amazing artists. Actually, the last bit is true except for the "mundane" concern about why people who praise the artists aren't buying tickets to see them. So yeah, when I am singing songs like that one, I am trying to get back in touch with the idealism that made me pursuit this path to begin with.
And there is the tricky part. Last week, Artful Manager Andrew Taylor cited a comment from the Americans for the Arts conference that, "'We need to stop making the arts so special.'' It occurs to me that the arts community needs to be in control of the way the arts are demystified. With auditioning for American Idol essentially a rite of passage being a good performer appears to be a matter of hard work, luck and getting enough people to vote for you. Anyone can do it if the stars align correctly. The necessity of talent and hard work over decades to hone one's skill rather than a few weeks doesn't seem to register.
The scenario shows like "Dancing with the Stars" and "So You Think You Can Dance" promote is that amateurs thrown into a crash course in a subject can compete and be winners. Even Bravo's "Step It Up And Dance" where the contestants were trained and danced professionally had episodes where a choreographer would say they usually worked on rehearsing a piece for 5 days and the show gave the contestants 2 hours. This isn't just limited to performing arts. MTV has/had a show called "Made" where high school kids wanting to be basketball players, cheerleaders, stars of the Spring musical, beauty queens, lose weight, promo queen or whatever worked toward their goal for a couple months. Usually the video shot during the first 3-4 weeks consisted of the person resisting the discipline of their coach. This left 3-4 weeks at most to cram the rest of the effort in. Most had some credible results probably helped by the fact that television cameras were following them around for so long.
So what is the narrative the arts world can offer?- "You can cram a lot of training in a short time and win prizes and recognition but honestly only be mediocre or you can devote your life to excellence and barely make a living." You thought practicing scales was boring for students before? What about now that you can become a virtuoso in six weeks? Sure eliminating one kid from your school/lesson roster a week will add drama and tension and may motivate to practice harder but it will subtract from your earnings.
I agree that we have to stop making the arts so special in regard to putting it on a pedestal. But the message that accompanies it always has to be that you can absolutely participate, have fun, find fulfillment and recognition with a little training in a short period of time so come join in. However, even given great talent to start with there is a certain level you can only attain with long study and practice.
This isn't just true of stodgy classical music and ballet. There was an article on Salon last week about the emergence of South Korea as a power in the world of hip hop dance. The South Korean dance crews practice 5 hours a day, seven days a week because they know someone is always trying to catch up. Yet the article notes, long hours of hard work on the flashiest moves aren't enough if you don't truly understand your art.
"When Koreans first emerged, Americans praised them for their power moves -- the highflying crowd-pleasing spins, freezes and gymnastics moves -- but criticized the Seoul b-boys for lacking soul. They were thought to be mechanical, unable to rock with the beat, and lacking in "foundation skills," such as the top-rock and footwork moves that form the historical roots of the dance."
Even in the idealistic world of Camelot, Guenevere comes to realize it takes hard work to bring dreams to fruition. (She also realizes the hazards of youthful folly, indiscretion and why bitter half sisters of the king shouldn't be taught magic, but at least some of that can be avoided.)
From the "Nothing New Under the Sun" file comes the news that Gene Weingarten is pondering whether to return his Pulitzer Prize. Weigarten is the Washington Post columnist who won the Pulitizer for arranging and writing about Joshua Bell's anonymous performance in a Washington D.C. subway station. Weingarten says he is pondering giving the prize up based on the fact it was awarded for originality and he has since learned someone beat him to it.
It seems that back in May 1930, a Chicago Evening Post reporter arranged for violin virtuoso Jacques Gordon to play incognito outside a Chicago subway station. Though he eventually drew a crowd, as with Bell, by and large no one stopped to listen and only one person recognized him. It also turned out that Bell played many of the same pieces Gordon did. I guess Schubert lends itself to outdoor concerts. Though he hasn't played it in about seven years, for nearly a decade, Bell actually played the very violin Gordon used for the stunt.
While I have been critical of the experiment, I am not about to suggest he give the Pulitzer back. My beef is that the experiment seemed designed to maximize the opportunity to point out what philistines people are. We see enough evidence that people don't value the arts every day without concocting situations to prove it. Just a year ago some students at Stanford University were miffed that NEA Chair, Dana Gioia, was speaking at graduation because they felt they deserved someone more famous.
The basic experiment is a valid one in my mind. It could have been used to measure when the best times for performing in myriad unorthodox locations might be as part of an outreach effort -- or even a longer term change of venue. As far as I am concerned, the Bell and Gordon results just prove that subway stations are not the best place to reach people. So even if he had known about the event seven decades earlier, Weingarten would have been wise to verify the earlier results.
An additional reason why the more constructive approach would have been preferable. Weingarten notes that unlike the original which faded into obscurity after a day, his story gained feet thanks to the Internet. I honestly don't think he knew it would become so widely disseminated. However, given it has it would have been much better if people were reading about a secret experiment aimed at serving them better rather than a secret experiment that proves what rubes people are.
Via Arts and Letters Daily, there is an intriguing article in Reason Magazine about how penalties for undesirable behavior can actually result in more poor behavior if people perceived paying the penalty as license to continue.
Citing a study in Science, Ronald Bailey gives the example of six Israel day cares who instituted a fee to penalize people who pick their children up late. Instead of solving the problem, this made it worse.
According to Bowles: "The fine seems to have undermined the parents' sense of ethical obligation to avoid inconveniencing the teachers and led them to think of lateness as just another commodity they could purchase."
The same thing happened in an experiment in Columbia. Researchers were conducting a game where people were involved with divvying up forest resources. The results of many scenarios reflected concern for the resources and other users until a situation that simulated government control fined those who overused their alloted share. People felt paying the fine justified pursuing their short term interests rather than the interests of the whole.
I tried to think of ways the arts might be providing disincentives for their audiences to act in the interests of the organization, audience or community through what they perceive to be penalties. I haven't really thought of anything but maybe something will occur to you readers.
First thing that came to mind were the ticket fees we charge for buying tickets online or over the phone but might not charge if people come to the window. Or that we charge a lower price for subscriptions and buying single tickets before a certain date.
But neither of these things seem to create an incentive for people to buy early. I don't think it creates a disincentive either. I think people are just busy and have changed their buying practices.
Next I wondered if holding people in the lobby for late seating hoping they, (and those they annoy when they are seated), are discomforted enough that they arrive promptly next time might have some unintended consequences. It is easy to foresee that both late comers and those seated are likely to be annoyed by the timing of the late seating interval even if it has reduced 14 potential interruptions to one. No surprise there.
It is likewise easy to anticipate reactions to policies like; No food in theatre, no exchanges or refunds, no video taping and no cell phones. Perhaps no cell phone policies and signal jammers may have caused a rise in texting, (I seem to remember jammers don't impact texting frequencies, just voice) but even that is not unforeseen. As annoying as the glowing screens can be, it isn't as bad as having someone pull out their cell phone and say, "Yeah, I am in the theatre. No, no, I can talk," in the middle of a performance.
So does anyone know of a policy that was meant to control undesirable behavior that has essentially reinforced it? Drop me an email or comment below.
The technical director in my theatre has been talking on and off about putting together a photo show of all the attempts to paint over graffiti around the city. The paint the city/county/state has been using doesn't match the color of the concrete, of course. But it often doesn't match the paint color they used to cover the graffiti the last time around either. The result is a patchwork that sort of looks like someone took the Army's desert camouflage pattern and blew it up on a photocopy machine. Who knew there were so many shades of institutional gray, beige and tan?
So when I saw this video with a caption of Reverse Graffiti Project on Artsjournal.com earlier this week, I thought someone had the same idea. It is actually a lot cooler. Take a look.
For those of you who don't have the time and inclination to take a look, the artist Moose Curtis, makes stencils (in this case of plants indigenous to California) and then uses a power washer and natural cleansers to clean dirt away from concrete walls. The result is a reverse "graffiti" image that is temporary by the nature of its placement in a dirty location.
One of the first ideas I had upon taking my current position was to have a contest with local schools to create a mural on the two ugly concrete walls at our theatre entryway. The location has been likened to a freeway underpass by some. (Although people love it for the shelter the covered area affords them when it is raining.) Many dismissed the idea saying it would attract graffiti even though the blank walls have been fairly graffiti free. I am intrigued by this project and am wondering if those walls are dirty enough to allow the technique to work. Though according to Curtis, it is probably dirtier than I think.
Given that a number of arts organizations are located in or adjacent to dirt producing/attracting locations like freeways and industrial districts since the rents are cheaper thereabouts, I wonder if this might be the basis of some inexpensive decoration for unattractive exteriors.
Of course, now this this technique is being widely promoted. someone will want to make an "artistic" statement and create dirty pictures by cleaning. Yes, even clean art can be lewd.
In one of my first blog entries I noted a speech by Chris Lavin promoting the idea that the arts be covered like sports. I still get a kick out of his suggestion that:
When compared to the open access a sports franchise allows, most arts organizations look like a cross between the Kremlin and the Vatican. Casting is closed. Practices closed. Interviews with actors and actresses limited and guarded. An athlete who refuses to do interviews can get fined. An actor or actress or director or composer who can't find time for the media is not uncommon. How would a director take to a theater critic watching practice and asking for his/her early analysis of the challenges this cast faces with the material -- the relatively strengths and weaknesses of the lead actor, the tendencies of the play write to resist rewriting?
Since the critics approached the events they attended from their own point of view, some of their observations were rather fun. Writing about a horse race, dance critic Judith Mackrell notes that unlike the race ballet attendees have no desire to see a dancer fall to the benefit of another ballerina. "And if, by some horrible chance, she gets injured, she isn't going to be put down after the show."
Visual arts critic Jonathan Jones went to a football/soccer game and noticed that "Wembley is a thrill, for all sorts of reasons. There's the architecture - the raised external ramps are like walking on a north London Acropolis, and the roof leaves a small space over the pitch, generating powerful contrasts of light and shadow."
Being an arts person, I was more interested in what the sports writers said about their experiences. In some cases, their comments echoed those of many first time arts attendees. Rugby columnist Thomas Castaignède noted, "I've passed Covent Garden so many times, but I had no idea it was so beautiful inside. As a social phenomenon it surprised me as well - the champagne, the way the audience had dressed up, the feeling that people were there to be seen, as well as to see." Golf writer Lawrence Donegan went to see the San Francisco Symphony perform and exclaimed, "...when this concert ended the audience went (and I use the following word advisedly) bonkers. This reaction shocked me, because I had no idea that people who were into classical music were also into going bonkers at the end of a performance."
Two of the sports writers were ultimately disappointed in their experiences because the unpredictability and high stakes inherent to sports was missing. Two others stated their appreciation for the parallels of mastery and passion common to both athletes and performers. Steve Bierley, a tennis writer who went to a gallery was greatly affected by what he saw. "It should have carried a warning: This woman is deeply dangerous. I go back to the comfort of Roland Garros, though Bourgeois remained a haunting and disturbing presence. I'm still spooked."
I thought that was great. What I really appreciated was Castaignède's observations about seeing Tosca. I think he states the case for the value of arts attendance best. Perhaps it is because he was a top notch rugby player he was best of all the sports writers to appreciate the mastery possessed.
"I came to the conclusion that there is a parallel between what you feel during a top-class rugby match and what an artist feels on stage - and it's not just the roar of the crowd. The people who are watching influence how you behave: they were viewing Kaufmann and driving him forward, just as they used to inspire me. I could empathise with Kaufmann's total concentration on the performance, and the way he had to become one with the orchestra, who gave him the power to go beyond the norm. There is a physical aspect to opera, certainly; but more than that, on stage you see what in rugby we call "automatisms" - where you become conditioned to move and act by pure instinct. I had a sense of two completely different worlds coming together."
As I noted, it is fun reading how each person filters their experience through the lens of their particular expertise so take a gander the both full articles.
