Home Page

Never The Twain…

August 6, 2008

by:

Joe Patti

Like a parent that doesn’t like to see the kids fight, I get uneasy when I see arts groups competing with each other for limited resources when they could be collaborating at least partially with their efforts. What really makes me uncomfortable is getting caught in the politics between them. This afternoon I had a group call to inquire about renting the facility. After I sent them an application they apparently sent out an email blast adverting that they were doing the show. (They shouldn’t have until they got approval for their event but that is another matter.) I get a call a few minutes later from the leader of the group the applicants split off from asking if it was true we had a show going on that night. His group does a show here every year and from the subtext of his questions, I guess he sees his splinter rivals as a threat.

I have frequently mentioned differing opinions about interpretation or what subsection of a discipline to emphasize as a basis for creating a separate organization but I don’t know if I have ever addressed the motivation of raw drama. Unfortunately, there are plenty of instances where dislike for others has caused a schism in organizations.

I will concede that sometimes it is healthier to split off rather than continue in a bad situation and that it can result in a stronger organization. We do have a case where we deal with an original group and a group that split away because they felt the parent group was too disorganized. I can attest that the splinter group is indeed much more pleasant to work with because they are organized. (They also pay their bills on a timely manner!)

In the majority of cases I have come across, the separation dilutes the effectiveness of each entity. I was talking to a gentleman with a long institutional memory who told me that locally when Federal funding for a WPA-like arts program ran out those involved in a dance company split into smaller groups, many of which replicated the efforts of the others. Even though the fragmentation was generally amiable, the result is that every Christmas brings 4-5 competing versions of The Nutcracker. Some versions are more family friendly than others which serves as a good alternative to the one very formal production which appeals to the aficionados. That still leaves 3-4 groups competing for the family audience and it shows in some of the attendance numbers.

Passion and anger has been known to inspire works of art but more often it seems to spawn unimaginative polemics. There is nothing stopping either from filing for non-profit status and soliciting grants to support their work. As a funder or patron It is rather difficult to discern among those who are in conflict whose ideology is more pure and sincere. A friend gave me a tour of her town once and pointed out the homes of two theatre groups noting that the community wasn’t really big enough for both though they were rivals whose bitterness was sometimes played out publicly. One was slightly more successful but the other enjoyed the largess, and accompanying cachet, of a well known film actor. As a result, neither needed to make peace with the other though they and the community might be the better for it.

Featured

No Comments

Illuminating the Vision

August 5, 2008

by:

Joe Patti

When I was reading the Presenting Dance report I referenced a couple weeks ago there was a section of the work where idealism was crashing against realities. One of the suggestions dance companies made was that artistic directors travel to view a work before deciding to contract it given that the artistic fee was a significant portion of a presenter’s budget. The report’s author observed that dance companies apparently think presenting organizations have significantly greater resources than they do. I am guessing a lot of these groups interact with organizations like the Kennedy Center.

That was actually about the most unrealistic expectation anyone had. Some of the other suggestions had to do with removing adversarial relationships and dance companies and presenters working together over long periods to craft a performance and outreach program that best suits the community’s character. The viability of these suggestions seemed to depend more an individual situations than anything else. There are some agents I have comfortable relationships with who don’t seem to take a “No” personally whom I touch base with year after year. There are others who seem like they are only interested in reciting a list of artists they are promoting with whom I am less comfortable about approaching.

Then there are some that seem to regard me as small potatoes and I am lucky they are talking to me. I can only name the people I have a good relationship with off the top of my head so I guess it is probably healthy I dwell only on the positives.

Ability to interact over a long period of time to craft a program isn’t always possible. Often the available information isn’t enough for either the dance company or I to have an informed conversation about how the other operates.

There was an encounter I had which made me very anxious at the beginning but ended with me impressed by the artistic director’s investment in his work. One year a dance company’s agent told us the artistic director required the use of some very expensive lighting equipment for one of the repertory pieces the company would perform. There had been no mention of this in the contract or rider we had been sent. I can’t remember if we had signed and returned the contracts at the time, but this equipment was definitely an unmentioned addendum to the text we had in hand.

Only one of three presenters in my booking consortium had the equipment. The inclusion of the equipment would make an already expensive event more so for the rest of us. We considered canceling the piece except that it was the one dance which would have the most resonance for our audiences. So we suggested less expensive versions of the equipment as an alternative. The artistic director came back and said it definitely had to be the equipment specified.

Now at this point I was starting to think the artistic director was being a prima donna and would suffer no alterations to his vision. People were coming to see the dance, not the lighting instruments. The show may look cooler with the lights but people wouldn’t think less of the work if they don’t know what they are missing. About the same time while doing research for a press release, I came across a review that said one segment of the piece really fell flat and dragged the rest down. This served to add to my anxiety a bit more.

Then we get an email from the agent saying the artistic director felt so strongly that the equipment be present in the piece, he would split the cost with us.

Well whatta ya gonna do about that? 1/3 of the cost was still pretty significant for us but it certainly wasn’t small potatoes for the dance company either. With the help of our local light rental company which started shifting things around months in advance so the correct equipment would end up in the right place at the right time, we ended up with a more affordable option for presenting the artistic director’s vision.

I was still a little concerned that when the company arrived, the artistic director would be running around fretting that everything was wrong and trying to refine picayune details about the production. When they arrived I was somewhat surprised to find that the artistic director was pretty mellow, spent most of the time chatting with my staff and pretty much let his company conduct their own business and stayed out of their way. The segment of the piece which had received criticism in a review was cut which made me think he wasn’t terminally devoted to his work and was open to altering it.

That in mind, I began to believe maybe the special lighting equipment was crucial to the piece if he was willing to pay for a share of it. When I saw the piece, I wasn’t really convinced the effect was worth the expense. If I wasn’t watching for it, I probably wouldn’t have made note of it. The audience really seemed to enjoy the piece which was good. There was actually another piece they enjoyed more. The applause was so long for it I panicked thinking it was the curtain call.

The dance company probably can’t afford to dicker like that with every presenter, nor could we afford to do so with every company. Going the extra mile in this case probably enhanced the experience for both of us. I would have loved to have saved the expense. In the face of the artistic director’s commitment to sharing the cost, it was hard to refuse the piece. Money may not build relationships but the gesture surely did make me feel like we were more like partners in bringing the work to my community. That combined with the audience’s enjoyment and the enthusiastic response to the master class the company conducted made me feel more comfortable about taking on the extra expense.

General Musings, Management Philosophy

No Comments

Did You Just Agree To Go To Abilene?

August 4, 2008

by:

Joe Patti

Because non-profit arts often lead a tenuous existence which depends so heavily on the commitment of a small, fairly close knit group, organizations are likely to practice a number of organizational behaviors. One of the least constructive of these is known as the Abilene Paradox. The Abilene Paradox takes its name from an anecdote told by Jerry B. Harvey to illustrate how everyone in a group can end up agreeing to do something none of them want to do.

Harvey tells a story about a visit to his in-laws that ended with the group of them traveling to Abilene, TX in a car without air conditioning to eat an awful meal because each person assumed the others wanted to go rather than stay home and continue enjoying their game of dominoes. The Abilene Paradox is widely used in organizational dynamics classes/seminars so I hope the reputation of Abilene’s cuisine hasn’t suffered.

If you think about it, you can probably recall a similar time when you agreed to a choice you didn’t believe was correct and felt vindicated in your judgment when it failed–except you had voiced your support. Perhaps you even voiced your reservations to another who agreed and discovered they felt as you did.

There is an article by Harvey that illustrates how the paradox can manifest itself in various situations and also contains suggestions on how to avoid taking a trip to Abilene. In what might appear to be the most extreme case, he suggests that the instigator of the misguided trip may need to step forward and declare their misgivings about their own project in order to break the fear which keeps the cycle of reinforcement intact.

“… we frequently fail to take action in an organizational setting because we fear that the actions we take may result in our separation from others, or, in the language of Mr. Porter, we are afraid of being tabbed as “disloyal” or are afraid of being ostracized as “non-team players.”

This is why I felt arts organizations might be especially vulnerable to trips to Abilene. Members aren’t simply employees/volunteers/board members but assumed to be true believers in the cause. There could be a fear, real or imagined that disagreement with the group equates to lack of commitment to the greater ideals rather than merely disloyalty to the company.

Management Philosophy, Terms and Ideas

No Comments

An End to Waiting Tables?

July 30, 2008

by:

Joe Patti

Via a listing on the Chronicle of Higher Education website today, I became aware of The Strategic National Arts Alumni Project (SNAAP). The survey which is entering a trial phase with plans for national reach starting in 2010 will extensively query alumni of arts high schools, college/university programs and conservatories about the training they received and its applicability in their careers.

According to a press release on the SNAAP website,

“Arts alumni who graduated 5, 10, 15 and 20 years earlier will provide information about their formal arts training. They will report the nature of their current arts involvement, reflect on the relevance of arts training to their work and further education, and describe turning points, obstacles, and key relationships and opportunities that influenced their lives and careers.

The results of the annual online survey and data analysis system will help schools strengthen their programs of study by tracking what young artists need to advance in their fields.”

The press release also acknowledges that upon graduation, artists don’t often perform the exact work they for which they trained. The release charitably suggests that “they may work at the boundaries between disciplines.” I suspect the survey will find in many cases people end up doing work barely tangentially related to their training in the arts. Long time readers will recall that I covered an attempt by Tom Loughlin, a professor at SUNY-Fredonia to track the success graduates of his program were having getting work in any entertainment related pursuit. While his method wasn’t entirely scientific, I suspect the results won’t be diametrically opposed to what SNAAP finds.

I am prepared to be encouraged by unsuspected rays of hope that the SNAAP survey uncovers. They note that the approach of the creative economy will generate a demand for people with arts training so if the results do lead training programs to reevaluate their approaches and make their students more employable, it could certainly be worth the costs. The FAQ on the SNAAP website notes other benefits to policy and decision making related to the arts. (Including parents and students considering it as a career path.)

Something I found interesting in the FAQ was the response people had to early versions of the survey.

“The initial testing of the SNAAP questionnaire indicated that arts alumni were frustrated because the survey assumed a linear career, and suggested that all events and experiences were equally important.

An interactive graphic interface, the SNAAP lifemap will allow survey respondents to tell their stories and to indicate the relative importance of events and experiences to their careers, whether they work in or outside of the arts. “

The introduction of the lifemap feature as part of the survey is an intriguing approach since it will be generated as people answer. Personally when I fill out surveys it is frequently difficult to decide between the extreme categories. I am faced by the question about whether I strongly (dis)agree or emphatically (dis)agree. I think if I saw a graphical representation of how my answers were being interpreted, in this case the relative importance of chapters in my life, I could answer more accurately. (i.e. Oh no, that’s not right, job B had a much greater impact than job A, let me go back and revise). This isn’t an approach that can be used with all surveys since it obviously influences responses, but in some cases it can be helpful. In fact, it could actually assist in self reflection if a person came to the realization that Job A actually influenced them more than they realized and they can’t honestly massage the numbers to make Job B appear more prominent.

Featured

2 Comments