The real threat

Here's the real irony of the times we are living in now.

An increasing number of for profit corporations are embracing the foundations of "art", i.e. beauty, design, risk, collaboration and respect for their fellow workers.

At the same time, an alarming number of arts organization seem to be embracing the most negative aspects of a "corporation", i.e risk aversion, treating people like commodities, etc.

We talk so much about threats to the noncommerical arts sector.  We talk about the greying of audiences, the lack of diversity and high ticket prices.  All those are legit issues. 

But I think we should consider an even larger issue that could be more harmful to the industry in the long term.

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

Imagine a college graduate.  She's 22.  She has developed a wide variety of skills.  One of those is writing, particularly playwrighting.  Another is computer programming.

She's at a crossroads and she's trying to decide her path.

She's considers a career in the theatre.  But when she looks down that roads she sees so many places that seem determined to stifle her artistry.  Down that road she imagines a land where she told what to write, what audiences will accept and a scarcity of actual productions.

Then she looks down the other road.  She starts finding organizations (not all, but some) that will allow her to use computer programming as an expression of the artist within.

Sure, this woman wants to make money but she also wants to have a real impact on the real world.

The scary part is that she may decide that she has a better chance of impacting the world by fighting for a job at a place like 37 Signals then she ever will with a career in the professional arts.

The even scarier part is that she may be right.

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

What happens when a place that designs furniture is considered more artistic than a theatre?

What happens when a computer programmer is considered more of an artist than a filmmaker?

This is our real threat.  We keep building and running organizations that may say ART on the outside, but inside run more like a factory.

At the same time a  guy who sells shoes on the freakin' internet talks about changing the world through superior customer service.

This is our real challenge . . . to build organizations that are exciting and innovative enough to attract people with so many other options.  Our job now is to learn from anybody, arts organizations or otherwise, that is leaping over the hurdles that cause so many to stumble.

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

One day, I'm pretty sure I'm going to have the privilege of building an arts organization from the ground up.  There's a lot about that journey that scares the hell out of me, but there a few things I am sure of.

One of those things is that changing the world is the only point of being in this business.  If you're not trying to build and run an arts organization that is trying to hammer a dent into the universe . . . then why are you even around?

If you're not dreaming big and seeing art as a medium to make the world a better, more lively, more interesting place, than what's the f*ckin' point?  If you're not trying to be a leader and standard bearer in your artistic genre, why even roll out of bed?

Please don't settle for building a factory that churns our art, distributes a few paychecks and then tries to survive to the next day.

There has to be a better way.  If a guy selling shoes can change the world then so can I.

So can you.

Seek your path.

Anything less is a waste of time.

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

No post on Friday.  See you guys on Monday.

 

 

 

 

 

Comments

[Deborah Cullinan]

Indeed, Adam! Indeed.

[David J. Diamond]

What is wrong with the young woman of your example expressing her creativity and artistry through her computer work, if that is fulfilling for her? I don't think that everyone who has an inkling that they should be a playwright should necessarily be one. I know too many talented playwrights that struggle to get their work read, let alone produced. Being an artist in America is a challenging way to go; it's also a self-selecting process. Those who are truly committed to expressing themselves find ways to do it (whether it's in a commercial organization or an arts group.) I applaud your thinking big and wanting to make a real contribution. As a career coach for artists, I encourage that point of view. But not everyone should start an arts organization. First of all, do we really need thousands of new arts groups fighting for the same audiences, funding, etc.? I think it's best for each person to look inside to discover what kind of pursuits will bring them a fulfilling and satisfying life, whether it's in the corporate world or with an arts organization. I love artists, but our self expression has many forms. We each have to find the best way for ourselves.

[Adam]

@ Deborah - Congrats on the new space for Intersections

@ David - We agree. Starting an organization, or pursing a career as an individual artist isn't the right choice for everyone. My point is that IF you decide to start an organization, you have to be aware of what type of organization and culture you are creating.

[Douglas Clayton]

To me, it seems to come down to two things:

1. Are we making sure our art (whatever form it takes) IMPACTS people? Or are we just churning out product with no care if it actually fulfills anyone's needs?

2. Given that whatever art you're producing is impacting people and creating value, are we valuing the producers of the art enough to keep them engaged and growing? Once upon a time, a high value was placed on giving artists 'homes' where they could have a 'normal' lifestyle, have some security, and be encouraged to pour all their energies into their art and work, instead of spending 90% of their energy just trying to get work in the first place. We've pretty much abandoned valuing that 'home' mentality, and as a result, it's no surprise that highly talented people choose to invest in something that can allow them to have a family, a home, etc.

These are classic business principles. Creating value. Competitive advantage. Investing in human resources.

If we're not doing these things, I don't know what we're doing.

[Eric Ziegenhagen]

Great post. In some ways, any smaller issue feels like rearranging deck chairs on the big ship.

It's essential for theaters to understand who their peers are -- not in theater, not in the arts or non-profit community, but in the larger ecosystem: where the best audiences are going, where the best potential administrators are going, where the best potential artists are going.

One analogy is theater posters. If a company aims to produce a poster for a show that is as good as other posters at the laundromat, that's one field for comparison. But if a company aims to produce a poster that holds its own alongside all forms of poster advertising--making an object that people might want to frame, or steal--that's a much higher standard, but one that makes their design truly competitive in the world.

[Adam]

@ Doug. Your point about a home really hits home. What I'm observing is that a lot more "non-artistic" places seem to be creating homes for these artists . . . or at least a place where they can apply their artistic talent in different ways.

@ Eric. Agreed. The best audiences, admins, artists, etc. aren't just disappearing. They are going somewhere. We have to grasp the level of competition we are facing if we want to stand a chance.

[Wildwomanfund]

Dear Adam,

Thank you for this post. You are writing something that Dan Pallotta wrote in "Uncharitable" which is that nonprofits are rewarded for not taking risks, among other things. It is one of the many things that makes the for profit sector seem so much more attractive. Aside from a decent wage, it seems more honest to just come out and say, "I want to take risks, I want to make mistakes, and you're not going to stop me."

When I made two small mistakes at a nonprofit (not using music with a strong powerpoint presentation that didn't need it) and one of our appeal letters didn't have a back side on it (Which was just quotes) I was fired, and those were the two reasons given. Can you believe that crap? And I came to work every day with a smile, and had made them more money than they ever had made. It just doesn't make sense how risk averse some nonprofits are.

Nonprofit arts organizations seem to be in a "justify your existence with programming for children" mode. And indeed, arts orgs should not exist outside a vibrant community. They should be shaped by them. They should be guided by them. And they should let the community help them take risks, much like the Wing Asian museum in Seattle.

I highly recommend Pallotta's Uncharitable. It will change the way you look at nonprofit organizations.

Sincerely,

Mazarine
http://wildwomanfundraising.com

[Adam]

Mazarine,

I'll second the rec for Uncharitable. Thanks for bringing it up.