Truth Inside a Sumo Dohyo

by:

Joe Patti

I am beginning to worry that people are losing a sense of curiosity and are becoming more risk averse about things with which they are not completely familiar.

I went to see a sumo tournament yesterday and really loved it. The matches progressed surprisingly quickly for all the ritual involved (40 men in single elimination in under three hours, including intermission, and two trophy presentations.) The sense of theatre was appealing to me as well. There was none of the outrageous boasting you find in professional televised wrestling. Except for one man, there wasn’t much flexing and scowling.

Most of the intimidation was accomplished by steely glares, little gestures when slapping oneself and the amount of salt thrown into the ring. None of this was too subtle for the audience which ooohed, aaahed and applauded in approval at the gestures. It is rather amusing to conclude a wrestler did not make good on his boastful salt tossing when he is quickly ejected from the ring.

My concern about the degradation of curiosity was based on the low attendance at both days of the tournament. Even though I wasn’t involved in the effort at all, true to my background, I worried about how much money the businessman who spearheaded the effort might have been losing. They attributed the low attendance to the fact that there were no men from the state wrestling. I will say that despite the fact there are a lot of Japanese here, they only comprised about half the audience with Caucasians, Polynesians, Filipinos and some Mongolians (a number of the wrestlers were Mongolian) making up the rest.

Even though I often grumble that people are more interested in sports than the arts, I was rather dismayed by the attendance. Posters for the tournament went up 6 months ago. I was actually relieved to find out the contest was in June because our performance schedule was so busy back then. Three months ago a local man who had attained the pinnacle rank of Yokozuna returned to promote the event and has been talking it up all over the place.

Of course, last week there were all sorts of stories in the media about the event. I was excited to be attending and read up about the sport on the event website which included a short introductory video. The result was that I actually spent more on tickets than I had intended because I wanted to be closer to the action.

As you might imagine the real source of my dismay isn’t my empathy for the event producers. It is that attendance was so low despite all the media promotion, the personal support of a man who is viewed locally as a hero and the readily available background information that has some bad implications for my programming which isn’t backed with the resources to provide all that.

Part of my surprise is derived from the fact that sumo has had no place in my life. Though it isn’t as big as soccer, baseball and football, there are a few clubs in the state. I would have expected a more general familiarity to pose less of a barrier to attendance.

It has been about 13 years since the last tournament was here, but with the Yokozuna making a lot of public appearances, I would have expected a buzz of people reminiscing about attending or missing out the last time. Perhaps what I saw this weekend was the best of what the local environment can generate. Perhaps even fewer would have attended had the event happened on the East Coast.

I being to see why some organizations are casting local celebrities in shows. Even though most people wouldn’t have personally known a local sumo competitor, the fact that one shared common experiences and knowledge with a wrestler can be enough motivation to participate in an unfamiliar experience. All it takes is a handful of other people who have also never met the local person either sitting near you clapping and shouting his name to validate the experience as an enjoyable one. This is another example of why word of mouth is so powerful.

If this represents a growing trend it means that programming will not only need to be relevant to the interests and lives of my local audience, but also may need to have a more direct association with which they can identify. Over the next year I have three shows possessing local connections to varying degrees. I will have to observe them closely to see if interest increases as the less apparently connections are revealed.

Leadership Training Trends

by:

Joe Patti

I didn’t intend to have a number of entries this week wherein I talked about other blogs but I was visiting the Americans for the Arts website checking on something related to their recent Arts. Ask for More campaign when I caught sight of their blog and decided to take a gander.

They had a number of people attending blogging about their experience at the Americans for the Arts national conference in Las Vegas this past week. There were a couple entries on the blog about leadership training that caught my attention.

The first was from John Arroyo:

“I began to think of this idea and wondered if whether or not we are overdoing it in the leadership field. There are so many institutes and workshops at all levels, but if we truly believe that leaders are self-identified and not tied to a title, when is it over stimulation?”

He goes on to talk about how leadership can be exhibited on all levels and for many an Executive Director position is no longer an ultimate career goal. This partially echoes some of what was being said in the Emerging Leadership program I attended at the Arts Presenters conference. I begin to wonder if there is an interesting shift in thinking and attitude transpiring nationally.

The other entry that caught my eye came from a time prior to the convention from Chad Baumann, Director of Marketing and Communications for AFTA and writer of Arts Marketing blog. In his entry on Artsblog, he cites a recent story noting that the MFA will become the new MBA as the economy increasingly orients toward creativity and expresses some concern about the emphasis the training programs might take.

“As more people compare the pros and cons of the MFA vs. MBA, I only have one major fear: that the MFA will become too business oriented. Arts organizations in the past have been criticized for having managers who didn’t come from business backgrounds. Many have made the argument that arts organizations suffer because they are lead by artists, not business professionals. I have the opposite fear.

“…I hope that most MFA programs in arts administration provide the necessary business training, but keep at the forefront what makes their students valuable-their artistic and creative abilities. Creativity is the commodity that is in high demand”

Get Fed At the Forte

by:

Joe Patti

Back when I first started my blog I frequently sought out arts related blogs and had a hard time of it. Lately, much to my pleasure, I have noticed more and more arts blogs appearing on the blogrolls of a number of sites I visit.

I was rather delighted to come across the Theatreforte blog last week. Working out of a secret bunker in Columbus, OH, the folks at Theatreforte host a rather large number of theatre blog feeds as well as create entries of their own. They break down the blogs by region which is helpful if you are looking for like minded souls nearby.

They have the largest number of feeds I have seen since ArtsFeed shut down for renovations a couple years ago and never reopened. If you have a blog whose feed you think they should host, send them an email. There is still a need for more good arts bloggers, especially since a couple theatre bloggers got a little burned out and signed off last month.

I also wanted to acknowledge that the Forte site looks to be a labor of love attached to another labor of love, Available light [theatre]. Amazing how many things love can power these days.

Burning Question-Who Owns The Meaning of Art?

by:

Joe Patti

Via Arts and Letters Daily is an interview with Ray Bradbury wherein he mentions that he never intended people to interpret Fahrenheit 451 as a warning against censorship, but rather a warning against the lack of substance on television. At a time when the few people who had televisions were watching shows on seven inch black and white screens, he rather presciently foresaw a world where people had wall sized televisions. (One even dominates the wall of his house these days.)

So often in the arts we are in a position of interpreting meaning for others. In many cases we don’t have the creator alive and available to check our perceptions against. To a certain extent, artists cede control over what a work means as soon as they show it to another person. Artists need to accept that people will see things in a work that aren’t there and then will start deconstructing it looking for more.

Of course, if the artist tells you point blank that they didn’t infuse their work with the meanings you are seeing, you as the observer can revel in your discovery of the unintended, but shouldn’t insist it means something else to the artist’s face. Bradbury apparently walked out of a class at UCLA because students wouldn’t stop insisting he was talking about censorship.

This type of situation raises questions about interpreting the meaning of art. First of all, if thousands of high school English teachers have been disseminating the wrong information about the themes intended by a living author, what are educators and those serving the same role at arts organizations getting wrong about dead artists?

As we write program notes, conduct Q&As or talk to ushers and patrons in the lobby, how much are we getting wrong? Maybe the idea that Hamlet was motivated by an Oedipal complex never crossed Shakespeare’s mind. (Especially since the concept is never considered until after Freud coined the term.)

Second is the matter of balance. Where does the balance fall between telling people what is meant and telling people there is no single correct interpretation? People come to educators and arts professionals for the tools to process unfamiliar material. We try to give them language and lenses to assist in this endeavor but part of the joy of encountering art is to see something no one told you was there.

The problem is that sometimes these realizations are tainted by the context we bring to the work and don’t reflect the intentions or reality of the artist. Now granted, personal context is the basis of some works of art like Impressionist paintings. But you are also in the position of not being able to tell people they are wrong about Hamlet since you subscribe to and encourage the “No wrong answer” school of thought.

There are lengthy essays written on this whole concept. But let me just toss a thought out there for you to ponder–

Who owns the meaning of a work of art? Even if you are polite to Ray Bradbury and believe that he only intended the book to be about television, is he essentially only accorded the status of a equal interpreter of art because he has missed all the other aspects of the book that speak to you?

The funny thing is, in denying an artist’s stated intent one often holds him/her in greater esteem for being such an adept creator, they subconsciously invested their work with multiple layers of meaning.