Home Page

If Only It Were This Easy To Add Sugar and Spice To My Acting Ability

March 21, 2012

by:

Joe Patti

There was a story in FastCompany last December about a company called uFlavor which will allow you to custom mix soft drinks both online and through their vending machines. You design everything from the exact percentage of each ingredient to the label on the bottle.

Since relatively small changes in ingredients can determine how you experience food flavors–what immediately pops, what lingers in the mouth–the granular control uFlavor offers with its ingredients can yield myriad results.

I was trying to figure out if there was some way technology could do the same for the arts, but I couldn’t quite imagine a way to do it. You really can’t try out different line readings for a play on a computer to determine which one is best because the subtleties each actor can bring to the performance are quite different. The same with dancers and singers.

Even though there are similarities in that subtle differences in food flavors and performances can vastly impact the perceived quality of the product, good performances are not so easily manipulated for manufacturing. It appears Baumol’s cost disease may maintain its hold on the performing arts a little bit longer short of performers being digitally manufactured a la the movie S1m0ne.

However, apparently programs like Adobe’s Photoshop and Illustrator have provided an opportunity for visual artists to evaluate choices. Even if they don’t use the software to produce an end product, I have been told by visual artists that they use them to vet their choices before they start painting/drawing/etc.

When I first heard this I became concerned that artists using this technique would lose their mastery of materials. I am sure a number of insights have come from things unintentionally mixing. Or when artists, frustrated that their materials won’t behave the way they want, have added a little bit of this and that with some occasionally rewarding results. There are also obviously differences between a computer screen and real life, but an experienced artist will allow for that.

But on further thought I realized that by providing artists a quick sense of the results, these programs gave artists much more time to experiment.

I mean, I am old enough that I started out writing on typewriters. Even though it may not seem that way all the time, the opportunity that word processors provided to edit, re-edit, re-order and incessantly revamp my words has made me a much better writer than I would have been had I had to continue to use a typewriter.

So as video and audio processing continues to improve, it may not be long before we start to see tools for playwrights/choreographers/actors/directors/designers to use to evaluate dialogue, choreography, blocking, line readings and how performers might interact with lighting and set design. It will certainly not be a perfect depiction of the real life results, but it may provide these people much more time to experiment extensively with ideas.

Arts in an Age of Technology

No Comments

iPad Will Make Your Performance…Forgettable

March 20, 2012

by:

Joe Patti

One option for preserving the performing arts is often mentioned is a greater use of multi-media either in a performance or as a medium to transmit the performance. However, reading an article on Time magazine’s website (h/t Tyler Cowen, Marginal Revolution) about how it is more difficult to remember things you read in electronic format versus paper format, I wondered if moving to electronic media might be a disservice to the arts.

Second, the book readers seemed to digest the material more fully. Garland explains that when you recall something, you either “know” it and it just “comes to you” — without necessarily consciously recalling the context in which you learned it — or you “remember” it by cuing yourself about that context and then arriving at the answer. “Knowing” is better because you can recall the important facts faster and seemingly effortlessly.

“What we found was that people on paper started to ‘know’ the material more quickly over the passage of time,” says Garland. “It took longer and [required] more repeated testing to get into that knowing state [with the computer reading, but] eventually the people who did it on the computer caught up with the people who [were reading] on paper.”

The thought is that spatial context is very valuable in helping us to remember things. We recall where places are physically located based on landmarks. Though it may seem hard to believe it can be that significant a factor, we are better able remember information because we have a sense of where it appeared on a page. E-books don’t have that sort of physical context.

In addition, apparently size matters as well.

“He says that studies show that smaller screens also make material less memorable. “The bigger the screen, the more people can remember and the smaller, the less they can remember,” he says. “The most dramatic example is reading from mobile phones. [You] lose almost all context.”

Based on these findings I wondered if the arts might actually seem less relevant if digital media was the only way to access it. While a performance obviously loses its impact when it is not seen live, it may quite literally be less memorable when viewed on a smaller screen as well.

I would be interested to learn if there are studies comparing the experiences of people who watched a movie in a theatre vs. on a television vs. a small screen. (I am sure movies watched on airplane seatback screens will be memorable or forgettable due to myriad factors other than screen size 😉 )

Will movies seen on a very small screen be less memorable because the distances between people and things are so compacted? Desperate lunges to save someone may make less of an impression when reduced to fractions of an inch. Panoramic shots of gorgeous landscapes may pass by unnoticed in small scale.

Digital media may increase your reach by giving you access to a larger distribution channel, but if the scale makes it difficult to distinguish your product from thousands of others, you may have to question its worth.

You may basically be in the position you are now with YouTube where everyone posts something in the hopes it goes viral. I am sure YouTube won’t always be the standard, but if you can use it to test things now. Watch a video on the largest computer screen you can find and then watch the same one on a cell phone screen and judge the effectiveness. Better yet, watch the smaller version first and then watch the larger and see how much you may have missed just in terms of emotional expression.

Arts in an Age of Technology, Audience Relations

No Comments

Info You Can Use: Short Term Space Naming

March 19, 2012

by:

Joe Patti

I apologize for not making an entry as usual last Wednesday. I was deeply involved with a fund raiser that evening. So far we have seen some positive results which I would attribute to a combination of our approach and the environment we created that evening. I thought I would relate some of what we did and maybe some of you might find elements you can use.

As I believe I have mentioned before, we are planning a renovation of our theatre facility. Our development officer was thinking about naming rights for some of the spaces and had an interesting idea.

It is often very difficult for someone to get enough money together to name a space in perpetuity. However, they might be interested in naming a space for five years at a fraction of the cost of a life time naming. Once they had committed to that, they might be more open to the idea of a permanent naming via an estate gift or other method. The arrangement is that the 5 year will go into our donation account for us to use in the short term and the permanent naming will go into an endowment.

After discussing this idea with our leadership, she had lunch with a long time supporter of the theatre to run the idea by him. He was very receptive of the idea.

Our next step was to invite people to a lunch brain storming session about the renovation and how we might support it. Our concept was to float this naming idea but also see if anyone had suggestions to refine it or even replace it with a better idea. Although only a fraction of those invited attended the meeting, those that responded with regrets expressed some excitement for the possible renovation and gratitude at being invited. Those who did attend expressed a fair amount of enthusiasm about our plan.

Next we sent out a letter to the same mailing list telling everyone we had held the meeting, came up with some new ideas and would be holding a campaign kick off event so watch for the invite. We sent off the invite a few weeks later.

We designed the kick off party to play to our strengths. We held the event on the stage which most of our audience and supporter had never been on. We had artist renderings of the renovation and a sample theatre seat for people to sit in. (The people at the brainstorming session actually got to provide feedback on a number of seat samples before the architect had to send them back.)

The musicians were located on the orchestra pit which had been raised to the stage level. To watch the musicians, the audience had to look out toward the empty seating area. In effect, the roles were reversed with the artists in the physical position the audience usually occupied and the audience was on stage which the artists usually occupied.

About a half hour in, at the end of a particular song, a flash mob which had slowly been infiltrating the party started to perform, stomping, singing, banging objects, etc. They moved downstage to perform a song and physically advanced on the audience so that they would move clear from an area of the stage where we intended to perform. (We also instructed the caterers not to circulate with food below that line so that people wouldn’t linger there.)

Some child performers were introduced and got the whole audience (supplemented by some of our flash mob) involved in a call and response. Then they launched into a wild performance singing a rap while fabric was dropped from the ceiling and three aerialists came running out, climbed up and performed. Near the end of the piece, confetti was dropped so it swirled around the aerialists and down on the audience. Staring up at the aerialists, the audience got to witness the use of some theatrical mechanics and techniques they had never seen before.

Then while the energy was up, we talked about the theatre, the renovation and the short term naming plan. We already had a person lined up to sponsor our Green Room for 5 years so we had him speak and presented him with the plaque that will be mounted outside the Green Room.

After that, we distributed information about the naming opportunities and I gave tours of the facility to those who hadn’t really ever seen it. Unfortunately, like a groom at his wedding, I didn’t get to eat any of the food I paid to have served.

However, our efforts have already seen some additional successes. One woman called back to our development officer that evening after she left the party to express interest in sponsoring our lighting booth. Another contacted the development officer this week about the women’s dressing room. I have to credit these events to the donor who sponsored our Green Room as much as anything we did. I don’t doubt that his generosity provided a catalyst for the others.

These short term naming opportunities aren’t really going to be enough to help us with the renovation efforts. Though they can cover buying lobby and green room furniture and various appliances we might need. Not to mention it adds a little to our operating funds. While there is a lot of good energy and interest surrounding the program, my guess is that we will probably need to see a renovation start within the next five years to sustain people’s enthusiasm.

Audience Relations, Fundraising, Info You Can Use

No Comments

Mini-Granting Is Awesome

March 13, 2012

by:

Joe Patti

It may just be serendipity (or you know, Google controlling my every life experience) but I keep hearing about this group called the Awesome Foundation. First it was a story about the Seattle chapter and then a few days later, while listening to the radio I discovered a new chapter was opening right here in my city.

The Awesome Foundation concept is sort of a mix between micro-granting and investment clubs. Ten people get together and commit to donating $100 every month. Then they distribute $1000 monthly grants. There isn’t a lengthy application process and you don’t have to be an established charity. If you have an idea and $1000 will help you get to the next step, they want to hear about it.

They draw a distinction between themselves and most granting organizations.

“The Awesome Foundation does high-frequency, low-stakes grant-making. Most grant-making institutions do high-stakes, low-frequency grantmaking. They often think big about initiatives and form multiyear commitments with their grantees. They give quarterly, twice a year, or only once a year. There’s a lot of pressure on everyone involved, from the applicant to the grant winner to the institution’s program officer to the board of directors.

The foundation’s success has to do with the simple formula. It’s not like big charity where the experience of being a donor is that you give money and aren’t sure where it goes. Our trustees know where the money goes. They’re really invested in the success of these small projects.”

This resonated a little with a post Diane Ragsdale recently made about funding decisions on her Jumper blog.

It’s time to start asking ourselves the disruptive questions. Does it make sense to subsidize large resident theatres and not commercial theatres? Does it make sense to subsidize professional theatres and not amateur theatres performing in churches or high school gymnasiums? Does it make sense to subsidize those that are most able to garner patronage from wealthy, culturally elite audiences? […]

We’re rather protectionist in the U.S. nonprofit arts sector because we know, or at least suspect in our gut, that if we start measuring intrinsic impact—testing our assumptions about the impact of the art we make— we might find out that there is greater intrinsic impact from watching an episode of The Wire than going to any kind of live theatre. Or we may find that small-scale productions in churches or coffee shops are just as impactful (or more so) than large-scale professional productions in traditional theatre spaces. Are we prepared, if we find this sort of evidence, to change the way we behave in light of it?

It made me think that programs like Awesome Foundation might contribute to the prototype for a new funding model where funding is directed to more of these smaller scale efforts. This is the sort of thing existing funders probably know they ought to start to do but haven’t found the will and the way to do it. Once small scale funding models like Kickstarter, Kiva and Awesome Foundation reach a critical mass, then it becomes easier for everyone to say that clearly their practices should be shifted in this general direction.

Fundraising

No Comments