Home Page

Can We Do Lunch?

October 17, 2012

by:

Joe Patti

I frequently reference the positive interactions and contributions that have resulted from one of the visual arts teachers eating his lunch backstage. He says he eats here because his students can’t find him to bug him while he is eating. While he does often eat peacefully in our building, he gets himself involved in providing advice or direct assistance on some project or another on a pretty regular basis during his meal. It leads me to suspect he is exaggerating his desire to flee his students.

I get a warm feeling when I hear him chatting with people backstage, even if it is about something entirely unrelated to performing/visual arts like remembrances of past vacation trips. I know there are relationships being strengthened in those conversations and that will manifest to our mutual benefit somewhere down the road.

I got to thinking about how this dynamic which evolved through no effort of our own could be intentionally be replicated elsewhere.

One thing that occurred to me was that K12 schools might set up a program where students could have lunch with artists once or twice a week. They could just hang out together without any expectation of some sort of “artistic experience” occurring and talk about sports or the weather. Maybe the artist would give some sort of advice on a project a student was working on, maybe they would just complain about the cafeteria food.

Of course, this is predicated half on the assumption there is still a music/drama/art studio in the school to hang out in and half on the assumption the arts programs in the school are either non-existent or on the wane. Obviously, this could be a great complement to school arts programs which are already vibrant. But really, one of the benefits I saw to this idea was that if the school can’t support anything else arts related, maybe they could scrape some dollars together to pay for the artist’s gas and lunch over the course of a year.

My other thought was that this could provide the most regular, unintimidating interaction with the arts a student might get. They get to hang out with a knowledgeable artist who isn’t grading or placing expectations on them on a consistent basis. There is an opportunity to actively engage with an artist in a manner that assembly performances and lecture demos by visiting artists don’t provide.

The benefit to the artist is that they gain some insight in to what younger people in the community (and perhaps the community at large) is thinking and experiencing about the arts informally over a longer period of time rather than in the short span of a Q&A or reception which impose constraints and expectations on the interaction.

Unlike a one off outreach concert/lec-dem, there is no pressure on the artist to provide an experience replete with meaning to make the kids love the arts because it might be the only experience they get at all this year.

Students having a rich and varied experience with the arts is the ideal, but maybe this simple interactions over lunch across a student’s educational career is what is needed to normalize the idea that one would go to or be involved in performance, museum, gallery opening when one got older and had the time and resources to do so.

I talk about this idea in relation to K12 schools, but obviously there is nothing to keep an arts organization anywhere from having weekly lunches anyone could attend without any preconceived expectations about the experience. Obviously it would be ideal if it could happen in an arts center so people get used to the idea of just wandering in and so you can jump up and grab something to demonstrate with if someone asks a question.

But if an arts center is physically in a bad location or people just won’t consider it as part of their lunch plans, having a weekly gathering at the local coffee shop/diner to talk about whatever can be just as effective. (Not to mention, the coffee shop owner will love your arts organization all the more.)

Thoughts about this? Ways it can be improved? This entry was about 85% stream of consciousness so I am likely to have overlooked some problems or additional opportunities.

Art(ist) Education, Info You Can Use, Terms and Ideas

2 Comments

Expecting Donors To Inspect More

October 16, 2012

by:

Joe Patti

So I recently read a rather thought-provoking guest post by Anna McKeon, on Daniela Papi’s Lessons I Learned blog. In the post, McKeon basically says non-profits are making it too easy to donate and volunteer.

Now she is mostly speaking in relation to programs that non-governmental organizations run internationally, but I read with interest thinking that what she said might be applicable across the board with non-profit organizations. McKeon talks about how easy it is to text or click a button on a website to donate without ensuring the money will be used responsibly.

She cites an interesting news report about the negative impacts of voluntourism where people are bussed in to small village where they help build an orphange, feel like they have bonded and made an impact with the local population only to be replaced by another bus load of people doing the same thing the next afternoon.

We shouldn’t make it easy. We’re doing a disservice to ourselves. We’re encouraging each other not to think, not to explore, not to discover. We’re not challenging ourselves, our commitment, our perceptions, or our opinions. We’re promoting a life of ease where a sense of goodwill can be bought and not earned.

So let’s leave some things to be difficult. Difficulty helps us learn. It helps us discover more about the very thing we are trying to achieve. It can also mean that it feels even sweeter when we do succeed in our aims. And you know what? Even though “difficult” might be a harder sell, I still know enough people out there who are up for the challenge.

She makes a semi-valid point that many organizations accept the help of volunteers whose skills are so poor they wouldn’t consider actually hiring them but involve them in the work because it is free labor. I am sure readers can think of a few volunteers they have encountered who fit that bill.

The stakes aren’t as high for ushers at a performance as they are when it comes to providing clean water to a village. But an arts organization could be utilizing volunteers to do far more advance their programs if there was a greater expectation of investment from the volunteer and a corresponding higher level of commitment to volunteer training by the organization.

The one big question that really popped into my mind was–is it really the place of a non-profit organization to demand that donors and volunteers do more due diligence before becoming involved with the non-profit? Being supported by a highly engaged and educated constituency is certainly something I would crave, but I am not sure it is realistic.

But do people care about engaging in research if they are emotionally moved by an experience? Is it our place and in our best interest to expect them to? I think it is pretty clear you can easily garner more money via $25-$100 donations if you make it easy for people to satisfy an impulse to give they feel after seeing a show.

Yes, it is superficial giving and you may never get another donation from them again–but if you hadn’t gotten that impulse donation, you may have absolutely no basis to explore their willingness to give again. If they bought a ticket at the door and left without donating because there was too much work involved, you have no donation and no contact information for them. It is a missed opportunity for further interactions of any kind.

I will concede that it is bad for all non-profits if a donor discovers they contributed to a corrupt organization and is disinclined ever to donate again. There has to be some proportionality to the effort, though. Larger donors certainly need to be cultivated and at certain levels and mutual due diligence is required, but is it worth it for either party to have high expectations associated with a small donation of time or money?

The blog owner, Daniela Papi, related an interesting anecdote in the comments section which actually made me worried about the possibility of what I will term the tyranny of expectations. She talks about an NGO which was concerned about documenting impact for the benefit of their donors to the detriment of their own programs.

“when I asked them why they were harming their programs by trapping themselves in their own donor promises their answer was “Well, Kiva does it. People know exactly who their money goes to on Kiva, and they make that easy. Kiva is our competition for funding, so we need to do it too.”

I am definitely for accountability, especially in the face of so many non-profit scandals where people abscond with funds. (Which can still happen accompanied by glorious impact reports.) But I suspect that the more prevalent impact documentation becomes, there is a danger donors will expect reporting out of proportion to their donation, seeking detailed information customized to their interests, the cost of assembling which exceeds their donation.

This may emerge alongside low administrative costs as another unrealistic expectation placed on non-profit organization. Low overhead ratio and documentation of impact are probably mutually exclusive. I would be highly skeptical of an organization which reports being highly successful at achieving both.

Fundraising, Management Philosophy, State of the Arts

No Comments

In A World of Sameness, This Movie Stands Out (Just Like The 1000 Before)

October 15, 2012

by:

Joe Patti

For the next week and a half or so I am enjoying films at the Hawaii International Film Festival. I write a little bit about my experiences every year, but what has struck me this year is a realization about just how hard it is to make a film/performance/whatever sound distinctive in a short space.

It doesn’t matter whether you are writing for the limits of a brochure or have the relative freedom of a web page, peoples’ attention spans dictate that you make your point quickly, succinctly and compellingly.

Now that I have been attending for a few years, I have started to recognize that movie about the quirky characters in the fashionable district of Taipei sounds a lot like the movie last year about the quirky characters gathered in the night market of Taipei.

I wonder if there is enough difference between the documentary about the 60 year old guy trying to find a Chinese wife and the fictional account of the 38 year old Danish bodybuilder who goes to Thailand to find a wife, that I will want to see both of them.

Part of the problem is, regardless of how good a writer you are, people bring certain assumptions to new experiences which they used to place the new thing into a context they can process. Just like the person describing food that someone else has never eaten, the description writer also has to provide some touchstones that will help people decide whether they will enjoy the experience.

Being able to post video on YouTube helps to provide some of the additional information people need to make a decision, but still it is difficult. The aforementioned movies about finding Asian brides for example, there is clearly a lot of authenticity and sincerity present in both the documentary, Seeking Asian Female and the Danish movie, Teddy Bear, but we all know that movie trailers don’t always give the best indication.

How many times have you realized all the best moments of a film were in the trailer? How many times have you recognized the restrictions of a movie trailer didn’t adequately prepare you for just how good the movie would be. I haven’t seen Seeking Asian Female yet, but let me tell you, the Teddy Bear trailer doesn’t do the movie justice. Bodybuilder/actor Kim Kold did a great job portraying the subtleties of the Dennis character.

I am not sure there is any clear cut instructions to give about how to make every experience seem distinct, both due to the way the information is received and because there are really only so many basic plots in the world.

Creating a history of trust with your audiences is one solution. One of the most gratifying comments I get from audiences is that they weren’t sure about the show but they came because they knew we always do great stuff.

It takes a lot of honesty to earn that trust. You can’t barrage people with quotes and language that basically promises a sublime, life changing experience every single time. Not all experiences are equally sublime and people will quickly realize their lives haven’t really changed all that much.

And ultimately most audiences, including mine, are comprised of people who attend too infrequently for us to have developed that degree of trust.

So my conclusion at this juncture is that we must labor on making everything sound interesting in the short space of time we have been allowed and hope we can improve our ability make a compelling case.

By the way, this post title is a reference to the sentiments expressed by these guys:

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQRtuxdfQHw&w=420&h=315]

Audience Relations, Marketing/PR

No Comments

Will Typecasting Ruin New Zealand’s Career?

October 10, 2012

by:

Joe Patti

I was reading today that the New Zealand post will be issuing legal tender coins commemorative coins for the upcoming Hobbit movie. This appears to be the first issue of coins associated with a popular culture icon (unless you count those issued for the All Blacks rugby team whose haka performance is iconic of itself).

I was both filled with a sense of amazement and concern about this. The amazement was based on the concept that an entire country could find itself identified so closely with a non-native cultural icon. The built in fan base of millions of Tolkien enthusiasts is proving something of a boon to the country which hosts tours of the many sites that appeared in the Lord of the Rings movies. While there was some digital enhancement involved in many parts of the movie, the inspiring natural beauty of the country depicted in the movies is there to be experienced.

I am sure there are many New Zealanders who are tired of foreigners trampling about looking for movie locations and reciting dialogue from the movies, but on the whole from what I have read, the country has a general sense of pride in the attention the movies have brought them.

My concern is based on the exact same thing–that the country find itself identified so closely with the movies that everything else it has to offer becomes eclipsed. Believe me, where arts and culture is concerned, the country has plenty to offer. Of the last eight seasons in my theatre, easily half of them have featured artists whose appearance was due to support from Creative New Zealand.

Here in Hawaii you can tour the locations that appeared in Lost and Hawaii 5.0, but the state’s identity isn’t closely tied to those television shows. After the planes stopped flying on September 11, 2001 and tourism dropped during the economic downturn, there has been a sense that the state needs to be known for more than just tourism, too.

I am sure there is plenty of discussion in New Zealand along the same lines. Fame and reputation can be a double edged sword that enhances your life in the short term but can be detrimental in the long term. Actors run into the same problem when they play an iconic character and then find they are inevitably cast as that same type the rest of their career. Arts organizations cultivate an aura of prestige that attracts wealthy patrons but earns them the perception of being elitist.

Of course, one benefit of the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit movies is that New Zealand has a much stronger infrastructure for making and distributing films so perhaps the world will become more familiar with the creative and cultural richness of the country through movies and other digital media.

I think the country has enough diversity to offer it won’t face the danger of being typecast as Tolkien’s Middle Earth. The stereotypes other countries and racial groups have to face are bad enough, imagine people expecting everyone from New Zealand to either be an elf, dwarf or hobbit. (Kiwi are too nice to be uruk-hai.)

Business Models, General Musings

No Comments