Share What You Know

by:

Joe Patti

In the course of allowing people to rent our facility, my staff and I come across groups who have varying concepts of what successfully producing their event will entail. We have meetings with all our renters a month or so out from their event to assess their needs and often make suggestions even before the meeting about having a stage manager and production designer.

We very specifically qualify what we mean by these terms. More often than not, even people who claim to have produced events for nigh on two decades don’t seem to understand how important organization is to the success of their event. Today at a staff meeting we were discussing a recent event where a guy was introduced to us as the production stage manager at the advance meeting, asked the questions a person in that position would ask, showed up on the load-in day and provided some direction as to how items should be assembled.

The day of the event he came in to prepare things—then left to do his regular Saturday night gig somewhere else and another gentleman we had never met before was suddenly running things. Though honestly, I think he just thought he was advising people of what would happen next. People were making what he said should occur take place when they thought it looked dramatic.

I tell this story not to belittle the folks who rent from me but to illustrate how valuable it can be to teach people the skillsets related to live events. I had suggested to my technical director that we look into occasionally offering seminars in live event planning. He opined that those we would most like to throttle would probably not avail themselves of the opportunity because they thought they knew it all already. I pointed out that if some likely candidates took our classes, we would at least be in the position of suggesting qualified people for our renters to hire.

The larger picture I wanted to touch upon was that there is a group of folks out there who would appreciate the opportunity to learn how to produce events well. It might behoove an arts organization with the resources to show additional value to the community by periodically conducting classes and seminars.

I have talked about theatres providing inservice opportunities to high school teachers who have been appointed drama advisor but don’t know the first thing about putting on a production. Since so many schools have eliminated drama programs, it is almost a moral imperiative for arts organizations to ensure the programs that remain get all the support they can handle.

In addition to teachers, other folks who might be interested are those organizing street fairs, festivals, beauty pageants, churches and dance schools with annual recitals. Even smaller performing arts organizations that subsist on volunteer help might be interested. Their lighting designer might a commerical electrician by day and got the job because he is least likely to trip the breakers but has little idea how to avoid making everyone look sallow.

Sure there are plenty of books out there they can pick up that cover the theory well. It can’t replace the expertise of those who design lights, organize and order the execution of cues, construct inexpensive illusions and know how to get everyone and everything (from audiences, to sets to performers) moving to where they need to be quickly and accurately.

In some cases, as the instructor can learn something new yourself. We just taught some fundementals to a guy who knew nothing about lighting design. Essentially, we gave him a series of looks that could be achieved with the house plot we set up. He then spent two night writing up nearly 600 cues which we programmed into our lighting board. Since he was doing all the music playback from his computer, he set up flags in the audio design software he was using to alert him to call warnings and executes for those light cues. Prior to this, the group would employ the less accurate method of calling cues based on the progress of the digital counter on the CD player.

We had never even thought of using sound design software in this manner. Now we are suggesting that other groups do the same with their audio design software. In some ways, technology is making it easier for novices to organize their own events but it has yet to substitute for experience.

So next time you hear someone say they are putting together a real simple show with 20 people, perhaps take them aside, ask them to tell you more and intone some good advice in the voice of experience.

Mercy Killing of Your Museum

by:

Joe Patti

I don’t know that there are many people who read this blog that don’t read Artful Manager, but just in case there are, I want to point you at his entry today. The Hennenius Group post he quotes is worth reading and seriously considering. (I don’t know how the heck I missed it.)

What Anthony Radich has to say is sure to be controversial. It seems counterintutive that a guy running an organization “dedicated to the creative advancement and preservation of the arts” would be suggesting the dissolution of arts organizations. In fact, if he were an elected politican, I’m sure there would already be television and print ads out there blaring that Anthony Radich wants to close your arts centers and we oughta chuck him out in November.

I don’t know what it says about arts folks (other than that they don’t read Barry’s blog) that two weeks after it was posted that there hasn’t been any real grumbling about Radich’s proposal to “euthanize nonprofit arts organizations”.

But that is the subject of another entry.

I’ve never made a secret of my belief that not all arts organizations have a right to exist and expect funding. I am against the “Field of Dreams” mentality. I have frequently felt more organizations should merge their resources and efforts. But I certainly recognize the dearth of organizations as well as evinced by my recent perplexion (is that a word?) at the lack of local professional arts organizations.

Contradictory, sure. But by some definitions, the ability to hold two contradictory thoughts in your head at the same time is a sign of enlightenment.

But that too is subject for another entry 😉

One section of what Radich said put me in mind of an entry I did two years ago. Quoth Radich:

Let’s pull some of the nonprofit arts programming off the arts-production line and free up funding and talent for reallocation to stronger efforts–especially to new efforts tilted toward engaging the public. Let’s return to the concept of offering seed money for organizations that, over a period of years, need to attract enough of an audience and develop enough of a stable financial base to survive and not structure them to live eternally on the dole. Let’s find a way to extinguish those very large groups that are out of audience-building momentum and running on inertia. Instead of locking arts funders into a cycle of limited choices, let’s free up some venture capital for new arts efforts that share the arts in new ways with the public

.

As I said, this whole argument reminded me of an entry I did on an Independent Sector proposal to change non-profit funding to a more focussed model. The proposal they make runs a little counter to Radich’s since he talks about getting organizations off the dole and the IS proposal essentially encourages foundations to deepen their commitment to support specific organizations. Radich also talks about funders having too few choices, but the IS document as well as the additional sources I cite in that entry seem to indicate funders have too shallow an investment in too many places.

Overall though the two are similar in suggesting offering comprehensive seed money to organizations to help them get off the ground. Both also use language that places funders in the position of venture captialists investing in the promotion of their agenda in return for rock solid accountability.

I wonder if some of the problems Radich sees with organizations being weak and played out might have its origin in the funding method encouraging people to stretch their resources in too many different directions until they aren’t viable any more.

Since Andrew Taylor posted Radich’s proposal, (and the Independent Sector one two years ago), I think I shall go over to his blog and ask him.

The Young Helping The Younger

by:

Joe Patti

I was perusing over at SmArts & Culture blog and read an entry Mary Ann posted about a well-intentioned, but not entirely successful attempt to “introduce young professionals…to arts patronage.”

It reminded me of another group of young professionals who have successfully raised money to send kids from NYC to arts and music summer camp. Giving Opportunities to Others (GOTO) raises money by essentially having a lot of great parties to support their commitment to send kids to arts camp for at least 3 years. They started in 2001 and not only have expanded the number of kids they send each year, but have also apparently expanded to Boston so they can send kids from that city to camp. (Judging from some of the costumes, it is probably best that the Boston people have their own parties. 😉 )

The organization is entirely volunteer run. That’s pretty impressive given the size and complexity of the events they are organizing. The other thing I thought was interesting is that while some of the GOTO members went to summer camp when they were younger, none of the NYC group went to the camp they picked to send the NYC campers to.

Bit of disclosure, I worked at the organization that ran the camp when GOTO started sending kids there. It is pretty hard for me to feel guilty about promoting a group that sends kids to arts camp by throwing fun parties. And while the organization acknowledges that many people are motivated to volunteer by the networking opportunities, there many more ways to establish a network without similar time commitments. Even if someone is entirely motivated to participate by a desire to land new business, I will bet that at least some of them having never thought to volunteer their time before will end up doing so for more altruistic reasons throughout their lives.

Grandeur Reduced to A 20 Inch Monitor

by:

Joe Patti

Another story from the “Could This Be The Wave of The Future?” file, (and the “Don’t Dismiss It Until You Ponder It” subfolder), NPR had a story yesterday about museum collections going online. The story starts out talking about how many smaller museums with interesting collections have had to either scaleback activities or close their bricks and mortar presences due to lack of funding. Now the only way to view the collections of some of these museums are online.

There is, in fact, a website called MoOM–the Museum of Online Museums which lists all these collections. They range from noted museums like the Smithsonian, MoMA and The Art Institute of Chicago to more obscure and interesting sites like The Gallery of International Cigarette Pack Graphics and The Grocery List Collection which boasts the largest collection of found grocery lists.

Now if you are asking how some of these sites qualify as museums and if images existing only as 1s and 0s in the ether of the internet can be considered a collection, you aren’t alone. (After all, everyone could boast they had the Mona Lisa in their museum with a little work.) The NPR story tackles the debate about what constitutes a museum and what it means to curate a collection.

The guys who run MoOM absolutely believe that seeing art in a physical museum is often a necessity and can be a transforming experience. But they also believe there are a lot of interesting collections of material out there that people should see, but that they wouldn’t necessarily ever want to drive to. They also point out that one would never have the time to visit all the bricks and mortar museums out there either so having the art online provides welcome and needed access.

But does a cool webpage of scanned skatepark passes deserve the appellation “museum”? NPR quotes Wilson O’Donnell, director of the museology program at the University of Washington in Seattle as saying no. His analogy that an online museum is no more a museum than Wikipedia a valid source of information is a little out of touch (Peer review of articles by the journal Nature found it as accurate as Brittanica.), and his reasoning quoted by NPR isn’t completely compelling.

My blog and others have countless examples of how being well trained doesn’t necessarily ensure the production of a quality product. I think the same could reasonably be said of a curator at a prestigious bricks and mortar institution. The inclusion in the story of a professor of Native American Indian studies saying that mainstream museums haven’t done a good job representing Native American cultural groups futher clouds the concept of who is qualified to assemble a collection. (Additionally, the professor is quoted as saying most tribal groups resist the term museum in favor of cultural center because it connotes something that is old and dull.)

If you really start trying to identify the elements that separate a museum from a really neat collection, I suspect you will eventually get frustrated and be reduced to paraphrasing Justice Potter Stewart’s “I know it when I see it.” It is no easier to do than making a similar list comparing a bench and a coffee table. Is the collection of magazine covers featuring the US Flag from one month 1942 more valid than the site featuring steel and coal magazine ads from all of 1966 simply because the former is on the Smithsonian site?

This story encapulates the whole dilemmia of technology and art. In some ways, technology throws open the doors to opportunity enabling possibilities and a reach previously unattainable. Concurrently, technology threatens to dilute or isolate us from the potency and relevance of works.

But damned if you can definitively say where the line between the two is.