Change Ain’t Easy

by:

Joe Patti

Well I am back from the Western Arts Alliance Conference with much to tell. The first a controversial plan WAA has to change the format of the conference.

As I noted in my last entry, because the plenary speaker had to cancel, the Marketplace Committee report scheduled for Sunday was delivered on Wednesday instead. This was lauded as a happy incident because it would allow people to discuss the changes throughout the conference.

By annual membership meeting on Sunday it became clear that it might not have been such a good thing to have people talking about it all conference because people were very angry.

The proposal for the change is found in WAA Celebrates 40 Years of Community: A Commitment to the Future.

The biggest problem people had was with The Commons proposal. Instead of continuing to replicate the pipe and drape format that even Comdex follows, the taskforce envisioned something less structured.

The pipe and drape format, they felt, commidifies what the artists and managers exhibiting have to offer. The presenters walk around and get to pick and choose who they will talk to while the exhibitors stare longingly from within the confines of their booth hoping to make eye contact while the presenters try to avoid the same.

Under the new proposal, artists/managers/agents might set up shop in different formats. Perhaps in a suite, perhaps at a bar, at a table in a common area, etc.

I had a discussion with someone about this on a shuttle ride to a venue. Ultimately, a change of format will probably be necessary as younger people enter the field. People will be communicating via cell phones, text messaging, Blackberries, etc. rather than walking up and down rows. They will flock to showcases as word gets around about what artists look most exciting. Brochures and DVDs will be replaced by presenters asking artists to send them a link to a Bittorrented movie of their work.

The problem was, the taskforce didn’t offer any solid vision of what this commons would look like. Before the meeting on Sunday, I heard presenters opposed the change because it took power out of their hands, but at the meeting it was mostly artists/managers/agents who voiced their criticism.

Among their concerns were-

-If artists/agents were set up in bars, how would presenters know where to find them?

-If they were set up in suites, the line between the haves and have nots would be extreme. William Morris and CAMI would be able to fete presenters in style and comfort while others would bankrupt themselves just arranging for a room.

-If the Commons were going to be available for meetings around the clock, did that mean the small artist who only had one person representing them would have to exhaust themselves sitting there 14 hours a day?

Currently, the resource room where the exhibitors are is only open for 2-3 hour periods before and after professional development meetings and showcases. This gives insures the majority of people, including exhibitors have an opportunity to devote their attention to just roundtables, just showcases and just discussing possible performances.

I suspect the Commons being available all the time just means managers and presenters could arrange to meet outside of the offical time in that area rather than people always being “on.” They turned the lights out on an agent and I while we were talking because they wanted to encourage us to move on to the showcases. In the future this theoretically wouldn’t happen. (I actually went to dinner with an agent and members of my consortium)

I actually had an entirely separate problem with the proposal. However, I followed an irate agent who was flabbergasted that the conference administration had actually originally considered waiting until Sunday to present this proposal to the membership so my complaint was probably forgotten pretty quickly.

I was actually impressed by this agent’s fervor. He represents a rather prominent dance company and, as he pointed out, hardly needed to be at the conference to get bookings. He said he showed up to lend support to the other artists. I have to admit, the fact his company is represented there does lend to the sense that one can contract quality artists at this conference.

My problem was mostly philisophical. The suggested changes would mean that the conference would end up in California permanently. LA, San Francisco maybe San Diego and Denver are about the only cities in the region that might have a hotel large enough to house a conference since they seemed to be so set against, as the association president put it, returning to the ugly cookie cutter, conference centers with bad lighting and loud ventilation. (I really felt bad for the conference center staff standing in the room.) The fact the conference would be able to take advantage of the wonderful theatre facilities at Disney Hall, etc was lauded.

My comment was this- LA and Disney Hall doesn’t reflect the conditions in which most of the presenting membership operates. Like me, they are in smaller, less well appointed facilities located in smaller cities. There is more benefit to the membership in seeing venues like the National Hispanic Cultural Center (gorgeous facility and ironically, contains the Roy E. Disney Performing Arts Center.) and KiMo Theatre because we can walk away from them with applicable ideas about running our own theatres.

Just in case rumors that came to my ears about the conference permanently moving to LA bolstered by the denigration of conference centers were erroneous, I asked a person on the Marketplace Task Force who refuted my view in meeting point blank if I was wrong about the permanent move.

While he allowed that there was a slight chance that they could be talked into going back to smaller cities, he pretty much doubted it would happen. (This might have been his personal preference rather than an expression of the prevailing attitude since he really appeared to want to turn the conference into APAP of the West. (You want to talk about an atmosphere of commidification, attend that conference!)

It will be interesting now to see how things pan out in 2008 after the LA conference.

Hopefully I Won’t Make A Wrong Turn

by:

Joe Patti

Okay, I am preparing to board a plane to Albuquerque in a couple hours to attend the Western Arts Alliance booking conference.

I am a little apprehensive given that my childhood hero Bugs Bunny was constantly taking a wrong turn there and ending up in all sorts of situations that he, as a cartoon could survive, but I doubt I could.

A few days ago, I got an email saying that the keynote speaker, Franc D’Ambrosio, wouldn’t be able to make it and instead there would be a presentation on the state of the arts that had previously been scheduled for Thursday.

Given my disappointment last year in the keynote speaker’s apparent lack of familiarity with the current operating environment, I have some hopes for the value of this year’s opening events.

I will let you all know how things turn out….

Edit: My mistake. The plenary speaker was a secret guest “he who will not be named” who ended up with conflicting obligations. Franc actually spoke at a lunch the next day. There was so much press about him talk and none about the secret guest, I mistook when Franc was speaking.

Only have 10 minutes on the computer bank here. Much blogging to come when I return!

Getting A Rise Out of the Catholic League

by:

Joe Patti

“In the guidelines you wrote up for the Lab Theatre this summer, did you list sex acts as prohibited?” asked the head of the drama department in a phone call to me this morning.

The form he was referring to was one my staff and I made up after students took advantage of the informal agreement we made with them about the lab theatre’s use this summer. After their disappointing behavior, we published an official policy with the usual prohibitions against smoking and drinking in university buildings.

The reason he was asking about sex acts is something else altogether. The drama director had asked to use the lab space for a production of edgy plays by former students and other noted up and comers in the local community.

We had already issued warnings about language and adult situations in our press about the shows but things went a little farther than expected last night. Apparently while the professor was watching the rehearsal that was going pretty well and showing promise up to the point the actors stripped down, got under a sheet and apparently left both little to the imagination and a sneaking suspicion that they weren’t acting.

I don’t mention this so much to titillate and air dirty laundry. It is quite a serious subject and one that will be monitored closely. The drama professor was previously requiring students to see the production and now, even with the changes he is insisting on, has made it completely voluntary lest students accuse him of forcing them to watch obscene material.

I thought the incident was quite apropos and timely in reference to the Camille Pagila interview I cited yesterday in which she says:

The art world has actually prided itself on getting a rise out of the people on the far right. Thinking, “We’re avant-garde.” The avante-garde is dead. It has been dead since Andy Warhol appropriated Campbell’s Soup labels and Liz Taylor and Marilyn Monroe into his art. The avante-garde is dead. Thirty years later, 40 years later, people will think they are avante-garde every time some nudnik has a thing about Madonna with elephant dung, “Oh yeah, we are getting a rise out of the Catholic League.”

She goes on to blame this approach as a strong factor in the loss of funding for arts programs across the country. I don’t necessarily agree. Serrano and Mapplethorpe were an excuse to rally support, but not the initial reason.

I do think that there are a lot of performers who go to nudity as a way to prove they are hip and avant garde because it is the easiest thing to do to provoke shock in people. It is actually quite similar to how beginning acting students often choose to employ shouting and violent gestures in their scenes because anger is easy and doesn’t require vulnerability.

As the drama professor said to me, art is more powerful when it leaves something unsaid and allows the imagination to run wild with its own projected assumptions. The acting space is barely 20×20 with only two-three rows of chairs around. The physical proximity of the audience and the circumstances that lead up to the actors getting into bed together are going to make people uncomfortable enough as it is.

Choosing not to bring the lights down at the end and instead graphically playing it out crosses the line for people and the fidelity of the play. Instead of being memorable for examining the forces that drew these people into bed together, (and believe me, they are controversial in their own right), the scene becomes all about the sex at the end. Instead of leaving thinking about the awful and repellent choices the characters made, people leave thinking about the nudity and whether what happened at the end was real.

Of course, nudity sells tickets. This has been discussed in many articles for the last twenty some odd years debating whether all the nudity that seemed to be creeping into every show on Broadway was a necessary part of the story or whether it was there for sensationalism to draw a crowd. And everyone is an artistic devotee and offended at the suggestion they are pandering just to sell some tickets.

Especially if the ticket sales are doing well.

Giving The Arts a Bad Name

by:

Joe Patti

The Washington National Opera is advertising for a Priority Services Coordinator. This is bad, oh so very bad.

There has been a lot of discussion about the arts being elitist for many years and lately people have been talking in specifics. This week there was a lot of commentary on Camille Pagila’s interview in The Morning News. (There is a portion quoted on Spearbearer Down Left that sums up her theme.) In the interview, she essentially says the says arts and literature has to examine what they are presenting and the context within which they are presenting it.

Elsewhere, The Playgoer lifts a quote of the day from a Guardian article on the backlash against classical music in the UK.

So amidst this environment, imagine how I cringed when I saw the Washington National Opera advertising for a Priority Services Coordinator who “is accountable for the ticketing, fulfillment, and tactics targeted toward specific segments including high-level individual and corporate donors, artists, and other VIPs.”

I don’t have a problem with the job per se. I mean, the opera is located in DC where you have congressman, lobbyists, ambassadors, etc., running around needing cultural experiences. From the size and titles of their development staff, they look to be dealing with a large number of donors too. Having a person dedicated to their needs makes good sense.

What I object to is the title of the position. Even if you are giving people preferential treatment, you aren’t dispelling the perception of elistism by announcing to the public that you if you aren’t dealing with this person, serving you is not a priority for the opera.

It is just an ill considered choice of titles I think. However, they are in DC, performing in the Kennedy Center and despite the claim of being “Your National Opera,” they are probably a little too insulated from the reality of operating an arts organization in the rest of the country to realize how poorly this reflects on the rest of us.