No winners

Like many in the blogosphere, I sorta enjoyed the smackdown Mike Daisey delivered to Todd Olson. 

For those not in da know, Todd Olson (an arts admin) challenged Mike Daisey (an artist) to, among other things, "balance his budget".  Mike's response is here.

The exchange is pretty entertaining.  As I read it I got this visual of arts administrators breaking out the baseball bats on one side while the artists dipped their tapped hands into glasses on the other. 

Let the battle rage baby!

But let me gently interject a few things:

As Mike noted in his post, but I don't think emphasized enough, it takes a team to run an arts organization.  You need strong, smart people all over the place.  The admin team, the artists, the Board. 

If you don't have strength at all of those places, plus community support . . . YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING.

So we can have all the "artists v. admin" battles we want . . . there are certainly issues that need to be addressed, but let's be stupid about this.  Any side that doesn't respect and appreciate the skills of the other, in real, TANGIBLE, ways is doomed to failure.  It may be slow failure, it may be quick failure . . . but that's where the road always leads.

---------------------

And can we also ease up a bit on the stereotyping of the sides?

Yes, there are absolutely some arts admins that are punks, who use their power and position to exploit artists.  But for every one of those I could tell you about five others who are battling everyday, for not much money, to present work they love.

And yes, some artists are big ass babies, who wouldn't knowing happiness if it sideswipped them in the street.  But for every one of those I could tell you about five others who are trying to balance their artistic dreams with the "real world" as best they can.

And YES, some Board members redefine the word clueless, but most are well meaning (if a bit overwhelmed) and can do some damn impressive things if used properly.

-------------------------

Here's the thing:

You know what I really loved about the Obama campaign? (trust me, there's a point)

They knew from the very beginning that the task they had to accomplish (getting a Democratic, relatively inexperienced, person of color elected Pres) was so challenging that they did not have the luxury of a lot of internal drama and in-fighting.

We in the arts, are facing a damn difficult task. 

We are trying to keep art forms like theatre, dance and classic music from fading from the public mind.  We are trying to talk relatively staid art forms and reignite them and make them relevant.

That, my friends . . . is hard enough.  Even under perfect conditions, we may not be able to pull that one off.

The task becomes impossible if we get too caught up in a circular firing squad.

Yes, there are bad guys/gals within our field.  They need to be identified and dealt with. 

But let's make sure our praises for all the other ones outweighs our criticisms.

 

Comments

[Scott Walters]

While I agree, I would also say this -- and I am speaking from personal experience: anyone who suggests that the way things are being done isn't the best way to do things will be attacked (as Mike Daisey has been) simply for having made that suggestion. It is the artistic equivalent of "America: love it or leave it" that gets wielded against anyone who isn't on-board with the status quo. Usually these attacks take personal forms: it is said you want to change things because you "can't make it" in the current model, or "who would even want to do what you are suggesting" or "you clearly don't know what you are talking about, you naive twit." The latter is what the Mike Daisey challenge is about. When his performance was touring, there were AD's who were saying the same thing -- at least Olson has gotten specific.

So I agree with you, but usually it is those who have committed themselves to the status quo who are guilty of stereotypes.