Like all of us, I struggle with time - or rather feeling like there isn't enough of it. Perhaps that's why I'm a big fan of Carl Honore. His book, In Praise of Slow, affirms so many things I believe in, and primarily the concept that things need to happen at their own right speed. Sometimes that means that we need to slow down, to give ourselves time to think things through and to be in the moment. More often, it might mean that we need to try to jam less "stuff", fewer things to do, into the time we have. This sometimes works and sometimes doesn't, but the attempt can teach us much.
I believe that working with and around Artists can also teach us a lot about "slow". While it's often necessary to create Art in a short time span, we as Administrators don't hesitate to do our very best to give Art the focus and time it deserves: think of the making of a piece of visual art, or the writing of a book or play. Even when there isn't as much time as we want for creation (the two week rehearsal period, the short deadline, the one rehearsal with the conductor before the first concert or performance), one thing we almost always manage to ensure is a place to focus and at least try to let things happen at there own right speed. When I am privileged enough to observe a rehearsal, I am always impressed by the focus that envelops the room. That room becomes a place where little else exists and the most important thing is what is going on in that space at that moment.
I think that this can happen from time to time for us as administrators as well. It isn't always possible with telephones ringing and other staff members needing to speak to us and constant e-mail, etc. But sometimes, I can get swept up in making a good case for a grant or report, or formulating a detailed strategy, or completing an analysis that turns my previous thought on something on its head. I believe this happens when I need to be creative and when I can access an atmosphere that allows me the time and space to focus (yes, it's true, grant writing can be creative - in the good way that produces original thought). It is this space to focus that can allow our offices to become places where we can carve out space without interruption and - for a time - nothing exists but the Art. Is it possible to achieve this in our harried lives when things move so fast, the demands are so constant, and the resources so scarce? Perhaps not all the time, but I will argue that in some circumstances, it's actually more efficient to turn everything off, shut the door if we can, and just focus. If nothing else, we are then trying to make the best conditions we can for all of us - Administrators and Artists - to create the best Art that we can.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Bill C-470
There is a Private Member's Bill before the House of Commons right now that, in the name of transparency "seeks to empower the Minister of National Revenue with the discretion to deregister any charity, private foundation, or public foundation that paid any employee more than $250,000 annually in total compensation." (Edmonton Chamber of Voluntary Organizations website). This is, in effect, a salary cap on the sector - a sector that we know includes most of the organizations we work for.
Many of us in the Arts (including me, at first) may think that this cap will not matter to us. After all, how many Arts Administrators even come close to that kind of compensation? But this cap is grossly unfair to our industry and is based on some false assumptions. Moreover, it makes clear a frustrating double-standard between charities and the private sector.
The Liberal MP putting this bill forward, as well as the other MPs in the Liberal Party, the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP who support it, are supporting the overall effort to improve transparency among charities. What they fail to acknowledge is the high degree of transparency that already exists. All of us spend significant portions of our time not only applying for funding and/or soliciting donations and sponsorships - there is nobody in the Arts who hasn't been involved in this work in some way. We also spend significant time reporting on this money. There are seemingly endless grant reports at all levels of government and for any foundation grants received, as well as the T3010 Charitable Return and the annual independent financial audit. The latter two become matters of public record, available to anyone who searches for them on the Canada Revenue Agency website (in the case of the former) or who requests it (in the case of the latter). This type of reporting is not required of private sector organizations - even those in receipt of public funds.
Even though much time is spent reporting on grants and donations, I don't think very many of us begrudge having to be responsible to the public for the money they give us. It is, after all, their money, and we have committed in our mandates to performing a service to our communities. We should be accountable for that. What I have problems with are those who are quick to point the finger at our sector, without looking at the levels of accountability we already have.
The Edmonton Chamber of Voluntary Organizations has a link to Imagine Canada's very good, concise brief on this bill, as well as links to Carters Professional Corporation's and Mark Blumberg's writing on the matter (direct links to each are included here as well). All are very interesting and offer some good alternatives to the issues Bill C-470 seeks to address.
In light of this, I believe it is time to follow Imagine Canada's example as outlined in their brief and begin to educate our MPs and those who work for them about the high level of professionalism and accountability we have already attained, and about the concerns we have about Bill C-470. Imposing a salary cap will not help us to attract and retain the highly skilled professionals we need to manage our sometimes complex organizations, and publishing the names, titles and exact salaries of the top 5 employees of each of our organizations (which in some cases will mean the salaries of the entire staff of an organization will be published) will not help the sector. It can be a very frustrating process, I know, but conversation instead of confrontation is the only way to have our voices really heard.
On another front, we can also begin to open a dialogue with our donors and sponsors, engaging them in a dialogue about these issues. Many of them are our biggest supporters and letting them know that they can help us by joining the conversation with their politicians will - I hope - begin to develop the kind of grass roots support that will sway those who depend on these supporter's votes. Many of the donors and sponsors I work with recognize the level of professionalism required in our relationships. I have developed many relationships that include a high degree of personal and professional respect on both sides of the partnership. I know I'm not the only one. All of us can point to these examples in our own work.
It is too bad that "Bill C-740 has involved no consultation with the charitable sector whatsoever." (Carters Professional Corp) Perhaps if those who drafted the bill knew us a little better, we could resolve many of our issues together and more productively.
Many of us in the Arts (including me, at first) may think that this cap will not matter to us. After all, how many Arts Administrators even come close to that kind of compensation? But this cap is grossly unfair to our industry and is based on some false assumptions. Moreover, it makes clear a frustrating double-standard between charities and the private sector.
The Liberal MP putting this bill forward, as well as the other MPs in the Liberal Party, the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP who support it, are supporting the overall effort to improve transparency among charities. What they fail to acknowledge is the high degree of transparency that already exists. All of us spend significant portions of our time not only applying for funding and/or soliciting donations and sponsorships - there is nobody in the Arts who hasn't been involved in this work in some way. We also spend significant time reporting on this money. There are seemingly endless grant reports at all levels of government and for any foundation grants received, as well as the T3010 Charitable Return and the annual independent financial audit. The latter two become matters of public record, available to anyone who searches for them on the Canada Revenue Agency website (in the case of the former) or who requests it (in the case of the latter). This type of reporting is not required of private sector organizations - even those in receipt of public funds.
Even though much time is spent reporting on grants and donations, I don't think very many of us begrudge having to be responsible to the public for the money they give us. It is, after all, their money, and we have committed in our mandates to performing a service to our communities. We should be accountable for that. What I have problems with are those who are quick to point the finger at our sector, without looking at the levels of accountability we already have.
The Edmonton Chamber of Voluntary Organizations has a link to Imagine Canada's very good, concise brief on this bill, as well as links to Carters Professional Corporation's and Mark Blumberg's writing on the matter (direct links to each are included here as well). All are very interesting and offer some good alternatives to the issues Bill C-470 seeks to address.
In light of this, I believe it is time to follow Imagine Canada's example as outlined in their brief and begin to educate our MPs and those who work for them about the high level of professionalism and accountability we have already attained, and about the concerns we have about Bill C-470. Imposing a salary cap will not help us to attract and retain the highly skilled professionals we need to manage our sometimes complex organizations, and publishing the names, titles and exact salaries of the top 5 employees of each of our organizations (which in some cases will mean the salaries of the entire staff of an organization will be published) will not help the sector. It can be a very frustrating process, I know, but conversation instead of confrontation is the only way to have our voices really heard.
On another front, we can also begin to open a dialogue with our donors and sponsors, engaging them in a dialogue about these issues. Many of them are our biggest supporters and letting them know that they can help us by joining the conversation with their politicians will - I hope - begin to develop the kind of grass roots support that will sway those who depend on these supporter's votes. Many of the donors and sponsors I work with recognize the level of professionalism required in our relationships. I have developed many relationships that include a high degree of personal and professional respect on both sides of the partnership. I know I'm not the only one. All of us can point to these examples in our own work.
It is too bad that "Bill C-740 has involved no consultation with the charitable sector whatsoever." (Carters Professional Corp) Perhaps if those who drafted the bill knew us a little better, we could resolve many of our issues together and more productively.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Artistic Integrity in a Technological Age
Lately, I've spent a lot of time thinking about how arts organizations can maintain their artistic integrity and growth over the long term, especially as belts get tightened. True, economies seem to be recovering in some areas, but things are still far too uncertain to say that we have turned a corner. So in the face of potentially declining revenue, how do we continue to move our art forms forward? We all agree that it is vital for Art forms to continue to evolve and that Artists must continue to innovate and to risk in order to do that. How can we continue to do this in a time when the stakes seem so high and the resources to take those risks seem so scarce?
There are those who say that technology is the key. Max Wyman (both in his book The Defiant Imagination and in a recent talk at Grant MacEwan University) has made a strong case for the use of technology in various forms as a way to engage new audiences and make the Arts relevant to them. This is entirely valid, given that the use of the particularly social networking is becoming so widespread and there is no cost to the user. But while technology and in particular social networking have had a strong influence on society, in my view, they are really a tool for dissemination. In the case of the live performing arts, for example, internet sites like YouTube can show audiences what happens on stage, or services such as facebook and Twitter can be used to get the word out about what's upcoming on local stages, or even form a part of the artistic experience, but they are not a replacement for a live performance (and it should be noted that Mr. Wyman does not advocate the replacement of live performance in any way). Indeed, one of the other qualities that those who frequent social networking sites seem to have (again according to Mr. Wyman, and I have no reason to doubt him on this) is that they hunger for an authentic experience.
The question then becomes, how do we keep those live performance experiences relevant to our modern society? If we accept that today's audiences not only hunger for engagement and participation, but also for authentic experiences, then the answer may be very simple. Artists will do what they have always done and incorporate relevant elements into their work. They are innovators and explorers. Artists will seek out and use whatever they need to stimulate their creative fire and make their messages clear to their audiences. This is what moves art forward and continuously makes it a vital part of the fabric of society. Our jobs as organizations and administrators is to support this creativity in a sustainable way and to provide mechanisms for audiences to engage off the stages and outside the galleries (or outside of whatever venue an artwork is presented in). Sometimes we should even facilitate ways within the experience to engage our audiences directly with the work - if that is the desire of the Artist. We also need to become as creative as the Artists we work for and with, in order that the work we do becomes both relevant to the Art we facilitate and relevant to our communities.
There is no one formula for this adaptation, and in a fast-paced, technology-driven world, organizations can find this incredibly hard, but each Artist and each Arts organization must find ways to use the tools - because that's what technology really is, a series of tools - to facilitate the best, most relevant art possible. We must also realize that these tools and the ways in which we use them are going to change. That is the incredible thing about Art, its ability - indeed, its purpose - to constantly change and move forward, adapting and reflecting our societies.
Edited to add:
Here are two links to check out that are related to things in this post.
An interview on the Nonprofit Finance Fund website regarding adaptation and innovation.
Several papers and resources on the Australia Council for the Arts' website regarding what they term Artistic Vibrancy.
Both are extremely interesting in their ideas about the methods for adaptation to change and the processes that can be used to determine the nature of that change. The first is extremely interesting in terms of the conditions that need to exist for major adaptive change and the time that is needed to undertake it.
There are those who say that technology is the key. Max Wyman (both in his book The Defiant Imagination and in a recent talk at Grant MacEwan University) has made a strong case for the use of technology in various forms as a way to engage new audiences and make the Arts relevant to them. This is entirely valid, given that the use of the particularly social networking is becoming so widespread and there is no cost to the user. But while technology and in particular social networking have had a strong influence on society, in my view, they are really a tool for dissemination. In the case of the live performing arts, for example, internet sites like YouTube can show audiences what happens on stage, or services such as facebook and Twitter can be used to get the word out about what's upcoming on local stages, or even form a part of the artistic experience, but they are not a replacement for a live performance (and it should be noted that Mr. Wyman does not advocate the replacement of live performance in any way). Indeed, one of the other qualities that those who frequent social networking sites seem to have (again according to Mr. Wyman, and I have no reason to doubt him on this) is that they hunger for an authentic experience.
The question then becomes, how do we keep those live performance experiences relevant to our modern society? If we accept that today's audiences not only hunger for engagement and participation, but also for authentic experiences, then the answer may be very simple. Artists will do what they have always done and incorporate relevant elements into their work. They are innovators and explorers. Artists will seek out and use whatever they need to stimulate their creative fire and make their messages clear to their audiences. This is what moves art forward and continuously makes it a vital part of the fabric of society. Our jobs as organizations and administrators is to support this creativity in a sustainable way and to provide mechanisms for audiences to engage off the stages and outside the galleries (or outside of whatever venue an artwork is presented in). Sometimes we should even facilitate ways within the experience to engage our audiences directly with the work - if that is the desire of the Artist. We also need to become as creative as the Artists we work for and with, in order that the work we do becomes both relevant to the Art we facilitate and relevant to our communities.
There is no one formula for this adaptation, and in a fast-paced, technology-driven world, organizations can find this incredibly hard, but each Artist and each Arts organization must find ways to use the tools - because that's what technology really is, a series of tools - to facilitate the best, most relevant art possible. We must also realize that these tools and the ways in which we use them are going to change. That is the incredible thing about Art, its ability - indeed, its purpose - to constantly change and move forward, adapting and reflecting our societies.
Edited to add:
Here are two links to check out that are related to things in this post.
An interview on the Nonprofit Finance Fund website regarding adaptation and innovation.
Several papers and resources on the Australia Council for the Arts' website regarding what they term Artistic Vibrancy.
Both are extremely interesting in their ideas about the methods for adaptation to change and the processes that can be used to determine the nature of that change. The first is extremely interesting in terms of the conditions that need to exist for major adaptive change and the time that is needed to undertake it.
On Being An Arts Administrator
I frequently think that Arts Administration is a unique profession, but I really have no hard evidence upon which to base this, never having worked in a field outside the Arts. Every colleague I talk to recognizes that what we do is hard, and many have considered a career change (in fact, a lot of us consider it several times a month). As we frequently like to admit, we will never get rich and we will never get famous. But we stay on. Why? What makes us “tick?”
Here are some of what I think are some of the realities and rewards of Arts Administration:
Reality – Arts Administrators work hard: really hard. There is always a lot to do – often much more than we can get to in the time we have.
Reality – there will never be enough money or human resources to do what we want to do; however, many Arts Administrators make a living wage because many of us (but not all) have long term or permanent jobs, which is more than many artists can say.
Reality – however financially secure an arts organization (of any size or description) may be or seem to be, there is little margin for something to go “wrong”. The unpredictability of revenue is, unfortunately, the nature of the beast. I don't think anybody ever gets used to this, but we learn to live with it.
Reward – Arts Administrators are extremely resourceful, resilient and creative people in their own right. This is something we should celebrate from time to time. This trait grows and expands the longer we work in our field.
Reward – we work with people who care very deeply about what they do; most people work in the Arts because they love it.
Reward – the work we do is meaningful. Let's think about this: every day we will be working on behalf of something that makes humanity and civilization unique and beautiful; we are involved in things that transform people's lives.
Whenever I question why I do this really hard thing called Arts Administration, I try to remember the rewards and even if it seems like the rest of the world really doesn't care, there are some people out there who do. If that makes the world a better place, then I'm in.
Here are some of what I think are some of the realities and rewards of Arts Administration:
Reality – Arts Administrators work hard: really hard. There is always a lot to do – often much more than we can get to in the time we have.
Reality – there will never be enough money or human resources to do what we want to do; however, many Arts Administrators make a living wage because many of us (but not all) have long term or permanent jobs, which is more than many artists can say.
Reality – however financially secure an arts organization (of any size or description) may be or seem to be, there is little margin for something to go “wrong”. The unpredictability of revenue is, unfortunately, the nature of the beast. I don't think anybody ever gets used to this, but we learn to live with it.
Reward – Arts Administrators are extremely resourceful, resilient and creative people in their own right. This is something we should celebrate from time to time. This trait grows and expands the longer we work in our field.
Reward – we work with people who care very deeply about what they do; most people work in the Arts because they love it.
Reward – the work we do is meaningful. Let's think about this: every day we will be working on behalf of something that makes humanity and civilization unique and beautiful; we are involved in things that transform people's lives.
Whenever I question why I do this really hard thing called Arts Administration, I try to remember the rewards and even if it seems like the rest of the world really doesn't care, there are some people out there who do. If that makes the world a better place, then I'm in.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
The Value of the Amateur
A recent report by the Wallace Foundation got me thinking in a very different way about "the Amateur" - or one who practices an art form, but not professionally. The report is actually a summary of a conference in Philadelphia in 2009 attended by representatives from the six cities who received Wallace Excellence Awards (a link to the report can be found via Hill Strategies' Arts Research Monitor here). What caught my attention wasn't that it talked about the need for arts organizations to grow their audiences as well as the need for courageous programming in these hard times, it was rather how and where this report suggested some of those new audiences can be found: in people who already have an affinity with and knowledge of various art forms - the amateurs.
There is a sidebar in the report that explains this very eloquently, so I won't summarize it here, but what I will say is that it made me realize that our greatest supporters in hard times may be those who are actively engaged in the practice of various art forms at an amateur level: those who sing in choirs or opera choruses, who act in community theatre, who danced when they were children, who took art class in high school or who paint in their spare time. All of these people recognize the skill and quality of professional art because they know what goes into that quality and how much it took to get an artwork to that level.
A personal example goes back to an art gallery show (I cannot remember the gallery) featuring various forms of landmines and the destruction they caused. If I remember correctly, there was information and photo images of the harm done by landmines, but the examples of the landmines themselves were all knitted. In various display cases sat life sized, brightly coloured, knitted landmines. The reason I remember the exhibit was because it juxtaposed a craft that we view as comforting against the terror and strife landmines represent. That was the point of the show, I think. I appreciated the work, but at the time I recognized it only as an innovative way to convey the message. I had no idea of the skill involved in its creation.
Now, however, because I am a devoted knitter (although not at all a fibre artist - more a "fibre fan", if you will), I remember the exhibit primarily because I appreciate the skill it would have taken to create these knitted objects in the first place. Now I appreciate the exhibit in more than one way, and in turn would go to see other, similar exhibits. In fact, now, because I am a knitter, I appreciate fibre arts and the entire skill and patience of craft artists much more than I ever did. This is how I am engaged in that art form and the reason that I will willingly go - and pay money - to see the work of those who take this art to a higher level of creativity and skill.
Amateurs and those who practice the arts in their communities in their time outside of their regular work can be our best and most outspoken advocates. Who better to explain to others who see the Arts as a "frill" the value those same art forms bring to their lives and the lives of others? Who better to explain how much skill and training it takes to get to that level? There is a symbiotic relationship here that we who are involved in professional arts organizations have yet to fully explore. Many of us understand the value of the Arts in education and in our communities as pathways to better understanding of various aspects of our lives, but have we really looked at ways to engage them as potential audience members? I, for one, haven't really thought about it that way, but would love to hear from others who have.
There is a sidebar in the report that explains this very eloquently, so I won't summarize it here, but what I will say is that it made me realize that our greatest supporters in hard times may be those who are actively engaged in the practice of various art forms at an amateur level: those who sing in choirs or opera choruses, who act in community theatre, who danced when they were children, who took art class in high school or who paint in their spare time. All of these people recognize the skill and quality of professional art because they know what goes into that quality and how much it took to get an artwork to that level.
A personal example goes back to an art gallery show (I cannot remember the gallery) featuring various forms of landmines and the destruction they caused. If I remember correctly, there was information and photo images of the harm done by landmines, but the examples of the landmines themselves were all knitted. In various display cases sat life sized, brightly coloured, knitted landmines. The reason I remember the exhibit was because it juxtaposed a craft that we view as comforting against the terror and strife landmines represent. That was the point of the show, I think. I appreciated the work, but at the time I recognized it only as an innovative way to convey the message. I had no idea of the skill involved in its creation.
Now, however, because I am a devoted knitter (although not at all a fibre artist - more a "fibre fan", if you will), I remember the exhibit primarily because I appreciate the skill it would have taken to create these knitted objects in the first place. Now I appreciate the exhibit in more than one way, and in turn would go to see other, similar exhibits. In fact, now, because I am a knitter, I appreciate fibre arts and the entire skill and patience of craft artists much more than I ever did. This is how I am engaged in that art form and the reason that I will willingly go - and pay money - to see the work of those who take this art to a higher level of creativity and skill.
Amateurs and those who practice the arts in their communities in their time outside of their regular work can be our best and most outspoken advocates. Who better to explain to others who see the Arts as a "frill" the value those same art forms bring to their lives and the lives of others? Who better to explain how much skill and training it takes to get to that level? There is a symbiotic relationship here that we who are involved in professional arts organizations have yet to fully explore. Many of us understand the value of the Arts in education and in our communities as pathways to better understanding of various aspects of our lives, but have we really looked at ways to engage them as potential audience members? I, for one, haven't really thought about it that way, but would love to hear from others who have.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Intrinsic Value and the Arts
According to Dictionary.com, intrinsic is an adjective that means: "belonging to a thing by its very nature..." According to Wikipedia, intrinsic value "is an ethical and philosophic property. It is the ethical or philosophic value that an object has "in itself" or "for its own sake", as an intrinsic property. An object with intrinsic value may be regarded as an end or end-in-itself."
Many people talk about the Arts as having intrinsic value, but what does this really mean? To me, and many I have discussed this with, it means that the Arts are a part of life, and should not be viewed as a separate thing to be enjoyed (or not) as an "add on." It means that once a society gets beyond dealing with its very basic survival (i.e. food, shelter and clothing), it will engage in some kind of creative act that we now refer to as "Art."
There is substantial historical evidence for this. You don't have to look very far to discover that one of the main ways historians, anthropologists, and archeologists learn about various cultures is through the artifacts they find, and through the art these cultures created - the stories, myths, dances, theatre pieces, paintings and sculpture, to name a few examples. We can also see how these examples infused everyday life - in fact they portray aspects of everyday life and this is how we learn about the past now. Therefore we can feasibly conclude that what we refer to today as "the Arts" formed an intrinsic part of the lives of past societies, and by extension, our society today. In my view, we can then refer to art as a "public good", or something vital to our society that everyone needs, and that is therefore more than worthy of public support through government funding. Art then assumes the same stature of health, education, infrastructure, agricultural and even industry funding available from many governments around the world, to various degrees.
And yet, many in North America do not see it this way. To some, the Arts are a frill, an entertainment, an option. Some even see the Arts as a commercial enterprise that should fund itself. How can the Arts rise above these arguments and assume their place in our society? How can we prove what many of us who work in the Arts already know?
There are a couple of approaches we can take: the first is to create a grass-roots awareness of the intrinsic role the Arts play in everyone's daily lives, the second would be to re-frame this debate in terms that those who live by "deliverables" and "measurables" can easily latch onto. I'll return to the first approach in another entry, and continue with the second approach.
Can the intrinsic value of the Arts really be measured? While it is difficult to even conceive of measuring something so subjective and seemingly intangible, there are at least two studies done in the United States that have tried (and I would be happy to hear about more in the US or anywhere else if anyone knows of them).
The Wolf Brown Study "Assessing the Intrinsic Impacts of a Live Performance", was published in 2007 and conducted primarily with six presenters over 19 performances. In very brief terms, it measures the intrinsic impact on audience members of various types of live performance. This study is very illuminating in that it successfully proves that it is potentially possible to use some other tangible measure of the success of a performance than the amount of ticket sales, and may help those who produce and present art to make a measurable case in favour of what we feel needs to be seen by our audiences. The study's Summary version also refers to a similar study subsequently conducted by some of its Associate Partners, one of whom is the Ontario Presenters' Network, so there may be a Canadian example of this type of measurement as well.
So far, I'm not aware that any funding agency has used this form of measurement to assess grants, probably partly because engaging in this type of activity is extremely time consuming (and potentially costly) to the organizations involved. However, the fact that it is possible to measure the impact of a live performance in some other way than ticket sales (ie. raw demand), is encouraging. As we all know, good art doesn't always sell well. Nevertheless, it's impacts can often be felt beyond its immediate audiences. But I digress...
The other study, commissioned by the Conneticut Division on Culture and Tourism - Arts Division and published by Alan S. Brown and Associates LLC in 2004 is called The Values Study. Among many other things, this study points out not only that the people interviewed for the study felt that the Arts were a very valuable part of their lives, but why they felt that way, and what kind of participation in the Arts heightened their value. It also defines more than one way of participating in the Arts and refers to the fact that people have an "aesthetic awareness", which they recognize adds value to their lives. However, people don't always recognize this is the case, as the summary points out, and that this awareness is an indication that the Arts are an intrinsic part of their lives.
However, it can be pointed out that both studies surveyed and interviewed "the converted." In other words, they studied individuals who are already participating in the Arts in some way. This may be interpreted to mean that these studies don't say much about the way that individuals who don't regularly participate in the Arts value this activity, but there is a moment in Max Wyman's book The Defiant Imagination: Why Culture Matters (Douglas & McIntyre , 2004) that does. In Chapter 6, on page 135, he writes in reference to the outreach programs conducted by the Vancouver Opera in that city's Downtown Eastside, one of the poorest and most challenged neighbourhoods in the country, that "Jim Green, at that time the president of the Four Corners Bank [and a prominent anti-poverty activist and later member of Vancouver's City Council], said, 'Cliches suggest that opera is screaming and yelling and has nothing to do with ordinary people...Opera seems to move Downtown Eastsiders more than anything else I've ever seen...It's transforming them.' " This statement illustrates that when the Arts are available to people, even those whose days are spent striving to get to the next meal or to find a roof under which to spend the night, they can still become an intrinsic and transformative part of their lives - something that is incredibly positive and indeed beneficial to society as a whole.
The two studies mentioned here, as well as the example from Max Wyman's book, point out that participation and engagement are important factors in the way that people value the Arts as intrinsic to their lives, and this becomes a huge influence on the way we as arts administrators need to look at the programming our organizations produce. I'm not suggesting that we fundamentally change what we do, quite the opposite. I'm suggesting that the research highlights and supports that audience engagement activities we undertake both on and off the stage (or in and out of the gallery, as it were) are the key to our future survival and perhaps also one of the keys to achieving the true aim of Art itself: that of transforming societies for the better.
Many people talk about the Arts as having intrinsic value, but what does this really mean? To me, and many I have discussed this with, it means that the Arts are a part of life, and should not be viewed as a separate thing to be enjoyed (or not) as an "add on." It means that once a society gets beyond dealing with its very basic survival (i.e. food, shelter and clothing), it will engage in some kind of creative act that we now refer to as "Art."
There is substantial historical evidence for this. You don't have to look very far to discover that one of the main ways historians, anthropologists, and archeologists learn about various cultures is through the artifacts they find, and through the art these cultures created - the stories, myths, dances, theatre pieces, paintings and sculpture, to name a few examples. We can also see how these examples infused everyday life - in fact they portray aspects of everyday life and this is how we learn about the past now. Therefore we can feasibly conclude that what we refer to today as "the Arts" formed an intrinsic part of the lives of past societies, and by extension, our society today. In my view, we can then refer to art as a "public good", or something vital to our society that everyone needs, and that is therefore more than worthy of public support through government funding. Art then assumes the same stature of health, education, infrastructure, agricultural and even industry funding available from many governments around the world, to various degrees.
And yet, many in North America do not see it this way. To some, the Arts are a frill, an entertainment, an option. Some even see the Arts as a commercial enterprise that should fund itself. How can the Arts rise above these arguments and assume their place in our society? How can we prove what many of us who work in the Arts already know?
There are a couple of approaches we can take: the first is to create a grass-roots awareness of the intrinsic role the Arts play in everyone's daily lives, the second would be to re-frame this debate in terms that those who live by "deliverables" and "measurables" can easily latch onto. I'll return to the first approach in another entry, and continue with the second approach.
Can the intrinsic value of the Arts really be measured? While it is difficult to even conceive of measuring something so subjective and seemingly intangible, there are at least two studies done in the United States that have tried (and I would be happy to hear about more in the US or anywhere else if anyone knows of them).
The Wolf Brown Study "Assessing the Intrinsic Impacts of a Live Performance", was published in 2007 and conducted primarily with six presenters over 19 performances. In very brief terms, it measures the intrinsic impact on audience members of various types of live performance. This study is very illuminating in that it successfully proves that it is potentially possible to use some other tangible measure of the success of a performance than the amount of ticket sales, and may help those who produce and present art to make a measurable case in favour of what we feel needs to be seen by our audiences. The study's Summary version also refers to a similar study subsequently conducted by some of its Associate Partners, one of whom is the Ontario Presenters' Network, so there may be a Canadian example of this type of measurement as well.
So far, I'm not aware that any funding agency has used this form of measurement to assess grants, probably partly because engaging in this type of activity is extremely time consuming (and potentially costly) to the organizations involved. However, the fact that it is possible to measure the impact of a live performance in some other way than ticket sales (ie. raw demand), is encouraging. As we all know, good art doesn't always sell well. Nevertheless, it's impacts can often be felt beyond its immediate audiences. But I digress...
The other study, commissioned by the Conneticut Division on Culture and Tourism - Arts Division and published by Alan S. Brown and Associates LLC in 2004 is called The Values Study. Among many other things, this study points out not only that the people interviewed for the study felt that the Arts were a very valuable part of their lives, but why they felt that way, and what kind of participation in the Arts heightened their value. It also defines more than one way of participating in the Arts and refers to the fact that people have an "aesthetic awareness", which they recognize adds value to their lives. However, people don't always recognize this is the case, as the summary points out, and that this awareness is an indication that the Arts are an intrinsic part of their lives.
However, it can be pointed out that both studies surveyed and interviewed "the converted." In other words, they studied individuals who are already participating in the Arts in some way. This may be interpreted to mean that these studies don't say much about the way that individuals who don't regularly participate in the Arts value this activity, but there is a moment in Max Wyman's book The Defiant Imagination: Why Culture Matters (Douglas & McIntyre , 2004) that does. In Chapter 6, on page 135, he writes in reference to the outreach programs conducted by the Vancouver Opera in that city's Downtown Eastside, one of the poorest and most challenged neighbourhoods in the country, that "Jim Green, at that time the president of the Four Corners Bank [and a prominent anti-poverty activist and later member of Vancouver's City Council], said, 'Cliches suggest that opera is screaming and yelling and has nothing to do with ordinary people...Opera seems to move Downtown Eastsiders more than anything else I've ever seen...It's transforming them.' " This statement illustrates that when the Arts are available to people, even those whose days are spent striving to get to the next meal or to find a roof under which to spend the night, they can still become an intrinsic and transformative part of their lives - something that is incredibly positive and indeed beneficial to society as a whole.
The two studies mentioned here, as well as the example from Max Wyman's book, point out that participation and engagement are important factors in the way that people value the Arts as intrinsic to their lives, and this becomes a huge influence on the way we as arts administrators need to look at the programming our organizations produce. I'm not suggesting that we fundamentally change what we do, quite the opposite. I'm suggesting that the research highlights and supports that audience engagement activities we undertake both on and off the stage (or in and out of the gallery, as it were) are the key to our future survival and perhaps also one of the keys to achieving the true aim of Art itself: that of transforming societies for the better.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
A Little About Myself
I have been an Arts Administrator since 1993, when I “retired” from a career as dancer. The funniest thing about this is that shortly before I took an administrative job in the arts, I had declared in all seriousness that I could never be an Arts Administrator because it was “way too stressful.” This was my first lesson in “never say never.” In truth, I have been “hanging around” theatres in one way or another (mostly as a dancer) since I was 11 years old, and I can't seem to let that go.
I've done several things in this career. I've planned tours, done some “general management” (which as many of you know, includes everything from finance, to human resources, to negotiations of all sorts and with all types of people, unions and agents, and many other things in between), written a lot of grants, done a bit of marketing, a bit of fundraising, and along the way have had the very great privilege of working with some incredible artists and being involved in getting some wonderful, transformational art on the stage. I've worked with large and small theatre companies, independant artists, a large festival, and a large dance organization. Each organization has taught me much, and I have had the benefit of many generous and patient mentors along the way.
I have never had a plan or set career goals – something I have only recently learned is true of many, many Arts Administrators – which has often proved to open more doors than it has closed. While not completely a “neo-Luddite”, I tend not to be the first person to try out new technologies (blogging is now more than a decade old, for example, and I am just beginning), but here I am testing the waters because I have a desire to stimulate ideas and discussion and to share my thoughts with others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)