Cultural tsunami?

Louise Stevens post "If this isn't a blip, just what is it?" really hits home for me. In short, the article uses the challenges facing many orchestras as a sign of the misalignment of how we run and fund our arts organizations with the realities of the marketplace.

And as she states:

"We don’t want the pain of recognizing that our consumer tastes, interests, budgets, and technology have so dramatically and fundamentally changed our arts consumption and behavior that we aren’t ever going back."

From my perspective, part of the challenge is the collective nature of arts organizations. Decisions, especially management decisions in arts organizations are made through consensus and reflect many different perspectives and interests. Understandably so, most arts organizations cast a wide net to be viable and include both private and public interests. And as we know, its easier to get what you want if you give someone else what they want. Board of directors, foundations, contributors, federal, state and local government, corporate sponsors, employees (both union and non-union) and last but not least, patrons, all have vested interests. And its not all about the art. Keeping them all happy is a challenge, a challenge Executive Directors are paid quite well to take on (compared to other arts workers).


Dare I suggest that we ask too much of our arts organizations? Or perhaps we're putting to much emphasis on economic and social benefits and have lost touch with the intrinsic benefits that the arts uniquely provide human experience. Art for the sake of art, is that possible anymore?

One of the challenges of making the arts economically viable, like any business, is delivering value to the customer. Right now the arts have too many customers to satisfy and are losing support of both the general public and the special interests that use the arts to promote their agenda. The collective approach is a very powerful tool in our human experience, it can also be one of the most destructive. Perhaps it's time to give the artist and the audience the opportunity to talk directly to one and another, removing some the interests that  filter institutionalized art.

Technology is one way. Relying more on earned income is another. And it may seem counterintuitive, but less commercialization would give the arts a unique value proposition in the advertising saturated leisure marketplace (like NPR and PBS use to be).

Like the emerging debate on how to decrease the U.S. government debt, Ms. Stevens is correct in that getting to solutions is going to be a "nasty business". The arts have many vested interests, the marketplace is choosing what's viable and it looks like we're in for a "cultural tsunami".

What makes it worth it.

I came across a video of an artist the Michigan Non-Profit Association members block booked a number of years ago called YERBABUENA (Myspace page). Yerba Buena is an Afro-Pop, Latin, Roots group based in New York City, quoting from their web page:

"The last thing that will come to your mind while at a YERBABUENA event is that you're watching a show, it feels more like a cross between a jam in the park, a spiritual ceremony and a family reunion. They convey wholeness and harmony, and their music is moving beyond belief. The music they play is, by nature, participatory."

So true, the audience in a small mid-Michigan college town on a dreary winter evening came together with music and artists they had never heard of and had a great time. Friends of mine that were there still talk about it. Others talk about how they wish they would have gone. Sometimes taking a risk pays off, it certainly did this time.

Unfortunately, many audiences aren't willing to take risks like they use to, too many bad experiences. Programmers are hesitant as well, not enough "butts in seats". It's a  vicious circle. This night worked out because the audience wanted to try something new, learn what Afro Pop was all about. They certainly weren't afraid of getting out their seats, dancing in the aisles and joining the artists on stage. The interests of the audience and artists were aligned.

A wonderful experience for all! Thank you Yerba Buena, thank you audience.

Here's the YouTube link.

Subscription Sales

Discuss subscriptions as a key

Rant #1

The following is a paraphrase of what seems to be an unspoken policy of many not for profits:

"You should chose to make a contribution. It doesn't matter how much but as an employee of a not for profit you should show your commitment to the organization. How can we ask others for support when you don't, we need to show our donors that we have 100% participation from our employees. You need to set the example."

I find this offensive. It's like being required to volunteer. If an employee would like to make a donation to the organization they work for, that's their decision.  And like anyone else's donation it's certainly appreciated. But it comes with baggage, both for the employee and the organization. Like it or not whether you donate or not and how much you donate does play into your "worth" to the organization. How would you feel about donating or not donating being apart of your employee evaluation? You're worth more to the organization if you donate, right? And if you donate more you're worth even more all other things equal! It seems like this should be included as one of the items in the job description and ultimately reflected in salary negotiations. Maybe it is at some organizations, but is it really a donation or just a way to manipulate public perception? All this in a era when not for profits are cutting staff and reducing benefits for those that are left. Perhaps losing an organization's 4% match to your 401K should be considered a donation (as if you had a choice).

Most that work for not for profits are dedicated to the mission of their organization and show it by long hours and low pay given their education attainment and skill sets. In my opinion, having an expectation that employees to their organization is misguided and demeaning. Our job is to contribute value through our work. Perhaps I'm missing the point, but like so many things in organizations, this is a topic that's not often openly discussed (Amazon affiliate link). I know others have strong feelings on either sides of this issue. What's your position?