Home Page

Talking About Your Debates

May 2, 2012

by:

Joe Patti

I had an interesting conversation the other day that convinced me I don’t spend enough time talking to people from other arts disciplines. We were backstage talking to some visual arts professors about the mural project I wrote about a couple weeks ago.

The wall the mural is on is slated to come down soon. While I think it is is a little too soon, I was a little surprised to learn one of the professors (who wasn’t present) really wanted to preserve the mural and have it mounted. To me, the very media it was on–a plywood construction wall–implied a certain impermanence.

This got us to talking about theories of visual arts preservation and the extent you go to in order to keep art around. For example, if you take the chunk of wall a Banksy is on and put it in a gallery of some sort, aren’t you missing the point and leaving it bereft of its context?

When you restore a painting, how good a job do you do? Should it be absolutely indistinguishable from the original or is that fraudulent?

We talked about how theatre embraces the transitory nature of art. Sure you can have a video of the performance, but we always stress that it isn’t the same as having been there. (As it is with some visual arts pieces.) With the exception of the quest to exactly replicate all the original elements of Shakespeare’s plays, theatre people pretty much strive to find some new way frame a performance. (Some times trying far, far too hard to find an original approach.)

What theatre often obsesses about is the process of creating illusion. How does the performer depict their character? Whose approach do you subscribe to? Strasberg? Adler? Meisner? All of the above? None of the above?

There is a famous story that illustrates the conflicting theories. Dustin Hoffman is said to have stayed up two days while filming Marathon Man in order to fully empathize with his character who had also been awake for two days. Sir Laurence Olivier reportedly said, “Why don’t you try acting?”

Hoffman addresses this story in a 2003 NPR interview (around 15 min mark) giving a great testimony to Olivier.

Where theatre people don’t worry overly much about presentation, visual artists don’t really view embracing another artist’s emotional state as crucial to understanding and replicating their technique. While emotion is important to dancers, discussing how one moves through space is of much greater importance.

Yet the conversation got me thinking that someone could make an interesting project out of focusing on those areas that other disciplines find important. For instance, trying to embody the emotions of a famous painter while creating a painting or explore if improved body awareness impacted sculpting techniques.

I am not sure how it would work in the opposite direction since attempts at preservation would make a performance static and dull.

Really, my concern isn’t really with creating new approaches to artistic expression. My point is that talking about the biggest points of debate in your artistic discipline with people from another discipline can be fun and informative. The folks from the other discipline will have a basic understanding about why things like preservation of an artistic expression would be a concern, but since they are not as emotionally invested in the debate, they can bring interesting perspectives.

Who know, it the conversation might plant the seeds for a collaboration on your next project.

Art(ist) Education, creativity, General Musings

No Comments

More Thoughts On Organizational Structures

May 1, 2012

by:

Joe Patti

When I was applying to graduate programs in arts administration, the head of the program I eventually joined said something to the effect of I shouldn’t enter the program if I was a frustrated actor. I wasn’t.

Just in case, you know, you hadn’t already gotten the sense that I really like the arts administration field after blogging on the topic for eight years.

I have always been a little unsure where I should fall on the subject of how devoted to arts administration one should be. I agree with those who say that we lack well trained arts administrators and think that more people should devote themselves to its pursuit.

On the other hand, I have recently been writing about the arts and culture sector adopting new business and organizational models. I think of necessity some of that will include fewer distinctions between administration and performers.

Yes, people can fulfill both functions. I have occasionally talked about how I have been involved in providing the initial artistic vision and leadership on some projects. But once you reach the point of trying to deliver a certain level of excellence, something is going to suffer unless responsibilities are delegated.

At that point, even if you continue to perform many of the functions of your dual roles, some portion of the responsibility has to be delegated to at least one single person who is solely dedicated to one role or the other. Dispersing responsibility and decision making across many people will only work to a certain point before it becomes unwieldy.

I am not saying organizations which have these sorts of structures can’t be successful. At a certain point it becomes clear that specialization is required. That said, recently it has appeared that large arts organizations may not be the best structure for the future. Perhaps as we move forward, some of the most successful structures will be of a smaller size and be quite effective with all members contributing to both the creative and administrative life of the group.

One thing I haven’t really talked about is the situation of the frustrated artist my grad school adviser referenced. I have worked with people who were competent at the administrative side of things, but were clearly more interested in their art. They were essentially doing the administrative thing to support their artistic pursuits.

It certainly isn’t a new story. Inevitably the artistic desire won out and they moved on in the hopes of sating it. As much as I would like to live in an ideal world where everyone has an opportunity to support their dreams, I have to tell you, the organization was not as well served by these people as those who were fully invested in the job they were hired to do.

The difference in the quality of work between those with a split focus and those who preceded and followed them was marked. Arts organizations have enough challenges and deserve better than “what I really want to do is direct,” though that is often what they choose to settle for.

It occurs to me that one of the benefits of the current structure for arts organizations is that when you apply for a position, the expectations are pretty standard from job to job. Even if the duties differ, you generally know what roles you will be expected to fulfill based on the job description. If arts organizations develop new structures that include artists who also handle administrative duties, then the expectations would be particular to that group.

In light of this, it would almost be better to form the organization with the intent to dissolve after a certain period rather than with an indeterminate end. When the group forms, a certain dynamic will develop that everyone acknowledges and at least tacitly approves. If everyone knows that one person is more inclined to the administrative duties and another is more inclined to avoid them, when the first person leaves it might be difficult to find someone who shares the same exact view on how their duties should be split and doesn’t become resentful that the other person isn’t pulling their weight.

Better that the organization dissolves and reforms to tackle the next project in a manner that plays to the strengths of the existing members rather than to continually attempt to shoehorn new people into the group with the expectation that the founding dynamics remain preserved.

In contrast to the aforementioned current structure, in arts organizations with a more flexible approach to their structure and position descriptions, the frustrated artist may not feel that they need to leave to pursue their artistic expression. Less concrete expectations in a job description may allow greater latitude for how employees/members contribute to the company. With the understanding that there will be an opportunity to express themselves, there may not be a sense of a divided focus. But again, it is all going to hinge on the dynamics of the company.

Business Models, Leadership, Management Philosophy

3 Comments

Invest In The Arts – Ministry of Culture Edition

April 30, 2012

by:

Joe Patti

Some time ago I came across the China Cultural Industries cultural projects page. The page is part of the China International Cultural Industries Fair website, an organization authorized by the China Ministry of Culture “as a state-level authoritative portal website of China cultural industries, integrates the comprehensive information of the cultural industries, the release and trade of the cultural projects and products.”

If you look at the project listings asking for millions and billions of RMB in investment and are a little wary in light of all the corruption stories we are hearing from China these days, you probably should be.

I created an account to get a closer look at the “View after signing in.” categories of information and it didn’t really illuminate things for me. Information was incomplete or missing, website links didn’t work. From what I could tell, all the information is supplied by the projects themselves. There may not be any vetting to assure their viability. Though some do have official government sanction.

Now all that being said, there isn’t any comparable listing in the U.S. As much as we may want to keep away from solely arguing about the economic value of the arts, having a listing of all the arts and culture related projects in the United States would help illustrate the impact pretty visibly and make arts and culture harder to dismiss.

True, there are lot of arts and culture projects listed on Kickstarter, but no publicly available list that attempts to be comprehensive. Certainly no central list of projects with the imprimatur of a government arts and cultural office at any level. (Okay, I admit there may be some state or county that has such a list and I am merely unaware of it.)

Apropos of my posting last week about art organizations experimenting with different structures and corporate expiration, such a listing would help the process along by making a greater number of people more aware of ways to organize themselves.

It might also attract investment of resources and expertise from much further afield than would otherwise be possible. People might contact the project organizers noting that the it might be better organized under an entirely different structure and provide advice on some aspects of the planning.

Having this type of exposure would require organizers to have a higher level of sophistication than might normally be required. There will be those who might be looking to exploit a project solely for their own gain. In the for-profit world, many companies who receive the support of venture capitalists find themselves so dominated and beholden to the VCs, they barely recognize the company as their own after awhile. Something similar might happen to the cultural organization, the majority of which may no longer be non-profits.

Now that President Obama has signed the JOBS Act which will allow crowdfunding on a larger scale, this situation becomes more viable. (See my discussion of the proposed legislation last December. Good series of articles on the general implications of the JOBS Act as passed for crowdfunding on William Carleton’s site.)

Thanks to this sort of legislation regarding investment opportunities, people would be able to follow up on the project listings with a higher degree of confidence in their legitimacy. There will always be the danger of being scammed. A game being funded on Kickstarter was just outed as a hoax today thanks to the fact checking of some of the claims by the online community.

But as I said, in general, such a listing would be invaluable to the arts and culture community in terms of raising awareness of the scope and impact of the sector’s activities and marshaling support for them.

Arts in an Age of Technology, Business Models, creativity, New Initiatives, State of the Arts

No Comments

What’s The Expiration Date On That Arts Organization?

April 25, 2012

by:

Joe Patti

A couple weeks ago Grant Makers in the Arts posted a piece by Rebecca Novick, Please Don’t Start A Theater Company. I had been thinking about the article for some time now when I saw a similar piece by David J. McGraw, The Epoch Model: An Arts Organization with an Expiration Date. Epoch Model… was published back in 2010 in 20UNDER40: Re-inventing the Arts and Arts Education for the 21st Century.

I was going to devote part of this entry discussing the similarities between the two, until I realized Rebecca Novick’s piece also was published in 20UNDER40 back in 2010 and is not appearing for the first time this year.

What McGraw suggests in Epoch Model.. is that arts organizations should form for a seven year life span and goes on to make some interesting arguments about the benefits of doing so.

It really isn’t a new one. I have recently been reading up about Lloyds of London which has technically reconstituted itself every single year since 1774. That may not be the most apt comparison to what McGraw suggests, but Lloyds originally insured sea voyages which many times were funded by groups that came together to invest solely in a voyage or trading venture and then dissolved thereafter.

Both Novick and McGraw provide examples of groups that realized their usefulness was over and willingly dissolved and suggest that people looking to form new arts organization integrate an expiration date or expiration conditions into the very formation of the organization.

McGraw suggests the following benefit to this approach:

•A single founding vision can guide the organization from start to predetermined finish.

•Productions, exhibitions, and initiatives can be selected to follow an artistic arc rather than merely filling generic programming slots year after year.

•The company can plan its organizational growth and contraction with an eye towards its end.

•Its membership can challenge itself to fulfill its mission with greater urgency, knowing that this collaboration is a fleeting opportunity with a defined commitment from each member.

•Audiences will know that they cannot take the organization for granted and that the organization represents a specific period of time, or epoch, of the artistic life of the community.

I was intrigued by the idea that the founding vision can be maintained because the founding board is more likely to stay committed knowing the project will only span seven years with a few additional years of commitment to tie up loose ends. (Recall that it is much better to stay on the board a sinking organization than to resign.)

I was also interested in his observation that:

“The Marketing Director has the most to gain from the Epoch Model. In addition to the novelty of creating brand awareness for such a unique company, every production will have a sense of urgency, as limited supply can increase demand. In fact, the organization may see cultural tourists from outside its region as news spreads of this relatively short collaboration of rising artists. Limited runs tend to draw more publicity and can pique the curiosity of even casual art-goers.”

He talks about the boon to real estate if the property owner in a bad market knows he can find a tenant who will occupy the property until things turn around, in the process possibly adding value to the neighborhood, as artists often do.

He also notes that an arts organization dissolving in their relative prime will actually contribute more to the community than an organization which has had to close because they were no longer financially viable. The former has a fair bit of property to pass on to various community entities, the property of the latter is generally liquidated for the sake of creditors.

Based on my reading of both articles idea of a transitory organization makes sense. We are discovering that the 501 (c) (3) model doesn’t really work for everyone. A temporary formation allows groups to essentially experiment with structures that work well for the participants and make sense for the particular community. It could be for a few months to accomplish a single project or it could be for a span of years. The board and the staff may be one in the same or they may be different entities.

I hate to invoke the image of viruses, but the short life cycles of the organizations could evolve a structure that is both effective and resistant to the travails of the social and economic forces of the time. Which of course means that continual evolution is required to meet the ever swifter shifts in social and economic forces.

There a few forces working against this sort of approach and they all involve money. As both authors note, the ever renewing arts organization idea is great when you are 20something, but once you want to settle down and get some stability, you aren’t going to want your arts organization to go gentle into the good night. Or you are going to start seeking work at conventional arts organizations. This might actually be a good thing. The infusion of people who have experimented with versatile approaches may keep the conventional organizations vital.

The other issue is that funders support a pretty narrow approach to the arts. There are certain characteristics they seek and performance measures they want to evaluate. If you have a history of success mounting a site specific dance piece in a warehouse and visual arts installation in a historic hotel but are looking to fund a theater piece in shipping containers on a barge, you may not meet any number of criteria related to being an established organization.

One thing that occurred to me as I was reading both pieces is that the people forming these organizations would have to invest the time to draw up agreements and keep good records of meetings discussion how resources will be allocated, etc. The benefit of existing corporate structures is that there are established laws which dictate the rights of board members, employees and customers.

It is easy to discount the importance of such arrangements when everyone knows the organization won’t endure. In the absence of a clear structure, people may not be paid what they are owed, conflicts may arise over ownership of assets and the board members may discover they are personally liable for the outcome of a lawsuit because no insulating structure exists.

In all, some interesting ideas are expressed in the articles, including the sobering concept emerging rather frequently that our organizations don’t necessarily have a right to continue to exist.

“But too many organizations confuse the need for art with the need for their particular company to exist. Despite emergency fundraising pleas, the death of an individual organization is not the death of an art form, nor will it deprive a community for very long.”

Boards, Business Models, Info You Can Use, State of the Arts

No Comments