One Size Does Not Fit All

When we speak about the value of the arts and how they need support, we usually group all the arts together. Doing so is good since the Ben Franklin quote that “We must all hang together, or we shall surely all hang separately,” can certainly apply in regard to the government funding each might receive if they don’t.

In some respect though, this practice does blur the fact that each branch does things in its own way and the answers for one are not viable for another. But perhaps some are…

I was reading a recent Adaptistration entry about job satisfaction in orchestras. There is a link to an article at the bottom of the entry that was really eye opening for me in terms of the perceptions musicians have about their relationship with the conductor, the rules governing their lives and their place in the orchestra ensemble.

Coming from a theatre background, there were things that were familiar to me such as union defined limits on rehearsal times. Other things like the deference shown to the conductor and the timid manner in which comments and questions were couched was amazing to me.

Certainly there are domineering directors in the theatre who try to keep actors cowed. But that is an individual working on a particular production at a specific theatre rather than the systematic situation Robert and Seymour Levine describe.

This brought to mind conversations I had with a friend in ballet administration. To my mind, ballet dancers have it worst since they have no union protection at all. (Not that I am a big union person. I have had mixed encounters with them. But with a union there is at least a standard of treatment a non-union person can point to.) According to my friend, in addition to weak protections against being overworked, getting the rights to choreography can be a humiliating experience. (And if it is different, please correct me if I am wrong. It seems rather bizarre to me. Perhaps this is only true for a small segment of regional ballet companies with which my friend is associated.)

Unlike music and theatre where securing performance rights is based on fairly objective criteria, ballet is apparently very subjective. The rights are often in the hands of a person (often a ballerina who danced the principal role) who reviews the skill of the ballet company applying for the rights by attending a performance or via a video recording. From what I have been told, there tends to be a lot of criticism of the female dancers’ technique and body weight (especially if they show any sign of having a bust). The male dancers are generally spared as much scrutiny.

I had attended a black tie affair for my friend’s ballet company and was told that the petite, absolutely gorgeous dancer who had charmed me that night might have to leave the company because her “weight” was judged unseemly. (I think the chair I was sitting on probably outweighed the woman.)

I mention these elements to illustrate some fundamental differences in the assumptions three branches of the performing arts have about how things should be done. I could certainly go on for a week analyzing the flaws in the way live theatres do business. In some respect, I wonder if it might be better if different branches didn’t get to know each other better. It is probably easier for an orchestra official to advocate for more arts funding if he isn’t thinking about the barbaric theatres who might only employ actors for six weeks before sending them back to waiting on tables while his musicians are guaranteed an income all year round.

On the other hand, even though their disciplines are grouped together as “the arts.” Managers in each area rarely talk to each other on substantive topics. Who knows if there are efficient solutions to common problems if no one really shares that information. One of the most common expectation of attendees of the National Performing Arts Convention held last June in Pittsburgh was that they were attending a forum for an exchange of ideas with people from other disciplines. This according to the surveys administered by the IDOC project. But according to the final IDOC report (found at the above link) and The Artful Manager’s own observations of his attendance, people gravitated toward their own kind.

Granted, the IDOC effort found that some of the scheduling was not conducive to mingling. I don’t know when the next National Performing Arts Convention will be held, but perhaps an effort will be made to replicate the efforts of every junior high school dance committee and force the boys and girls together in the center of the room. (Leave some room for the Holy Spirit though as the nuns used to say.)

Since the general public is hanging us all together under “The Arts”. It would probably be good to take up residence together under that roof and talk a little. Perhaps we can see the way to better relationships with our actors/musicians/dancers.

Emergency Planning

I had a meeting today with all the other theatre managers in the University of Hawaii system about emergency procedures. It was very informative in many respects.

I discovered I was in better shape than I thought because the Director of Administrative Services had requested I make up emergency procedures about 9 months ago. Other theatres didn’t have as strong a plan as I did and didn’t make fire exit announcements at the beginning of each show. (It isn’t a law in Hawaii as it is in places like NY. Some people make announcements directing people to the restrooms and were a little embarrassed to realize they didn’t think about fire exits.)

On the other hand some of the other theatres had stronger usher training programs than I currently do so there was a lot everyone could learn from the session.

While the organization that accredits community colleges doesn’t accredit entire systems, one thing they noted in their last report was that there is no top down guidance from the university on important policy areas. While they didn’t specifically mention safety, the meeting we had today was an attempt to standardize minimum general plans each theatre in the system should have. (Evacuation plan specifying who makes announcement, from where is it made, how often to test emergency lights, etc.)

It was very interesting to learn that the different campuses have vastly different emergency response personnel. The security people on the main campus have portable defibrillators in the golf carts (of course, they are a residential campus too), the guys at my campus are state employees with para-military ranks like police officers. The security folks on the other side of the island and a neighboring island are contracted from an outside security company and rotate through so often, they don’t inspire much confidence.

There was also a huge difference in the process people had to go through to get first aid kits. Some had to buy them outright from their own accounts, others got in trouble if they bought them on their own.

There was debate over whether to have emergency announcements played on a recording or done by a person on stage. The recorded announcement allows you to attend to the actual emergency. However having a person on stage 1-is a visual signal that an announcement is going to be made whereas a recorded announcement might get lost in the chatter of speculations about why the show stopped and 2- is more comforting and assuring than an announcement. (After all a certain suspicion might arise that you have already left the building after pushing play on the CD player if you aren’t on stage.)

One of the biggest lessons that came out of the session was that any emergency plan should specify exactly who is the top person in charge. While key people might supervise large segements of an emergency plan, there should be one overall person who makes final decisions. And everyone in the building should know who that person is.

An attendee at the conference told the story about a promoter who was standing backstage before the show. The police came in and asked who was in charge. He said he was. The police informed him about a possible situation and told him he had to make a decision. Instead of speaking with the event manager for the facility which he was presenting the show in, he went out on stage and made a very alarming announcement to the audience. The house crew having been well trained, immediately acted to open evacuation routes so that the audience did not injure themselves in the abrupt departure.

Had the facilities management been informed at all, they would have been able to better assess if the situation was an actual threat to the audience or if they would have been safer staying in their seats.

A couple interesting stats and facts to present in closing.

1-The chances of someone becoming injured in an emergency evacuation is actually rather high. Be sure you correctly assess a threat to the audience and have a very comforting presentation for them if you are going to ask them to stay put. This is especially true in the case of a power outage. Unless there is an electrical fire that caused it, it is better to keep the audience in place and then evacuate them in a very controlled manner if it becomes clear power will not be restored.

2- The National Fire Safety Protection Association guidelines for evacuations is 1 person per every 250 guests. So if you have a 750 seat theatre, if you need to have at least 3 ushers helping people leave. (Though check with your municipality, some places have adopted other fire codes that may be different.)

Stay At Home Managers

Great! I was going to try to get away with not doing a post today, but now Drew McManus has gone and linked back to my website as a result of a discussion we have been having about a recent post of his. Now you know, there is all this pressure to come up with something pithy so that the new visitors he is sending my way will stay and read a bit.

Okay how about–“Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.”

I can’t take credit for that, it is the warped genius of writer Terry Pratchett.

Drew’s ideas are intriguing though. I don’t know if it is viable in practice, but it is something that bears considering. In these changing times, I think any intelligent proposal begs looking in to. Before people label his suggestion as preposterous and not in touch with the reality of how things are done, I actually saw a hint of something similiar in the last two weeks.

In a recent entry I mentioned getting a call from a woman working for a potential competitor.

What I didn’t mention was that this woman was working from her home office as a consultant working up a business plan for the organization. Now granted, if the organization had a building constructed, she might have been working out of there as a full time employee. The fact that the organizing group had picked a person with a home business rather than one with a snazzy office in town might be a harbinger of things to come…or may be not. Perhaps the overriding motivation was that she was cheaper than the guys in town and the organizing group didn’t have a lot of money to spare.

But that is Drew’s exact point.

So we will see how things play out over the next few years. Given that just yesterday The ArtfulManager suggested that the 501 (c) (3) route may be the wrong business classification “tool” for the goals of organizations, I wouldn’t be surprised if the next 25-30 years brought a transitional period where the way arts entities are organizes morphs and perhaps diversifies.

Lung Cancer for a Good Cause

There is an article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer that just seems like a no-win situation for the arts in Cuyahoga County Ohio. They are proposing using a tax from cigarettes to fund the arts.

Doesn’t seem like a position you would want to be in. If people stop smoking, there goes your funding. At the same time do you want to be encouraging people to smoke so you can keep your funding?

When try to raise money by having fun runs and selling candy bars, you can be pretty confident about telling people that it is for a good cause. You really don’t want to be telling people to smoke because it is for a good cause. Even worse, you don’t want your chain smoking Aunt Evelyn smirking at your disapproving look when she lights up and saying that you should be happy, because she is single handedly underwriting your season.

Probably the only thing worse would be if Nevada started to fund the arts with taxes paid by legal sex workers. Can you imagine an arts manager coming home to find his/her spouse has been involved on one side or the other of that?

“Well you were working so hard and so many hours at the theatre. I figured if you got a little more funding, you would be able to hire some help and be home more often. I was only doing it out of love for you honey.”

Okay, maybe that is a little extreme. Though an amusing image if you picture it in a cartoon rather than actually affecting real life people.

The good news from the Plain Dealer article though is that using tourism taxes like restaurant and hotel tax proceeds is already being considered.