Home Page

What Value The Arts In Prison?

June 1, 2009

by:

Joe Patti

I was surprised to see my home town newspaper mentioned on the Americans for the Arts blog recently. Americans for the Arts’ Arts Education Manager, John Abodeely, was responding to a story about how inmates from the Woodbourne Correctional Facility were being blocked from performing at Eastern Correctional Facility by the corrections guard union. (Eastern Correctional Facility apparently inspires a lot of art. I once wrote a short story based *cough* on my time spent there.)

Abodeely responds to the union’s central argument that there is no value in the experience. “How many of these medium-security convicts do you think will go to Broadway and get a job?” One answer is Miguel Pinero’s Short Eyes–six Tony nominations, New York Drama Critics Circle Award and an Obie Award. Another is Charles Dutton. These are just off the top of my head. I am sure there are other examples.

Abodeely discusses the economic value of the arts in terms of jobs, revenue and taxes generated. I think Abodeely misses the mark on two counts. First, regardless of the economic impact statistics, it is difficult for people with arts backgrounds to gain employment in their field, whether it be on Broadway or not. An ex-con probably has just as good a chance of being employed as anyone. (So on second thought, I guess Abodeely’s numbers are valid when applied to the convicts.)

But the second point is the real issue. The subtext of the question the corrections officer posed was all about low regard for the convicts’ personal value and had little to do with economics at all. Perhaps it is clearer to me because I have been in NY prisons, but the guards’ power to deny positive experiences for inmates is a big factor here. Given the union spokesman’s assertion that “prison farms, annexes and print shops have been useful because they teach skills that can be applied toward a job on the outside,” a more compelling argument would be based on evidence of how engaging in any sort of disciplined program is beneficial to future employment and behavior in the present. There is also public speaking skills, writing skills (since the inmates wrote the play) and development of empathy that can be gained. (Construction and other organizational skills if they are building sets and costumes.)

Abodeely wouldn’t likely have the research or numbers on hand to cite, but there may be some evidence that it reduces recidivism, especially given that is the sponsoring organization, Rehabilitation Through the Arts, goal. The San Quentin Drama Workshop has been active since 1958 so even if there is no clear evidence arts in prison does not reduce recidivism, there must be some value to sustaining the program for 51 years. There is also group, Theatre in Prisons which runs similar programs internationally.

What really makes me believe that the union’s objections on the grounds theatre involvement doesn’t cultivate valuable skills is the fact that Rehabilitation Through the Arts not only does shows at the maximum security NY State run prison, Sing-Sing, but has been based out of there since 1996 and apparently has proven valuable enough to satisfy the corrections officers who I am pretty sure belong to the same union. Pinero wrote Short Eyes while incarcerated in Sing-Sing in 1972 and there was apparently a drama program of some sort there at the time.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not really a big advocate for convict rights. I didn’t particularly enjoy being dragged on visits as part of my mother’s effort to redeem these guys. (Though I does allow me to truthfully say I was in and out of prison for 9 years.) Like most of us, I am not about to allow someone to dismiss the value of participation in the arts out of hand without some rebuttal.

I suppose no discussion of performing arts in prison can be complete without citing the 1500 Filipino prisoners in Cebu doing Michael Jackson’s Thriller.

Art(ist) Education, Volunteers

1 Comment

Still More Impact of the Economy

May 27, 2009

by:

Joe Patti

I listened in on another Arts Presenters conference call on the impact of the economy last week. The panel consisted of:

Ken Foster, Executive Director, Yerba Buena Center for the Arts
Nicole Borrelli Hearn, Manager, Artists and Attractions, Opus 3 Artists
Sandra L. Gibson, President and CEO, Association of Performing Arts Presenters
Maurine Knighton, Senior Vice-President, Program and Nonprofit Investment, Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone

There were many sentiments and examples I had heard in earlier calls so I wasn’t as assiduous about recording them. The basic themes of the call were doing more with less and preventing worries about the current situation from infecting your organization and colleagues.

Doing More With Less discussions weren’t all dire. Ken Foster talked about how his organization was de-emphasizing number of events in a season in favor of exploring extending artists’ stays and having them involved with more while they were around. Nicole Borrelli Hearn spoke of Daniel Bernard Roumain’s New Clef Coalition where Roumain is writing a new work for youth orchestras. Orchestras can buy at a reasonable rate as a commissioning partner and then they will own the piece forever. Roumain gets a residency with the youth orchestra. (Which is really another win for the orchestra.)

There were less positive observations under this subject area. Opus3 has encountered a widespread trend of groups inquiring about cancellations which resulted in a lot of renegotiation. Commenter, Mr. MOJO, told stories of not being able to even give away extra performances to presenters who either were not interested or no longer had the staff to support it.

An observation was made, confirmed by Ken Foster as Yerba Buena’s new approach, that some presenters were scheduling two separate seasons, Fall and Spring. The Spring portion would only transpire if the economy and Fall performances enabled it. This is making performers nervous because they don’t know how to plan or if they can/should keep their company active and creating new works. Foster said committing 18 months out is making less and less sense. He acknowledges that it is a challenging situation artists who are motivated to get their works seen and that presenters’ business practices shouldn’t get in the way of that.

Now I listened to that portion of the recording a few times and I had to wonder if Foster wasn’t suggesting artists do what they have to do and perhaps find a conduit for expression that circumvents the current system.

A comment Foster made was that when times get tough, presenters’ default response is to ask for a fee reduction. I actually made a similar observation in regard to audiences dissatisfaction with a show and defaulting to asking for their money back. If you have driven to a theatre having paid for dinner and a babysitter, is getting your money back really going to make you happy? In the same sense, if you have invested resources into promoting an event, will cancellations make anyone happy? My suggestion at the time, like Foster’s now, was to seek alternatives. Audiences/Artists may provide suggested solutions that may not have occurred to you.

With that mention of minimizing negative feelings, I will segue into the second general topic- don’t let anxiety infect your organization. Foster notes he has a lot of people from the financial sector on his board and many of them project the catastrophe they are facing on to the arts organization. It takes a lot of work and projecting competence and confidence to keep such fears from taking over.

He points out that arts professionals spread negativity as well. When you are surrounded by people who don’t quite understand the business of the arts and what it is you do, there is a great temptation to commiserate when you meet someone who actually has the capacity of empathize. Talking at length about how much stuff sucks brings the whole room down. Foster isn’t saying one should gloss over reality, but he mentions he has an executive coach who is not involved in the industry with whom he can safely talk about these issues and receive guidance without demoralizing anyone.

Arts in an Age of Technology, Leadership, State of the Arts

No Comments

Sturm und Drang on the Bus

May 26, 2009

by:

Joe Patti

A bunch of Carnegie Mellon graduates took their act the the mean streets of NYC last week. According to a NPR story, Bus Stop Opera made their Broadway debut–on the sidewalks of Broadway. The students spent time interviewing and listening to people’s stories while riding the buses of New York City and used the text to create a libretto for operatic performances set at the very stops they conducted those interviews. They tried it out in Pittsburgh first then took it to NYC.

While listening to the NPR interview, it first sounds like the group proves what we have already learned when Tasmin Little and Joshua Bell took their acts to the streets– nobody will stop and listen during rush hour. As the day progresses and the group moves to other locations, some people do pause.

As with the Bell and Little experiments, the importance of time and place when interacting with art is underscored. This isn’t just in regard to intangibles like being in a proper mental and emotional state to receive an experience but also very practical concerns like…acoustics. Not being able to hear is one of the most frequent comments made during the interview. A strong voice is no match for New York City traffic–especially the buses. The canyons of New York are also no substitute for the amphitheaters of ancient Greece when it comes to reinforcing the voice in an outdoor setting.

Bus Stop Opera gets my approval where the Bell and Little experiments didn’t. The Bell/Little events were about testing people’s reactions to great performances in their midst. Bus Stop Opera is specifically designed to be accessible and appropriate to the target audiences. An earlier approach was discarded when audiences had an averse reaction. Even though the group encountered the same indifference Bell and Little did, I suspect the results will diverge should Bus Stop Opera continue to pursue this project.

Audience Relations, State of the Arts

No Comments

From The No Good Deed Goes Unpunished File

May 20, 2009

by:

Joe Patti

We have been discussing raising our facility rental rates this week. We haven’t raised them in awhile and our expenses are increasing. Also, we wanted to bring our rates more into line with our competitors who charge a lot more and provide a lot less in relation to services.

But the staff doesn’t want me to raise the prices and I am flabbergasted to learn why.

First some background–

The staff works their butts off for our renters. Even though I occasionally have to work when someone is sick, you shouldn’t make the mistake of envisioning me when I tell you how hard they work. Their work ethic preceded my arrival by decades. I did nothing to inspire it.

At many of our non-union competitors, renters are paying for supervisors who are present but don’t do much more and are charged for every microphone, table, chair, etc that is used. My staff likes to be hands on so we either charge a blanket amount for resources or nothing at all because the staff doesn’t want to have to stop to tick off numbers of chairs and tables being set up.

Even though we say we don’t offer design services, the technical director doesn’t want anything on stage to look bad so he and his crew will stay after a rehearsal and work until 4 am to make the show look good.

So I am completely astounded when they ask me not to bring our prices closer to being in line with the norm because they are afraid people will demand more of them. Other than meeting increasing expenses, one of my motivations for raising the prices is to prevent these hard working people from being taken for granted. It amazes me that our competitors can get away with providing less at greater expense and my staff will suffer for providing greater value for the dollar.

Unfortunately, they aren’t entirely imagining that our renters have this outlook, there are quite a few examples historically and in the recent past where people have demanded what they decided they should be getting for what they are paying. My hope is that raising our prices will also provide those looking to get water from a stone a greater disincentive to rent from us. The staff’s fear is that they will expect a corresponding increase in the water yield.

We understand that for a lot of people, our facility serves as a bridge between doing it entirely yourself and needing a full union production crew. Many come to us wanting to increase the production values of their annual event and don’t quite realize what a labor intensive prospect it is. We provide a lot of guidance to people about how to help us help them. They arrive assuring us their show is extremely simple until we start asking questions about their plans. Even though they have a new awareness of what is involved, they still don’t see the staff plugging away at 4 am on their behalf.

We have a lot of very gracious groups that rent from us. Some of which, having dealt with the blank indifference of our competitors, are afraid to offend us lest their only option is to return to them. (I swear we never even suggest they won’t be allowed to return. These are the guys we want to continue renting.) There are even a few that have become so organized over the years, we give the informational literature they send their members to new renters as an example of how to effectively organize one’s group for a production.

Then there are those who tell us they have been producing an event for 25 years, question every expense we estimate in an attempt to save money and then ask us how much they should be charging for tickets. Makes us wonder if they have ever created a budget for their event over the previous 25 years.

Clearly, as we revise our rental application, we in the administrative offices need to think about how we can support the rental staff in keeping renters’ expectations reasonable. Confronting people and telling them they don’t realize what a deal they are getting isn’t likely to be very convincing or productive. Nothing increases the paranoia of people who are anxious they are being ripped off like telling them you are honest as the day is long and aren’t ripping them off. And accusing people of being cheapskates doesn’t help matters much either. As the first line of contact with renters, we in the administrative offices can do a better job of discussing people’s expectations of their rental experience with them early on in the process.

General Musings

No Comments