Trends in Arts Spending

by:

Joe Patti

Just some FYI materials to provide a little guidance to those who are looking for ways to position their events.

The NEA just came out with a report on consumer spending on the arts in 2005. It seems when adjusted for inflation, spending on performing arts events was flat with 2004 spending. 2004 only saw 0.9% growth so it isn’t terribly surprising that it is flat. What is sort of depressing is that the economy grew in both 2004 and 2005 but arts spending didn’t. By 3.9% and 3.2%, respectively, according to the report.

As bad as that may seem, adjusted spending attending movies and sports events both dropped. Movies dropped for a third year by 4.7% and spectator sporting events by 1.6%, down from 1.6% growth in 2004.

So where is all the money going? As you might imagine, to at home entertainment equipment which saw 12.7% growth. But there was also comparable growth (11.7%) in non-durable toys and sports supplies.

It seems the biggest growth moves in different directions. People are staying at home and enjoying audio and video equipment and/or getting out and getting active. (Or at least they are buying a lot of expensive equipment with that intent before being seduced by their home entertainment centers!)

This makes it a little tough to decide how to position events. It is fairly easy to portray watching television at home as passive and inactive and show attendance at a show or gallery as exciting and engaging (if your current patrons find it so). The problem is, sports and outdoor activities are even more active than event attendance.

Perhaps portraying arts attendance as a continuation of an active lifestyle? Coming home from running/biking/climbing, etc., you are too amped up to sit passively watching two dimensional images. Only the passion exuding from live performers makes your nerve endings tingle and makes you feel alive!

Employee Training Can Be Fun

by:

Joe Patti

I recently came across this example of an employee training manual on Inc.com. The article is a few years old, but the manual excerpts that you can download immediately show that the company (Zingerman’s Deli) is interested in making the training process fun and empowering employees to contribute to the success of the company.

It isn’t tough to see how emulating Zingerman’s general approach for employees and volunteers can contribute to strengthening a relationship with and between them.

Listen Early, Listen Often

by:

Joe Patti

Via Salon today is a review of a book by Daniel Levitin, This is Your Brain on Music. It is an interesting sounding book about how music is essentially hard wired into humans.

Among the interesting observations Levitin makes is that:

“When a song begins, Levitin says, the cerebellum, which keeps time in the brain, “synchronizes” itself to the beat. Part of the pleasure we find in music is the result of something like a guessing game that the brain then plays with itself as the beat continues. The cerebellum attempts to predict where beats will occur. Music sounds exciting when our brains guess the right beat, but a song becomes really interesting when it violates the expectation in some surprising way.”

But the part that may be most interesting to arts folks in the music field deals with the vogue trend of getting kids to listen to Mozart in the womb. The music is actually recognized, though it doesn’t make the child smarter. The impulse to have kids listen to music if you want to imprint an appreciation for a certain type throughout their lives isn’t far off the mark.

“Studies suggest that we start listening to and remembering music in the womb…Humans prefer music of their own culture when they’re toddlers, but it’s in our teens that we choose the specific sort of music that we’ll love forever. These years, Levitin explains, are emotional times, “and we tend to remember things that have an emotional component because our amygdala and neurotransmitters act in concert to ‘tag’ the memories as something important.”… Consequently it’s in our teens that we’re most receptive to new kinds of music (in much the same way it’s easier to learn a new language when you’re young than when you’re old).”

So there you have it. Symphony outreach programs should be structured to allow teenagers to make out to classical music or engage in some other activity rife with emotional opportunities and they will be well disposed toward the music for life. Though if we have learned anything from A Clockwork Orange, it is that a teen’s love of classical music doesn’t guarantee a well-adjusted member of society.

While I don’t expect symphonies would ever sanction “Make Out to Mahler” sessions, having outreaches in a comfortable environment might go some distance toward engendering positive feelings for classical music. Unfortunately, this probably rules out school auditoria and intimidating symphony halls. The concert hall lobby next to the coffee bar might be nice though.

ArtStar

by:

Joe Patti

I vaguely remember hearing about this program some time ago, but thanks to NYFA’s Current news letter, I have been reminded about the artist reality show, ArtStar. NYFA features an article by one of the contestants of the show which never got picked up by any network. So unless you had the Voom satellite service, you probably never saw it.

The article implies the episodes might be web and podcast so I figured I would promote it a little in the hopes of generating some inertia in that direction. From what I have read, there have been a number of blogs who have covered the show. But if you are like me, you haven’t read those blogs so I figure I am helping reach a larger audience. Despite some criticism about the show, I would imagine it would still be interesting to watch and perhaps use as inspiration for bigger and better programs in the some vein.

What makes the show worthy of being view rather than the multitude of other reality shows out there? Well for one thing, the show apparently takes the novel approach of not generating conflict and tossing people off each week. Although the original intent was apparently to identify a single artist who would have a solo show, Zachary Drucker writes in the Current article that the entire group was granted a show.

A review of the show I found on Slate felt that the lack of competition and in many instances, lack of clear goals for each task, tended to make the show muddled and a little boring. A Wikipedia entry on the show mentions that some feel the show “should have been billed instead (and produced) as an art documentary.”

I guess the show doesn’t exactly qualify as a reality show anyway since the artists don’t have to compete tooth and nail with each other as they do in real life. But to my mind, the whole project is a worthy one, whether it was ever filmed or not, because it provided artists with an opportunity to work collaboratively and receive critiques from established artists without the anxieties the real world entails.