Art On The Farm

by:

Joe Patti

It has been a few years since I posted anything about the Wormfarm Institute  so I was happy to read a Hyperallergic post via Artsjournal.com about Wormfarm’s annual Farm/Art D’tour which occurred a couple weeks ago.

People can drive around the farm land of Wisconsin to see various art installations and performances staged in the fields. The whole circuit is about 50 miles. Among the performances this year were the Hay Rake Ballet choreographing the movements of three tractors. There is video in the Hyperallergic article. It appears there may have been a line dancing component involved as well based on a call for participants on the Wormfarm site.

According to the choreographer Sarah Butler,

“It’s not every day that these farmers are driving and doing pirouettes with the tractors,” said Butler in an interview with Hyperallergic. “But nothing I was asking them to do was something they don’t do every day. It was really cool to see these three guys who are total masters of their craft being celebrated by their own community, as well as people visiting who are coming to see the DTour … for things they do every day that are oftentimes not really recognized as art.”

The concept behind Farm/Art D’tour is to raise awareness of the process by which food reaches people’s table and diminish perceptions that farmers and farming are disconnected from art. Based on the experience of one of the farmers participating in Hay Rake Ballet, he and some of his friends and neighbors are beginning to see that connection:

While some farmers refused to take part and one even backed out during rehearsals, Enge said he and his two fellow performers were exhilarated. “Seeing the joy in the other drivers and in the crowd … it really touched me.” On the drive home one of the other farmers told Enge, “Hey, if they’re going to do it again, count me in.”

There are some good images of some of the other projects in the Hyperallergic piece and on Wormfarm’s Facebook page.

Now May Be The Best Time For A Story Circle

by:

Joe Patti

At one of my previous positions, I had started a conversation with a local storytelling group about partnering on a curated storytelling series. This conversation happened a month before the outbreak of the pandemic. The series went on more or less as planned, albeit in a much larger space that allowed for social distancing. I credit that series with helping to breakdown perceptual barriers about our venue and who it as for and contributing to the further development of a relationship between under served segments of our community.

A couple weeks ago, Arts Midwest posted a piece about facilitating story circles by Ben Fink. I have written about Fink and the work he did at Appalshop in Whitesburg, KY a few years back. The Arts Midwest piece contains a guide for hosting a story circle, including a link to download the materials. In my former position, we hadn’t used the story circle format, but according to Fink the community can experience similar outcomes.

There are a number of rules for participation he outlines, but one of those appears to be key to the experience is:

And finally (this is important) everyone is asked not to share the story they think of when they hear the initial prompt (more on prompts below), but to listen carefully to the stories that come before theirs, and then to share a story that complements, complicates, contradicts, or otherwise responds to the stories they’ve heard so far.

Near the end Fink provides the following insight from his decade experience participating in story circles:

In a story circle, people who tend to dominate discussions learn to listen, knowing they’ll have their turn to speak and be heard; and people who tend to hold back find themselves speaking up, knowing that no one will interrupt or talk over them. At the end, when the group reflects together about the stories they’ve just heard, they inevitably discover elements of a “story in the center of the circle”–a story that they find, to their surprise, they all somehow share.

The rules and guidelines – and the facilitation guide makes a distinction between the two – are designed to achieve this sort of result where the garrulous listen and the introverted are allowed the space to speak.

Is The Distinction Between Art & Science More A Matter Of Discomfort Than Fact?

by:

Joe Patti

Daniel J. Levitin had a piece in The Walrus this month where he goes on at length about how music is therapy.

In the middle of the article were a couple paragraphs that suggested the dividing line between artists and scientists isn’t as stark as described.

Beyond the usual example of Albert Einstein and other scientists have creative hobbies Levitin seems to suggest that the effort to establish a distinction between art and science may be based in a degree of discomfort with anything that might blur those lines. (my emphasis)

Good medicine relies on clinical judgment, refined through the same sort of trial and error and creative problem solving that artists and scientists use. Both the master physician and master baker must improvise. (Although the thought of a brain surgeon “improvising” may fill you with terror, it’s actually necessary, as neurosurgeon Theodore Schwartz explains. “Not only is the normal anatomy of every human variable, and unique, every tumour has its own configuration that distorts the landscape into which it has dug itself in a slightly different way. Inevitably, the reality we encounter differs from our expectations of what we thought we would find.”)

The most important distinction, then, isn’t in separating artists from scientists and doctors but in separating creative thinkers from formulaic ones, separating those who can tolerate uncertainty from those who cannot. Art, science, and medicine trade in doubt—and in its remedy, improvisation. Moreover, to be effective, the musician, the therapist, the scientist, and the physician must establish a rapport and a relationship of trust with people they may have never met.

Better To Adjust Price Vs. Discount

by:

Joe Patti

Dave Wakeman’s appearance on Angela Meleca’s ARTS Redefined podcast was making the rounds of LinkedIn last week. One section in particular where Wakeman discussed his opposition to discounting caught my attention. (Starting at 27:10, the index in the video is way off for some reason)

Wakeman says people tell stories about themselves –what type of person they are, what value they have in the world. He says discounts do the exact opposite – it removes the value narrative and says you are a commodity and suggests you don’t believe in the value you are offering.

Wakeman recalls one of his marketing professors taught him that for every 1% you discount, you can lose up to 40% of your profit. Wakeman acknowledges it is an extreme example and the typical loss is around 10-11%. He cites additional research on the other side that shows for every 1% you raise your price, you gain 10-11% in profitability.

He says that the first time you discount, you might get good results but then people learn to wait for the discount. The better approach is to just recognize you set the price too high, change the price and continue with that new price.

Without naming names, Meleca gives Wakeman the example of an arts organization that makes all their tickets $11 with the expectation that people will enjoy the experience and come back again at a higher price.

This is clearly a reference to Opera Philadelphia’s  $11 pay what you want campaign that was introduced at the end of August. I suspect the podcast episode must have been recorded around then because Wakeman doesn’t seem aware of this and I am reasonably confident I saw him comment on the story in early September.

I will say that based on Opera Philadelphia reported ticket revenue being generally 13% of their revenue, I don’t necessarily think they were depending on people returning at a much higher price point in the future. Fundraising is probably at the core of their plan to stay in the black.

Interestingly, Wakeman brings up a “not going to name name’s” example of a sports team that did the same thing. He characterizes the belief that people will come back at a higher price as just stupid. He says it is much tougher to raise a price when you have lowered it.

He goes into detail about the approach of just changing the price and how to communicate it in a way that is positive for you. Announcing a whole new block of seats at $20 Vs  20% off ticket price is a more constructive framing. The discount raises questions about the value of the show and how it is selling.

That said, I want to point out you can only do that so much. There were a lot of concerts this past summer where people had purchased tickets at $300 or more several months out only to find them selling at around $50 dollars a couple weeks out from the show. Based on what I saw unfold on regional concert venues this summer, I am pretty sure some of that is attributable to 3rd parties buying up all the tickets, ratcheting the price,  and then trying to unload them when they wouldn’t sell.

Whether it was 3rd parties or the venue themselves, there were a lot of pissed off people making videos and comments on social media because their perception shifted from being smart for getting tickets early to being cheated of the hundreds or thousands of dollars difference between their purchase price and the current sale price.

Wakeman talks about this shift in perceived value in regard to discounting as well. He suggests having a strong data based process in place for price setting so that you have the best chance of creating an accurate price in the first place.

He says pegging it to the actual cost of presenting the show is bad because that often doesn’t align with perceived value.

Once you set the price, don’t be timid or apologize for it – promote it confidently and proudly.