Joshua Bell, Innovator or Heir To A Tradition?

by:

Joe Patti

From the “Nothing New Under the Sun” file comes the news that Gene Weingarten is pondering whether to return his Pulitzer Prize. Weigarten is the Washington Post columnist who won the Pulitizer for arranging and writing about Joshua Bell’s anonymous performance in a Washington D.C. subway station. Weingarten says he is pondering giving the prize up based on the fact it was awarded for originality and he has since learned someone beat him to it.

It seems that back in May 1930, a Chicago Evening Post reporter arranged for violin virtuoso Jacques Gordon to play incognito outside a Chicago subway station. Though he eventually drew a crowd, as with Bell, by and large no one stopped to listen and only one person recognized him. It also turned out that Bell played many of the same pieces Gordon did. I guess Schubert lends itself to outdoor concerts. Though he hasn’t played it in about seven years, for nearly a decade, Bell actually played the very violin Gordon used for the stunt.

While I have been critical of the experiment, I am not about to suggest he give the Pulitzer back. My beef is that the experiment seemed designed to maximize the opportunity to point out what philistines people are. We see enough evidence that people don’t value the arts every day without concocting situations to prove it. Just a year ago some students at Stanford University were miffed that NEA Chair, Dana Gioia, was speaking at graduation because they felt they deserved someone more famous.

The basic experiment is a valid one in my mind. It could have been used to measure when the best times for performing in myriad unorthodox locations might be as part of an outreach effort — or even a longer term change of venue. As far as I am concerned, the Bell and Gordon results just prove that subway stations are not the best place to reach people. So even if he had known about the event seven decades earlier, Weingarten would have been wise to verify the earlier results.

An additional reason why the more constructive approach would have been preferable. Weingarten notes that unlike the original which faded into obscurity after a day, his story gained feet thanks to the Internet. I honestly don’t think he knew it would become so widely disseminated. However, given it has it would have been much better if people were reading about a secret experiment aimed at serving them better rather than a secret experiment that proves what rubes people are.

Suffering Your Own Penalties

by:

Joe Patti

Via Arts and Letters Daily, there is an intriguing article in Reason Magazine about how penalties for undesirable behavior can actually result in more poor behavior if people perceived paying the penalty as license to continue.

Citing a study in Science, Ronald Bailey gives the example of six Israel day cares who instituted a fee to penalize people who pick their children up late. Instead of solving the problem, this made it worse.

According to Bowles: “The fine seems to have undermined the parents’ sense of ethical obligation to avoid inconveniencing the teachers and led them to think of lateness as just another commodity they could purchase.”

The same thing happened in an experiment in Columbia. Researchers were conducting a game where people were involved with divvying up forest resources. The results of many scenarios reflected concern for the resources and other users until a situation that simulated government control fined those who overused their alloted share. People felt paying the fine justified pursuing their short term interests rather than the interests of the whole.

I tried to think of ways the arts might be providing disincentives for their audiences to act in the interests of the organization, audience or community through what they perceive to be penalties. I haven’t really thought of anything but maybe something will occur to you readers.

First thing that came to mind were the ticket fees we charge for buying tickets online or over the phone but might not charge if people come to the window. Or that we charge a lower price for subscriptions and buying single tickets before a certain date.

But neither of these things seem to create an incentive for people to buy early. I don’t think it creates a disincentive either. I think people are just busy and have changed their buying practices.

Next I wondered if holding people in the lobby for late seating hoping they, (and those they annoy when they are seated), are discomforted enough that they arrive promptly next time might have some unintended consequences. It is easy to foresee that both late comers and those seated are likely to be annoyed by the timing of the late seating interval even if it has reduced 14 potential interruptions to one. No surprise there.

It is likewise easy to anticipate reactions to policies like; No food in theatre, no exchanges or refunds, no video taping and no cell phones. Perhaps no cell phone policies and signal jammers may have caused a rise in texting, (I seem to remember jammers don’t impact texting frequencies, just voice) but even that is not unforeseen. As annoying as the glowing screens can be, it isn’t as bad as having someone pull out their cell phone and say, “Yeah, I am in the theatre. No, no, I can talk,” in the middle of a performance.

So does anyone know of a policy that was meant to control undesirable behavior that has essentially reinforced it? Drop me an email or comment below.

Art for the Obsessive Cleaner

by:

Joe Patti

The technical director in my theatre has been talking on and off about putting together a photo show of all the attempts to paint over graffiti around the city. The paint the city/county/state has been using doesn’t match the color of the concrete, of course. But it often doesn’t match the paint color they used to cover the graffiti the last time around either. The result is a patchwork that sort of looks like someone took the Army’s desert camouflage pattern and blew it up on a photocopy machine. Who knew there were so many shades of institutional gray, beige and tan?

So when I saw this video with a caption of Reverse Graffiti Project on Artsjournal.com earlier this week, I thought someone had the same idea. It is actually a lot cooler. Take a look.

For those of you who don’t have the time and inclination to take a look, the artist Moose Curtis, makes stencils (in this case of plants indigenous to California) and then uses a power washer and natural cleansers to clean dirt away from concrete walls. The result is a reverse “graffiti” image that is temporary by the nature of its placement in a dirty location.

One of the first ideas I had upon taking my current position was to have a contest with local schools to create a mural on the two ugly concrete walls at our theatre entryway. The location has been likened to a freeway underpass by some. (Although people love it for the shelter the covered area affords them when it is raining.) Many dismissed the idea saying it would attract graffiti even though the blank walls have been fairly graffiti free. I am intrigued by this project and am wondering if those walls are dirty enough to allow the technique to work. Though according to Curtis, it is probably dirtier than I think.

Given that a number of arts organizations are located in or adjacent to dirt producing/attracting locations like freeways and industrial districts since the rents are cheaper thereabouts, I wonder if this might be the basis of some inexpensive decoration for unattractive exteriors.

Of course, now this this technique is being widely promoted. someone will want to make an “artistic” statement and create dirty pictures by cleaning. Yes, even clean art can be lewd.

Forget Snakes on A Plane, How About Arts on a Train?

by:

Joe Patti

Thanks to the lovely people over at GrantStation, the deadlines for two interesting arts related funding opportunities came to my attention.

The first is community based grant program administered by Union Pacific. Essentially if you live west of the Mississippi River and have train tracks running through your town you are probably in a Union-Pacific community and are eligible.

The second is some what more interesting. Johnson Johnson/Society for the Arts in Healthcare are looking for programs that “promotes the evaluation and replication of promising models in order to strengthen and expand the arts in healthcare field.” The most difficult eligibility criterion appears to be membership in the Society for the Arts in Healthcare. Otherwise they are primarily interested in programs that have been in existence 3 years or longer and that can be replicated on a national level.

When I saw this, I immediately thought of a program in Brooklyn I had written about three years ago. At the time the hospital, Woodhull Medical Center, was offering inexpensive health care for artists in exchange for their performance or interactions in the wards and units. They may have expanded the program since then. In any case, I sent the grant information to Laura Colby who is mentioned in the NY Foundation for the Arts article referenced in my entry. What she helped start would definitely be a boon to artists if it were rolled out nationwide.

Hopefully some of my readers out there have some similarly good ideas or at least know of some being enacted right now.