« Not the first | Main | A bias for speed »

March 22, 2011

Comments

Linda

Yes! Create your own opportunity. A comment on my creative infrastructure blog today asserts that the supply/demand conversation is backwards because what we should be talking about is the supply and demand for opportunity. On the one hand, the commentator has a point, but on the other -- the one you assert above -- artists can create their own opportunities, which I in turn assert is the essence of arts entrepreneurship. (http://creativeinfrastructure.wordpress.com)

RVCBard

I'm in the middle of picking myself now. BTW, try leaving that comment again. Maybe it'll work. If not, shoot me an e-mail.

Aaron Andersen

Love it.

Billie

Wow. This is the exact conversation I was having with myself yesterday. I'm trying to figure out how to do this. What I'd want to do. The problem is believing in what I have to say as much as I believe in what others have to say. I know a lot of actors who have been making their own opportunities, and I find myself envious of them, but I don't know even where to start doing the same for myself because I get overwhelmed by the sheer enormity of the projects. I can't see the small steps that would get me there, only the hugeness of my ideas and the projects I'd like to take on. So it never goes anywhere, and that's truly frustrating. Thank you for this post!

Adam

Billie,

My post tomorrow may help you figure out how to get started.

Paul Botts

"The problem is that many artists don't like to see themselves as labor."

Actually the problem is that too many artists _do_ see themselves as labor, when in fact they are management. (They are management as all entrepreneurs are management, of themselves and of their own efforts and product.) The blogger quoted above put it nicely: "You have people screaming about how creative they are but when push comes to shove they are no different then any cubicle jockey." Bingo: they see themselves as being labor rather than management.

To "embrace the posture of labor" is pretty precisely the way in which the artistic community, or at least its self-identified thought leaders, are misdiagnosing the real world and the reality of being an artist.

Adam

Paul,

When I use labor in this context I'm thinking of someone who actually work (labors) and does stuff versus someone who simply manages. I don't mean labor as someone who waits to be told what to do, even though I understand that's the more common definition.

My premise is that more artists need to labor, i.e. do the work and then leverage the equity that comes from effectively doing the work.

So basically we agree, it's just a language thing.

Adam

Annette Kunow

Thank you for encouraging artists like this. I love this article because this is what I´m doing. It needs much patience. Really, but it works.

Dave Charest

All I can say Adam is...nice.

Michael

Very interesting dialogue you are sowing here. But I'm afraid that neither the post's author, nor Linda, is acknowledging that for many artists, you can't simply create an opportunity given the entrenched funder/presenter systems in place. One needs to a) disrupt the system or b) grab on to the coattails of a disruption (hell, an interstice!). Now I'm in NYC, so that's the "ecosystem" (fuzzy word) I'm describing. In fact I'm a Marketing Director and also a choreographer, so I see both sides of the imbalanced "ecosystem".

The proposed leverage situation in the main article is totally inaccurate for a few reasons in nor particular order:

1) Producers/Presenters and venue's trap patrons emails and info through their ticketing systems (or at least their websites). Those little "sign up for the artists list" clipboards in the lobby probably account for <20% of the emails the presenter can trap. VERY few venues are willing to just pass off those emails (and privacy laws make it hard to do so, unless that is part of their email signup form). Of course I think they should. But as of now, they don't; they can't afford to.

2) For upstart self-produced shows, the majority of audience members are friends of the performers. This is a result of small Marketing budgets, no preview press coverage, and no pool of regulars that a producing venue has cultivated. We all have friends; hardly leverage.


3) Press coverage creates vastly more leverage than fans in dance, theater & other performing arts (but not necessarily music). A NY Times or Time Out review will be seen by tens of thousands. A self-produced show (unless the artist is a trust fund baby) will be seen by hundreds at most. Press favors covering long-running shows in established venues by established producers. Fortunately this seems to be changing, although I'm not an expert...

4) 5 shows in 3 years is ridiculous. Of course I'm a choreographer, not a playwright, so I guess that's my personal perspective.

5) Performing arts aren't exactly a commodity and shouldn't be treated like the plastic arts. Yes there is a capitalist system at work, but there are many other factors at play (as Paul has alluded to). For example, most dance companies stay afloat (and maintain their tax-exempt status) through education and workshops. Finding ways to support the arts outside of ticket sales should not be taboo. It is a reality that many industries grapple with on an on-going basis, like journalism. The same NY Times article can be funded through philanthropy, or subscriberships, or banner ads, or (gasp!) a paywall. If the negotiation imagined in the article above, were to be the playwrights sole basis of supporting their art, that is a risky, ill-fated endeavor.

Now I don't think the situation is hopeless at all. Such possible interstices:
1) Facebook: This is where friends ARE important, since they can be tracked. And a person's Facebook page is way more attractive on Facebook than most producing/presenting organizations.

2) There is a tide of critics, theorists, bloggers etc. who are interested in covering work that is outside-the-system, new work, and work were they can have a deeper interaction with the artist. Relationships with these champions is key.

3) Working entirely outside the system: too big a topic for what is already too long a post, but I'm sure you all have ideas for this.

Thanks!


The comments to this entry are closed.