Moments to remember

I have been asked a lot recently about why I work in theatre…here are just a few examples why…

Each time I walk into a theatre I haven't entered before, whether for work or simple pleasure, I am awed by the sacred space in which artists do their work. No matter how small, how large, or how odd a space is, the magic that is created within it engulfs me in feelings and sensations. It is equally exciting to walk into a space that has been utterly transformed for a specific production --space that has been transformed to support a vision and convey a message.

Above all else I cherish the first moments I walked through the doors of theatres I have worked for, lived in. I remember vividly the first things I saw, the smells, the people who were there, and my stomach fluttering with excitement - whether it was MCC, Union Square, Vineyard, Signature, WCP, or the three academic institutions that shaped my love of the world of theatre. I hold those first moments in the deepest part of my heart and soul.

The show that had the most significant impact on my life professionally and personally was the original Off-Broadway production of Wit. I remember lying on the floor of my New York sublet reading the script and knowing it was something special. Of course the script has some flaws – there are no perfect scripts -- but I knew just from the first reading that it would reach into audience members' hearts and remind them to connect to the people in their lives with love and respect. The company of artists on the show became a true family – theatre people often say that but in truth, it's a very rare occurrence. I remember the break-through moment that took the show from good to great – when the set designer eliminated the rolling walls from the set and added the curtains on tracks. That simple but profound decision visually and psychologically opened the staging in a way that tied together all the elements -- the writing, directing and acting -- and fully served the arc of the piece. It was a wonder to behold.

Kathleen Chalfant led the company with grace and taught me that kindness, equity, respect and dignity were the most important tools a person could possess. It was my first show to transfer to a commercial run. I worked with all three New York companies, even after I had left MCC. I was so proud when I was introduced to Judith Light and she told me how glad she was to finally meet me because the entire company kept telling her I was the one who knew the show best and held it together. I fell in love with my husband on the show and was honored that Kathleen did a reading at our wedding and most of the members of the three companies were there to see us married, years after the show and tours had closed. Most of all I love that Maggie Edson told the story she wanted to tell, said goodbye to a dear friend after helping him achieve a directing legacy, and went back to teaching kindergarten.

At the Vineyard, I recall reading the treatment for Fully Committed and knowing it would either be brilliant or a disaster. Thank goodness it ended up the former. For weeks on end Mark Setlock (the actor playing tens of roles) and Becky Mode (the playwright) would run from the rehearsal room to our administrative offices and gather us quickly so they could run an idea by us to see if it was funny. It was a period of great spontaneity, collaboration, and fun. It was wonderful to watch the audiences each night laughing at the rudeness or foolishness of the play's restaurants' customers some of them unaware they had acted in the exact same manner towards the box office when purchasing or picking up their tickets. Our box office even wrote their own version of the show which was performed for Becky and Mark after the closing performance.

I am grateful that I got to hear Anika Noni Rose, Mandy Gonzalez, Ronell Bey, and Judy Kuhn sing the songs of Laura Nyro in Eli's Coming every night (except Mondays) for ten weeks. I hadn't even heard of Laura Nyro when we started creating the show, and although the storyline never pulled together, the music and performances were among the best I have ever witnessed. It was on this show that the true art of orchestration and arrangement was taught to me.

I was at the Vineyard on September 11, 2001. I couldn't get into the City from Brooklyn and watched it all from my roof just across the river. Our crew had gone in at 8 am that day and the master carpenter's wife worked in the North Tower –so everyone worked together to find her (thankfully we did). I remember Doug Wright who had written and directed the show that was in rehearsals at that time was also stuck in Brooklyn and we spent most of the day on the phone. We were talking when the Pentagon was hit, and I can still here Doug saying, "Jodi the world will never be the same, what is happening?" We were back in rehearsals two days later, bound together forever by the experience of walking through Union Square each day looking at the posters of those missing and the vigils. I think we all survived that week by being in the theatre working on a show.

I am one of the fortunate people in this world to have lived on Avenue Q. I learned all the ups and downs of enhancement deals on the production – if it could happen it certainly did on the original off-Broadway production. We went through six full set design versions before finding the right one for the show. We had to learn an entire art – puppet making and maintenance. We had an actor fall off stage and have to perform all of previews from a wheel-chair on the side of the house. But the entire time we laughed until we cried. I had fractured my ribs right before the tech of the show. During the tech rehearsal for the love scene between Princeton and Kate Monster, I actually laughed so hard that I re-fractured a rib. I spent the rest of the week and previews watching the show with pillows stuffed around me in my chair.

Simultaneously, with Avenue Q, I began work at Signature – working 60 hour weeks covering both jobs for 30 hours each. It was glorious. Downtown, I had the kids on Avenue Q and uptown, the talented cast of Lanford Wilson's Fifth of July. When it opened I was general manager for both the biggest hit musical in town and the hottest play revival.

At Signature there are almost too many profound, life-changing moments to list: my first conversation with Arthur Miller (very relaxed and inspiring), my first conversation with Edward Albee (very awkward and unnerving), watching Bill Irwin endlessly disappear into that trunk, and on and on.

I do have to talk about the luminous production of Horton Foote's Trip to Bountiful. The only other cast that was a family to me and still truly is to this day. I am not sure why but of all the playwrights I have ever met and worked with, I connected most powerfully with Horton . Perhaps as a fellow Texan, his words spoke to me in a special way, or perhaps it is simply that he was a true gentleman of the theatre. I am blessed to have known him, and his wonderful words will live with me forever.

There are so many more shows or moments that I could go on and on about good or bad but all cherished – like the night at the Vineyard when the grocery store above the space decided to defrost their meat freezer and the drain poured meat "by-product" that had been in the drain onto the stage and the actors. The night that a prop gun didn't go off and an actor jumped up and down on stage screaming bang, bang, bang until the other actor picked up the cue. Each standing ovation is its own memory – the ones that were earned and not obligatory as they so often are on Broadway. Or the endless times I sat watching the audience, seeing them lean in as if they could feel the moment even more if they were just a bit closer to the stage. Or the artists who proud of their performances or filled with joy of seeing their work on stage lit up a room with their smiles. And those are just the shows I worked on.

Not included are the wonderful events, galas, readings, and education programs that I carry with me. Angela Lansbury singing "Nothing's going to harm you," or David Hyde Pierce singing a John Kander song that had never been heard before by anyone as John had written it for a lost love . Kevin Bacon bringing down the house while honoring Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins. And there was the magical moment when Harper Lee toasted Horton Foote on his 90th Birthday (and told me to call her Nell).

And all of this still doesn't include the shows I have seen but not worked on. Those unforgettable moments that are burned into your memory– the frying pan in Beauty Queen of Lenane or the grabber in Well. Or the emotions that well up when I think of a show I have seen, for instance, the sheer anger of Stuff Happens or the pure awe of anything done by Cirque du Soleil. Or the opportunity to see some of the great talents of our time on stage – Paul Newman in Our Town or Meryl Streep in Mother Courage. Or the joy one finds in discovering a new talent – Tom Sadowski in Reasons to be Pretty. The shows that were embarrassingly fun – Mamma Mia and Jersey Boys. Or the shows that hit you so hard in the gut that you can still feel the pain of watching them – Grey Zone or The Baltimore Waltz.

I could write forever on how much I love, crave and belong working in a theatre, watching theatre, and producing theatre. It is in a theatre that I come as alive as the actors and audience. I love the interactions with actors, crews, playwrights, directors, and the staffs who work far more hours than they can ever be financially compensated for. I could write another six pages about the moments where I saw an education program impact and change someone's life in an instant. I could certainly write a book about how the theatre has changed mine.

Who should get funding in times like these?

Controversy in the funding community...see Wall Street Journal article below

We all know that the arts are facing some serious challenges. Unfortunately, it is a reality that now more than ever we are competing for dollars against social service initiatives.

Let's be honest - feed a homeless child or help a theatre put on show? I have to admit - I would probably give my dollar to the homeless child. In times like these most people will. Of course there is the argument that Arts feed the soul. But who are we kidding, as with September 11 and Katrina, we need to adjust our funding requests and justifications.

I am not suggesting we all go out and start a bunch of new programs directed to the increasing "poor." Quite the opposite. I think we all need to think about our missions. Are truly serving our communities as we want to or are we only serving the upper echelon of our society? We have to ask ourselves honestly does our organization only want our programming (except maybe education programs) to serve the upper echelon of society.

Unfortunately the majority of the professional theatre in this country is produced and presented for wealthy. It is an assumption I am making - before everyone comments asking for proof - based on price of tickets alone (let alone the cost of baby-sitters, dinner out, and transportation). Of course discount and outreach programs open the doors to a few others, but as a whole you have to have a healthy weekly pay check to catch a performance. What are we as theatre managers to do to open up our houses to those who can't afford $35-65 tickets? And do we really want to? And if we can't or don't - how can we or should we compete with all of the social service and education initiatives out there, especially when most of our donors have a lot less to give?

Just the beginning of the conversation.




MARCH 23, 2009, 8:18 P.M. ET

Foundations Oppose Call to Target Grants

A prominent philanthropy watchdog has riled some foundations by releasing a report suggesting they should devote half their grants to minorities, the poor and other disadvantaged groups.

The report, released this month by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, argued that foundations should meet a handful of benchmarks to practice "philanthropy at its best," including making half their annual grants to "lower-income communities, communities of color and other marginalized groups, broadly defined."

Several foundation leaders have called that benchmark overly prescriptive and argued it could exclude philanthropies that pursue missions such as the arts, medical research and education -- areas that might not always directly affect the groups identified by the committee. In addition, the committee lobbies Capitol Hill, so some fear the report could spur stricter regulation of foundations' activities.

Criticism of the report has intensified in recent days, with a well-known foundation president blasting the report's findings on an Internet blog and another large foundation canceling its membership with the committee. The committee in turn circulated a memo attempting to shoot down criticisms.

Aaron Dorfman, the committee's executive director, said his group doesn't seek to codify the benchmarks and that he has been "surprised by the amount of venom" the report's suggestions have produced.

"We couldn't have been clearer that this isn't intended to be a set of legislative suggestions or mandates in any way," Mr. Dorfman said. "This is a document to spark discussions among the leaders of our nation's grant makers and to challenge them to be more responsive to marginalized communities."

The debate over the report comes as foundations face increased economic and political pressures. Foundation assets fell about 28% last year amid tumbling world-wide markets, according to the Council on Foundations, a Washington group that lobbies on behalf of more than 2,000 grant makers.

The committee's philanthropy benchmark report found that most foundations steer about a third of their grants toward "marginalized groups," defined to include the poor, minorities, women, people with AIDS, the disabled, the elderly, immigrants and refugees, and crime and abuse victims, among others.

The committee advocated 10 benchmarks. It said foundations should distribute 6% of their assets annually, up from the current legally required 5%. The report also advocated better transparency and more-diverse boards at foundations.

But the benchmark on grant allocations drew the most fire. Paul Brest, president of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, called that proposal "breathtakingly arrogant" in a blog entry on the Huffington Post Web site.

"I don't agree with it at all," Mr. Brest said in an interview. "Whether you call it arrogant or inappropriate -- you could imagine 10 different organizations deciding the most important issue is cancer" instead of marginalized communities, he said.

The California Wellness Foundation canceled its membership with the committee and asked for money to be returned after reviewing the report. The report "sounds like an attempt to endorse a one-size-fits-all approach for all foundations," said Gary Yates, the foundation's president. He said the foundation canceled its membership because it didn't want to be viewed as "tacitly endorsing positions" the committee takes.

Many foundations, charities and nonprofit leaders endorsed the report. Among the most prominent was the Atlantic Philanthropies. Many critics are "misreading" the report, said Lori Bezahler, president of the Edward W. Hazen Foundation, another endorser.

"This is a set of ways we can look at our work," Ms. Bezahler said, adding that many other groups have explored best philanthropic practices.

In a follow-up report addressing criticisms from foundation leaders, the committee said "flexibility is important" for foundations and that their leaders should decide whether to meet or exceed its proposed benchmarks.

Nonprofit Compensation

With the A.I.G. scandal so widespread, it is not surprising to find the Wall Street Journal article below:







MARCH 27, 2009

Pay at Nonprofits Gets a Closer Look

The furor over big bonuses at American International Group Inc. and other Wall Street firms is prompting nonprofit organizations to brace for more scrutiny of their executive pay practices.

Though they haven't received taxpayer bailouts, charities benefit from billions of dollars in subsidies through their tax-exempt status, which could expose nonprofit leaders to the same level of scrutiny that executives at subsidized financial firms are facing.

Nonprofits of all stripes were feeling greater heat over pay even before the AIG bonus furor. At the University of New Mexico, faculty are in an uproar over pay for the school's president and other top executives. For the first time in 20 years, the Internal Revenue Service recently imposed stricter disclosure requirements on executive pay. The IRS also has scrutinized pay for nonprofit hospital executives, while the Chronicle of Higher Education has put the spotlight on big payouts for professors, administrators and athletic coaches.

"The train of greater focus on nonprofit executive compensation has left the station, and charity boards better get on, or they're going to suffer greatly for noncompliance," says Michael Peregrine, a partner at McDermott Will & Emery LLP, who advises nonprofits. Nonprofits should start reviewing their pay policies in light of the current political environment, he says. "It just cannot be business as usual."

In higher education, the University of New Mexico's faculty delivered a no confidence vote last month against its president, David Schmidly, amid consternation over executive pay and other issues. Mr. Schmidly took home $587,000 in total compensation in fiscal 2008. A recent university report showed budgeted salaries -- excluding other perks -- for senior executives increased 71% to more than $9.8 million between 2002 and 2008. (Mr. Schmidly took the reins in 2007.)

The increased pay for these university leaders has created "a similar sense of disparity" that others have voiced about paydays for Wall Street executives, says Douglas Fields, the university's incoming faculty senate president.

Mr. Schmidly, who recently instituted indefinite pay freezes for himself and other top executives, expressed disappointment in the faculty decision, but in a statement after the vote vowed to "reach out and gain the support" of the university community. He declined to comment further through a spokeswoman.

In a survey by the Chronicle of Higher Education examining large compensation packages at universities, David N. Silvers, a Columbia University dermatology professor, was the top-earning academic, bringing in $4.3 million. In a statement, Columbia declined to discuss Dr. Silvers' pay but said he is "renowned in the field and has significant responsibilities in directing a highly specialized lab" at the university's medical center.

Universities point out that their officials help generate millions of dollars in revenue. And even the best-paid nonprofit leaders don't come close to making the tens of millions of dollars reaped by some on Wall Street. At the largest nonprofits, or those with budgets exceeding $50 million, top executives earned $476,383 on average in 2006, according to the most recent figures compiled by GuideStar, an electronic database that gathers information on nonprofits. Some argue that nonprofit leaders are underpaid, which may lead to the same "brain-drain" phenomenon that Wall Street executives have warned about in light of new pay restrictions.

"I've run into a lot of people who are great leaders of great nonprofit organizations who end up having to leave to go into business to make some money, because they have kids they're going to need to send to college," says Steve Case, the America Online co-founder who now chairs his own foundation.

Still, the IRS has signaled more aggressive oversight of charities as various compensation scandals crop up among nonprofits. The agency overhauled the annual tax form nonprofits must file. Now, nonprofits are required to disclose compensation perks under certain circumstances, such as when an employee makes more than $150,000. Among the compulsory disclosures are benefits that have featured prominently in recent compensation scandals. They include first-class air travel, expense accounts, housing allowances and the use of bodyguards, chauffeurs and lawyers.

The IRS also has homed in on hospital pay. In a report, which surveyed 489 institutions, the agency found pay for the top official averaged $490,000 a year. Among a select 20 hospitals that paid relatively higher amounts, the compensation figure averaged $1.4 million. The IRS declined to name the hospitals.

The IRS can currently impose penalty taxes, called "intermediate sanctions," on an executive receiving excessive compensation from a charity. But the agency also has established a procedure, called the "rebuttable presumption of reasonableness," that allows charities to avoid the penalty. To do so, the nonprofit must demonstrate its board approved the pay and used comparable compensation data from similar organizations to determine it, among other things.

Critics say the standard is loose and puts the burden on the IRS to show compensation is excessive. Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee who has pushed for stricter regulation of nonprofits, is considering legislation that would put more pressure on charities to prove their compensation is reasonable, an aide said.

Others say the policy has already spurred charities to more prudent governance. "We have encouraged our clients to use it religiously" to ensure compliance with IRS rules, says Victoria Bjorklund, a partner at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP who represents charities.

Still, squabbles over nonprofit executive pay continue to emerge. In the fall, a controversy swirled around a $1.2 million pay package for the United Way of Central Carolinas Inc.'s chief executive, Gloria Pace King. Board members resigned and Ms. King was ousted as a result.

Ms. King couldn't be reached for comment. She recently told the Charlotte Post that she thought her performance justified her compensation.

Theatre and its Community

I was recently asked what a theatre's responsibility to its community was...here is an excerpt of my response:

Every theatre has the responsibility to create a world where individuals can come together for a shared experience where stories are told, ideas are explored, and conversations are inspired.

The written word has long been an important outlet for the creative exploration of the human emotional and social experience. Theatre—like no other medium—has the unique ability to create a dialogue between writer and audience that also bridges the gap between the individual and shared group experience.

Theatre evolved as a social convention to teach people morals and; spur people to action through learning from the action on stage. Throughout the decades it has served as as a way to “communally experience" a situation-- family drama, war, disease, loss, or triumph -- providing an opportunity for connection or catharsis.

Although the physical structure in which theatre occurs is important what is most critical is the feeling -- the atmosphere -- that the building exudes. I believe all theatres should emulate the comfort and welcome of a living room or an old fashioned drawing room – an intimate space where friends gather for good conversation or a lively debate.

A theatre organization should strive to do the following in its own community:

• Identify and explore relevant social issues happening at a global, national and local level.
• Provide a safe forum for discussion and learning for people of all ages.
• Make the theatrical experience as accessible to as many people possible through price, location, customer service, and other forms of outreach and support that remove barriers to attending.
• Inspire audience members and participants to take action towards changing the world.

It should be noted that leading a theatre means that you must also accept certain community responsibilities. You must personally get to know your local community and be an active participant in that community. You are taking the position of an educator –the most influential person in any community. Being an educator means that you can inspire minds, both young and old, to seek their personal best and demand the community be at its best. You must accept the mission to make sure that there is a future audience, a future generation of artists, and future funders. You must help create experiences similar to the one that sparked the fire of passion inside you, that led you to pursue a life in the theatre.

You also have the responsibility to bring the national and global community to your home and to explore how the broader issues relate to us and why they are so important. Remaining relevant and current is the key to artistry. Theatre cannot be meaningful if it doesn't grow organically from your community (local) needs and yet rise to meet the national and global challenges facing us all. It cannot be forced, it must be studied, learned and lived.

What should we ask theatre artists to do for our community?

• Create a world on stage where the artists often teeter on the brink of destruction or utter happiness and we, as the audience experience living on the edge through them, without having to actually do so to understand it and learn from it.
• Bare their souls in telling a story
• State the unthinkable.
• Do the unforgivable.
• Act in weakness.
• Be trapped in fear and do nothing.
• Inspire us to speak or be safe in silence.
• State what must be said.
• Act heroically. Take risks.
• Make us laugh. Make us cry. Make us do both at the same time.
• Teach us about our neighbors, people of distant lands, people from the past, and people from the future.
• Force us to lean forward in our seats, hold our breath, and wait for the next word, moment or action.
• Make us feel alive.

The New Statesman: On the Arts by Kevin Spacey

While googling for a study from last month (that I thought I printed) on the economic arguments for the arts, I ran into this.

The New Statesman: On the Arts by Kevin Spacey

Published 19 March 2009

Amid the never-ending talk of credit crunch, downturn and recession, it is inevitable, say the doomsters and gloomsters, that there will be less money for the arts and culture. So the question then becomes: does it matter? Surely these are luxury items that we can do without when times are tough? As strongly as I can, I would argue no.

I believe in arts and culture and I believe that, far from being luxury items, they are a necessity in our lives, as individuals and as nations. Countries may go to war but it is culture that unites us: the words of a great writer, the style of a legendary dancer, the brilliance our favourite actors display in bringing life to their roles, a Mozart piano concerto, the endless mystery of Mona Lisa’s smile, the flickering images on celluloid and the countless stories they have told. Here in Shakespeare’s country, this should be understood more clearly perhaps than anywhere else in the world – that the arts inspire, uplift, challenge, stimulate our conversations, drive our debates and remain in our memories.

What I have come to recognise, in my six years of fundraising for the Old Vic theatre in London, is that those of us who make an argument for supporting the arts have not used the economic impact of arts and culture as the centrepiece of our appeals as much as we should. Too often we focus solely on the social aspects of what we can achieve, or the artistic merits. These are important and valid, but I believe we should change tack at this time. Instead of apologetically holding our hat in our hands, we should cite the economic successes of what is called show business. We can do better by recognising how much our cultural life contributes to the health of communities across our nation and, indeed, around the world. Those who enjoy culture should be more aware of the financial contribution arts institutions make to their communities.

Relationships between business and the arts offer a real chance to achieve financial success – not only for each other, but also to generate income for the hotels, restaurants and countless other businesses that populate the neighbourhoods where cultural centres operate. I for one do not want to see another regeneration plan that does not have arts and culture at the heart of its offer. Without it, we are not building rounded communities, but ignoring the fabric and soul of society.

It is also important that the arts remain high on the agenda of government. I was hugely encouraged to see that President Obama’s stimulus package included an additional $50m towards investment in the arts, despite efforts by some to remove that amount before the Senate was to vote on it. Even at a time when economic issues dominate, the president of the United States only needed to look at the successes we have achieved to conclude that culture should not suffer. But it is not going to be easy to maintain or increase the amount that government contributes. We are going to have to fight for it. We must learn to make the economic arguments that will sway even the most hardened opponents of support for the arts.
In addition, education through the arts enriches the next generation, not just of artists, but of our whole workforce. Theatre, for example, teaches young people to share, to commu­nicate, to resolve conflicts and to explore ideas. All of this is good for business because it contributes to interpersonal skills, which then translate into customer care. So it’s not charity or empty philanthropy, it is an investment in the future of our society.

If we lose more of the places where emerging talent can develop, where does a young person go to learn their craft? How does someone ever get to work on a West End stage if there is no longer a place to challenge and develop talent when young? If more theatres close in our provincial towns, if more of our cultural centres face a threatened economic future, if more of the smaller venues lose their funding – then the more our society will suffer. And if we don’t do what we can to stem this tide, we risk allowing our rich cultural life to lose its rightful place – or, even worse, fade from view, becoming reserved only for those who can afford to pay the big prices, in the big cities, for what has been too often in the past an exclusive club.

In these turbulent times, our concepts of what we value are being reconsidered. Banks may collapse, individuals might display unprecedented levels of greed and innocent people may become casualties. But what we can rely on is our creativity, our inspiration and our passion.

The creative industries lead the UK economy. They constitute one of the nation’s most powerful natural resources. We must do everything we can to ensure that our cultural heritage is protected – for we abandon the arts at our peril. Our arts and culture are the envy of the world and the jewel in Britain’s crown. Let’s shout louder to make sure those in positions of power and influence realise their value to our economy, as well as to our collective soul. The question is not “What can the economy do for our arts?” but “What can the arts do for our economy?” The answer: a good deal.

www.oldvictheatre.com

NY Times Article on Kareem Dale from Wednesday, March 25

For those that missed this in last Wednesday's NY TIMES. I know a lot of folks out in the blogosphere and arts community are very pestimistic about the Kareem Dale "appointment," and more importantly the position he is creating even if temporary, but I for one am going to remain cautious but optimistic. We all have to agree even though there are reasons for many concerns we still actually have a President in the White House is aware of the arts, encourages his own families participation and no matter what it has to be better than the last 8 years. I hope that we can all keep focused on the sound recommendations and quality thinking that has been happening and keep sending that on to all of our elected officials.


March 25, 2009

Problems Persist, but Arts Advocates See Progress Under Obama
By ROBIN POGREBIN

Washington continues to be consumed by economic turmoil, but cultural professionals say they are cautiously optimistic about the future of the arts under President Obama. Among the positive signs: The $50 million in stimulus money going to the National Endowment for the Arts, the additional $10 million for the Endowment in the recent omnibus spending bill and the decision to give a White House official responsibility for arts and culture, though this has yet to be announced. There is still a considerable distance to go, arts advocates say.

More than two months into his presidency, Mr. Obama has yet to name a new chairman of the Endowment. This leaves the country’s most important arts agency without a permanent chief, as arts groups around the country scramble to submit their applications for stimulus funds by the April 2 deadline. The $50 million in stimulus money apportioned to the Endowment — after a fight in Congress to get any money at all — is not a lot, given that it is to be distributed nationwide.

Moreover, only groups that have received grants in the last four years are eligible to apply. The Endowment said this was to make sure that all applicants had been vetted at least once by the agency’s peer panels, who will select the stimulus grantees.

Robert L. Lynch, the president of Americans for the Arts, a lobbying group, called the requirement limiting. “There are 100,000 arts organizations out there,” he said. “They’re all in need.” The $10 million increase for the Endowment — the same amount given to the National Endowment for the Humanities — brings the annual budget to $155 million, still considerably short of its high, $176 million, in 1992.

It is “a step up from what we’ve had before,” said Representative Louise M. Slaughter, a New York Democrat who is co-chairwoman of the Congressional Arts Caucus. “I don’t think we’re yet up to where we were.” And, she added, “I would certainly like to see that.” Still, Ms. Slaughter said she was heartened that the administration’s point person for the arts would be working out of the West Wing, rather than from the first lady’s office, as in the past.

Shin Inouye, a White House spokesman, said, “President Obama recognizes that support for creative expression is an essential part of who we are as a nation and he is committed to ensuring that the arts community has an open line to the White House.”

The staff member charged with the arts portfolio, Kareem Dale, is relatively young (in his 30s) and potentially overextended (he is already special assistant to the president for disability policy) with little arts experience. And his position has yet to be defined. Mr. Dale is expected to serve temporarily and to be replaced by someone with full-time responsibility for the arts, said a White House official, who asked to remain anonymous because personnel issues had yet to be resolved.

Mr. Dale, who was trained as a lawyer and is partly blind, served on policy committees for arts and for disability when Mr. Obama was an Illinois senator. Mr. Dale will work in the Office of Public Liaison and Intergovernmental Affairs under Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to the president. Mr. Dale served for nearly five years as chairman of the Black Ensemble Theater in Chicago, succeeding his father, Bob Dale, an advertising executive.

As chairman, Mr. Dale helped raise $15 million for a new building, said Jackie Taylor, the theater’s founder and executive director. “He was very strong,” Ms. Taylor said. “He was a good leader.” Ms. Taylor said Mr. Dale’s first involvement with the company was onstage as a teenager; he had a small role in a musical in 1991. “His father wanted him to get past his shyness and to be an extrovert,” she said. “So we put him in a production.”

Of the stimulus money, 40 percent will be distributed by formula to state arts agencies and regional arts organizations. The remaining 60 percent will go toward individual projects. “It’s good, but when you consider the United States of America, they’re trying to do a lot with a little,” said Celeste M. Lawson, executive director of the Arts Council in Buffalo and Erie County in upstate New York. Until 1995 the Endowment gave grants to individual artists and also allowed organizations to use grants for general operating funds. The so-called culture wars put an end to both practices.

“I am a passionate supporter of unrestricted operating support,” said Margot Knight, president and chief executive of United Arts of Central Florida, which raises funds for arts and science organizations. “We need an Endowment for this new century.” During the presidential campaign Mr. Obama was one of the few candidates with an arts platform and an arts policy committee. During his transition he dedicated a team to the arts and humanities. Just what shape the Endowment will take under the Obama administration will depend largely upon whom the president appoints as the agency’s chairman.

Patrice Walker Powell, the Endowment’s deputy chairwoman for states, regions and local arts agencies, has been serving as interim chairwoman since Feb. 2. Michael C. Dorf, a lawyer who served on Mr. Obama’s arts policy team during the campaign and was an adviser during the transition, emerged as an early favorite, and a few other names have been floated. But there have been no concrete developments, even as cultural organizations are cutting back drastically or closing their doors because of the economic downturn.

Representative Norm Dicks, Democrat of Washington, chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, which oversees the National Endowment for the Arts, said convincing his fellow legislators of the importance of the arts remained a challenge. “There are still some people in the House — a handful of Democrats and a significant number of Republicans — who vote against us,” he said. He said Mr. Obama had requested $161 million for the Endowment for the coming fiscal year, which starts in October. “I think that’s a little modest,” Mr. Dicks said, adding he thought that the budgets for both the arts and humanities endowments should increase to $170 million. “There was a big reduction when the Republicans cut us,” he added, referring to a 40 percent reduction in the budget in 1995. “We’re still coming back from that.”

Given the battle in Congress to include money for the arts in the stimulus package, cultural groups say Washington officials still fail to recognize artists as workers. “The third violinist in a chamber orchestra goes out and buys groceries just like everybody else,” said Bill Ivey, a former chairman of the Endowment.

Teresa Eyring, the executive director of the Theater Communications Group, which represents the country’s nonprofit theaters, said: “Local and regional elected officials and community leaders are seeing and talking about the connection between the arts and the overall health of their communities. The same sensibility hasn’t quite landed at the national level.”

“In President Obama we have a leader who is making the connection,” she added, “who seems to understand both the spiritual and economic necessity of the arts to our nation’s strength.”

Mr. Ivey, who led the transition team devoted to the arts and recently met with Mr. Dale, said he expected the White House position to involve coordinating the work of the Endowment, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Institute of Museum and Library Services.

“It’s great to have a direct West Wing connection,” Mr. Ivey said. “I don’t think we’ve ever had an administration that thought about the vibrancy of our cultural life as a central public policy,” he added, “as a marker of quality of life in a democracy.”

Blogged with the Flock Browser

HAPPY WORLD THEATRE DAY

March 27, 2009 is World Theatre Day

Augusto Boal's 2009 Address:

All human societies are “spectacular*” in their daily life and produce “spectacles” at special moments. They are “spectacular” as a form of social organization and produce “spectacles” like the one you have come to see.

Even if one is unaware of it, human relationships are structured in a theatrical way. The use of space, body language, choice of words and voice modulation, the confrontation of ideas and passions, everything that we demonstrate on the stage, we live in our lives. We are theatre!

Weddings and funerals are “spectacles”, but so, also, are daily rituals so familiar that we are not conscious of this. Occasions of pomp and circumstance, but also the morning coffee, the exchanged good-mornings, timid love and storms of passion, a senate session or a diplomatic meeting - all is theatre.

One of the main functions of our art is to make people sensitive to the “spectacles” of daily life in which the actors are their own spectators, performances in which the stage and the stalls coincide. We are all artists. By doing theatre, we learn to see what is obvious but what we usually can’t see because we are only used to looking at it. What is familiar to us becomes unseen: doing theatre throws light on the stage of daily life.

Last September, we were surprised by a theatrical revelation: we, who thought that we were living in a safe world, despite wars, genocide, slaughter and torture which certainly exist, but far from us in remote and wild places. We, who were living in security with our money invested in some respectable bank or in some honest trader’s hands in the stock exchange were told that this money did not exist, that it was virtual, a fictitious invention by some economists who were not fictitious at all and neither reliable nor respectable. Everything was just bad theatre, a dark plot in which a few people won a lot and many people lost all. Some politicians from rich countries held secret meetings in which they found some magic solutions. And we, the victims of their decisions, have remained spectators in the last row of the balcony.

Twenty years ago, I staged Racine’s Phèdre in Rio de Janeiro. The stage setting was poor: cow skins on the ground, bamboos around. Before each presentation, I used to say to my actors: “The fiction we created day by day is over. When you cross those bamboos, none of you will have the right to lie. Theatre is the Hidden Truth”.

When we look beyond appearances, we see oppressors and oppressed people, in all societies, ethnic groups, genders, social classes and casts; we see an unfair and cruel world. We have to create another world because we know it is possible. But it is up to us to build this other world with our hands and by acting on the stage and in our own life.

Participate in the “spectacle” which is about to begin and once you are back home, with your friends act your own plays and look at what you were never able to see: that which is obvious. Theatre is not just an event; it is a way of life!

We are all actors: being a citizen is not living in society, it is changing it.

- Augusto Boal

Board retention in good and bad times

One thing I have been thinking about a lot in the recent weeks and keep meaning to write about is board member retention during these difficult economic times.  The Wall Street Journal article below was a kick in the stomach reminder that we need to be focusing some significant attention on our boards.  In times this dire, it is essential to keep key stakeholders engaged.  With the pressing economic concerns for both the organizations and the individual board members, a delicate balance must be maintained between being honest about situations and being overly negative or pessimistic. 

It is a necessity to remember to celebrate successes no matter how small.  Even in good times this is something many nonprofits forget to do.  By nature we are problem solvers and excellent at crisis management, once something has been achieved we often make the mistake of moving onto the next task before congratulating ourselves on our accomplishments. 

Our boards need to know that they are important to us in every way possible - as a workforce, as information resources, as access to networks and as funding sources.   There are plenty of reasons for board members to be concerned - if we are conscious of this during our interactions we will find a proper balance.  But the MOST important thing is to keep them engaged!

Believe it or not most board members join a board for some reason other than to write a check - a deep connection to the mission/cause, a desire to make a difference in his or her community, social-standing/prestige, or a slew of others reasons.  Hopefully during the recruitment process and the individual's time on the board the reasons that drew the person to the board are clear.  Our job as staff leadership is to make sure that we take time to address these reasons with positive reinforcement during these times (and all others). 

In times like these we have to fight the impulse to hunker down and have a small group make the tough decisions.  A healthy process must be maintained.  We need to work with our board leadership to ensure that each board member has a chance to be heard and be part of key decisions -- especially organizations that are truly at risk or on the brink.  After all very few people join a board if they don't want to take responsibility for the organization's well-being. 

Healthy board management is going to be very important the in the months ahead.

From the WALL STREET JOURNAL

GETTING PERSONAL: Charity Board Members Insure Against Risk

NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Even at charities, boards of directors are watching their backs.

In an environment ripe for investment- and employment-related lawsuits, a number of nonprofits are increasing their directors and officers coverage - or D&O - while insurance companies say they have seen an uptick in the number and severity of claims.

"Individual directors are now more concerned about making sure insurance is in place to protect them and their organization," says Michael Schraer, a vice president and not-for-profit product manager at Chubb Group of Insurance Cos.

Several prominent charities have been caught up in recent investment frauds, including the alleged $50 billion Ponzi scheme run by Bernard Madoff, and most are struggling with shrinking endowments because of the market decline.

Charity board members can be held personally liable for mismanagement of investments or employment mishaps, among other things. An individual's umbrella insurance policy won't necessarily cover these claims.

"If a board member is sued, it means their house, their retirement savings, their investments that could ultimately come into play," says Scott Simmonds, an independent insurance consultant who advises nonprofits on D&O insurance.

This kind of insurance "pays for poor decisions," he adds.

Coverage, which can start at around $1,200 a year for organizations with fewer than 25 employees, varies by plan and carrier but D&O policies typically cover claims over misused funds or mismanaged assets.

Policies also address employment issues such as wrongful termination, discrimination and harassment - important at a time when many hard-pressed charities are being forced to trim jobs and other costs. More than 90% of claims against boards of directors involve some type of employment dispute, according to the Alliance of Nonprofits for Insurance Risk Retention Group.

Know the Rules

Most states have volunteer immunity laws that protect board members from personal liability when acting in good faith. However, coverage is limited and these laws may not protect against federal civil rights and anti-discrimination laws. What's more, volunteers will likely have to pay fees to defend themselves.

Nonprofits usually say they will indemnify board members, or pay for legal costs. However, nonprofits may not be permitted to indemnify board members against all types of actions and may require the board member to pay legal fees first and then get a reimbursement.

And if the nonprofit doesn't have enough money to cover the claims or has gone out of business, the individual could be held accountable.

"Foundations that go out of business because they had all their assets invested in Madoff will not likely be able to pay for defense costs," says A.Q "Skip" Orza, a vice president at RLI Corp., an insurance company in Peoria, Ill.

D&O insurance policies can serve as additional coverage - typically at least $1 million of coverage per year - or pay claims on behalf of the nonprofit so the organization doesn't have to dip into its funds.

Sizing up your policy

D&O insurance can differ from other types of liability insurance and policies should be reviewed annually.

It typically covers lawsuits filed while the policy is in force, regardless of when the wrongful act occurred. And limits are aggregate, not per occurrence: Unlike an automobile policy that pays up to a certain amount each time you get into an accident, D&O insurance will only pay up to a set limit for all of your claims that year.

Since contracts can span 30-60 pages, board members should carefully read the terms and conditions to determine what is deemed a wrongful act and what is excluded from coverage - such as bodily injury or sexual abuse.

Board members should also keep tabs on the financial strength of insurance providers using ratings issued by companies such as A.M. Best Co.; Moody's Investors Service, a unit of Moody's Corp.; and Standard & Poors, a unit of McGraw-Hill Cos.

MARCH 10, 2009, 3:31 P.M. ET

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Hartford's Cultural Institutions Take Steps To Weather Economic Storm -- Courant.com

Hartford's Cultural Institutions Take Steps To Weather Economic Storm -- Courant.com

This article gives a great overview of one city's cultural institutions.  Nice to see some smart thinking happening here in Connecticut.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Other bloggers thoughts on the business model issue

Read these!

Beth's Blog: how nonprofits can use social media: The Crumbling of Nonprofit Arts Organizations (includes great map)

A. Fine Blog: Greatest loss of 2009: Social Capital

diacritical

Douglas McLennan of Arts Journal has started blogging - I know I thought all along surely he was, but alas... His first full post is a nice companion to many of my posts last week.

Is the NEA bad for the Arts?

Recent Articles

Some recent articles that I missed until today - maybe you did too.


Seattle Post Intellegencer goes digital only - no more print. March 16

Bloomberg Musical has cure for Broadway Blahs - in seat drinks service? on Broadway? March 17.

Guardian Arts World braces for a hurricane - a look at UK arts organizations' issues during the global financial crisis. March 14

Chronicle of Philanthropy 52% of donors plan no decrease - new survey results by Cygnus Applied Research

Nonprofit Fundraising Trends - Retriever Development Counsel survey results

Crains Experts give nonprofits tips in weather tough economic times

NY Times The Problem with Nonprofits - mini review of the book UNCHARITABLE. March 9

NY Times Charities say Government is ignoring them in Crisis - deals with implications from Obama charitable tax deduction changes. March 4

Restricted Gifts and the Arts in difficult times

In what certainly will become one of the largest examples of trying to "re-purpose" restricted gifts, Brandeis University announced a few weeks ago that it was going to close the Rose Museum to the public and sell off it's art collection to help make up for endowment losses and budget problems. Yesterday the Rose family publicly denounced the plans (see Boston Globe pay special attention to the comments).

One would think this would be national news considering the precedent it seems to set. And in different times it might be. However considering the economic news coverage and the recent, growing debates about money going to the arts or sports sponsorships from corporations, I think we are lucky this story isn't gaining too much national momentum.

Let me state first, foremost and unequivocally, restricted gifts are restricted gifts. It is up to a donor and institution to negotiate the restrictions or adapting the restrictions, but it is a partnership in which the donor's wishes will always over-rule the recipients. As the saying goes you can't have your cake and eat it too, that is just the way it is and it should stay that way. If this were to change, every time there was a shift in leadership - staff or board - the use would be open to adjustment based on an individuals whims and desires, long term strategies would be difficult to implement and the organization would likely be subject to significant mission creep based on said individuals whims and desires - even with the restrictions some individuals try to circumvent the restrictions with personal agendas.

Without question, one of the most difficult decisions an organization is faced with is when a donor want to make a restricted gift that does not fit the mission of the organization. For years, programs specific grants created many instances of ineffective results or "next new thing" programs. However, lets imagine all grants were general operating grants. Does anyone really believe we would have many of the amazing education programs that arts organizations have? Does anyone really believe that as much new work would be created? Imagine how destructive the tension between artistic staff, management staff, and the board would become.

Let's face it, we need restricted gifts.

At organizations I have worked at, I have had "passionate discussions" with an Artistic Director or Board members about restrictions on certain funds, and almost every time I have been grateful to the donor for said restrictions. If a project was clearly mission based and close to the core - it was usually easy to make the restrictions work or to renegotiate them, if not, well the restrictions certainly made the decision easier.

Are the arts a luxury or necessity?

As for the second and more important issue at the forefront of the Brandeis situation - at what point in the economic crisis do the arts become a luxury that must be eliminated or sold off? Literature and life are filled with the tales of families caught in horrible economics that must sell off their personal belonging to rebuild their lives or survive. Of course, organizations can reach a point where they are required to do the same.

In a similar situation, the Metropolitan Opera just mortgaged it's most famous art work to raise cash. I consider the Met's decision to be creative - the mission is about Opera and leveraging the artwork in these difficult times seems like a reasonable risk.

In the case of Brandeis, I have to ask if this is a "quick/easy/obvious" decision - if it were just about closing off the museum to the public perhaps a mission argument could be made, but the proposal as a whole seems pretty drastic. Is Brandeis really at that famous Scarlett O'Hara moment - do they need to make a dress from the curtains already? I hope not, we are still pretty early in this financial crisis, and you would hope the university was better managed than to have already reached that point.

But back to the bigger more global question that looms - is there a point where the arts are just a luxury that should be eliminated? We are back to that relevancy issue and making an argument for the arts. A lot of my recent posts have circled around a major point that I want to reiterate - the key is to get past the idea that all of the arts arts elitist and making the arts more accessible if in cost alone. We have to embrace that the definition of art has evolved and needs to evolve. We have to broaden the donor and audience base. We must be relevant to our communities, or we will become a luxury not a necessity.

Andy Horwitz proposal for the Arts: Should create a lot of discussion...

Andy Horwitz proposal for the Arts from Culturebot.

A MODEST PROPOSAL FOR THE ARTS IN AMERICA

1. Consolidate, Innovate and Reposition

The first thing we need to do is reposition the role of arts + culture in society. For many reasons the arts have moved to the fringes of cultural conversation. We need to reintroduce the idea of the arts as a place of civic discourse. Artists and curators need to work much more closely with non-arts partners - economists, sociologists, scientists, computer programmers, city planners, demographers, etc. - to identify the pressing conceptual issues of the day. Art - no matter the form- is about creating an object or event that focuses attention on a specific idea; it is a tool for enabling human beings to collectively and simultaneously focus their thought processes - thus the arts need to collaborate directly with non-arts disciplines and start leading the conversations America will be having as we move into a global future.

Part of repositioning is innovating the modes of public engagement. Taking its cue from Harold Skramstad’s seminal 1999 article “An Agenda for American Museums In the Twenty-First Century,” the contemporary museum world has already made great strides in redefining the way the public interacts with art. In a multimedia, multidisciplinary, hybrid, networked, on-demand world we can no longer privilege one form over another. We should be looking at the members of the Contemporary Art Centers networks (The Walker, the Wexner, Yerba Buena, etc.) for scalable, multidisciplinary presenting models that will allow us to consolidate resources, streamline curatorial processes and cultural production as well as promote multidisciplinary ideas-based investigations. Certainly as the economy falters and the visual arts lose their economic engine the value of other art forms will rise - we need to leverage this for the benefit of all.

Part of this innovation is to consolidate bricks and mortar. Contemporary arts and culture spaces must be multidisciplinary with adequate, adaptable theatrical space for all different kinds of performances integrated with visual art space, screening rooms and multimedia/virtual spaces. They should be smaller. As we become more and more accustomed to mediated space and networked environments, where mass entertainment happens in sports arenas and stadiums, the unique experience of intimate live performance and/or interaction with art objects and other human beings becomes ever more valuable. Keep it small and keep it flexible. If you are presenting an artist who can draw 10,000 people, then do ten shows for 1,000 people each. It’ll be a better experience for everyone involved.

In this day and age, where one person’s iPod may well contain a dozen different kinds of music next to each other, discipline-specific delineations are less relevant than ever. While some may prefer dance and some theater, some classical and some world music, all of these disciplines can - and should - cohabitate. If we view art and culture as an essential part of civic dialogue then the public should be exposed to all forms, frequently in juxtaposition. The public must be educated to experience culture regardless of discipline and become as savvy in the parsing of cultural product as they are savvy with entertainment, movies, popular music and video games.

The hardest part of Consolidating, Innovating and Repositioning is making room for the new by LETTING THINGS DIE. It is absurd to have a regional theater, a symphony, a ballet company, an opera, and other cultural enterprises all with their own buildings, all with their own administrative infrastructures, all in competition for the same funds. Let the regional theater system die. It is antiquated, expensive and largely irrelevant. Consolidate, share resources and place art in juxtaposition. Let’s focus on the notion of a cultural “civic center” run by trained, qualified administrators and housing a variety of different arts organizations - of varying sizes, disciplines, aesthetics and ambitions.

2. Develop Sustainable Cultural Infrastructures

There are many different components to creating a sustainable cultural infrastructure. In America today it is more likely that an arts institution will embark on a capital campaign to build a new building then it will engage in an endowment campaign targeted at increasing its general operating budget to provide living wages and better quality of life to its employees. This is a HUGE MISTAKE. The arts - more than any other industry - requires sustained institutional knowledge management, innovative and nimble administrators and the ability to retain the most qualified and effective workers. However, wages in the arts + culture sector are phenomenally low, there are almost no incentives or rewards for success, opportunities for professional development are few and far between and human capital is widely seen as expendable. I could go on a foul-mouthed furious tirade about this -and have - but for decency’s sake, I’ll leave it there and move on to the key issue that is: if you want to have sustainable arts ecologies then you need to invest in people. Here are a few ways in which arts + culture could improve the lives of its workers and make it a more attractive profession:

• Pay a living wage with health benefits, retirement, etc. Arts administrators should at least be on a level with teachers, the two professions are deeply related and require similar skill sets.
• No more M.F.A.s! There is nothing more useless than a Master’s degree in arts administration or an arts administrator who possesses one. Not only does the “book learning” rarely have anything to do with the real world, it creates a peculiar breed of person who feels entitled to respect (and a senior position) without possessing any prior actual experience. Cultural institutions don’t need more MBA-style administrators who are constantly looking for the next best opportunity. Cultural institutions need administrators who are hands-on and capable. More importantly, because of the extraordinarily ephemeral nature of arts + culture, the institutions need the knowledge management which comes from long-term employee retention.
• Bring back apprenticeship! A young arts administrator should come into an organization and be able to stay for 5-10 years, learning the trade and gradually moving up. Cultural institutions are not corporations, they are organic and complicated, they are about knowledge, creativity, education and imagination. As such, without a tangible product or revenue stream, the “collective memory” of the institution must be sustained and moved forward through the cultivation of its human assets.
• Reward success. Provide opportunities for professional development, provide clear pathways to promotion and advancement, implement institutional mentoring programs, subsidies for continuing education and skills acquisition. Treat Arts Workers like Valuable Human Beings!!

In addition to revamping the culture sector’s approach to managing its human resource capital, there are other key factors to developing a sustainable arts ecology/infrastructure. I return to my previous point of consolidation.

Despite what Wall Street would have you believe, running a cultural institution is incredibly hard work. The kind of crap the banking, automotive and real estate industries get away with would never fly in the non-profit sector. For every arts organization, theater, dance company, etc. to have to function as its own 501(c)(3) is just insane.

We need to not only consolidate bricks and mortar but consolidate arts administration. The Public Theatre in NYC has actually made great strides towards housing multiple companies of various size in its building. Here is where urban planners and cultural institutions need to start innovating - how do we devise public cultural spaces that provide both physical resources and administrative infrastructure for multiple arts organizations. If a ballet company, theater company or a musical ensemble didn’t have to have a fundraiser and an executive director and a bookkeeper and all this administrative overhead, they could focus on making art. They could probably make it faster, cheaper and easier. How do we build an infrastructure that alleviates the administrative burdens on arts creators and incentivizes top-notch administrators to stay in the culture sector?

Public cultural spaces should be transparent public/private non-profit partnerships. Administratively they should be managed as public trusts, dedicated to serving the community-at-large through arts, education, humanities and enrichment. The administration of the physical plant, the fiscal dealings of the organization, all of the operational logistics should be completely separate from the creative and curatorial administration. In addition there should be alternative, innovative housing solutions that integrate artists and educators into the daily life of the community they serve.

We must renew the civic commitment to public cultural institutions. Just as those of us in New York are constantly being asked to underwrite the construction of stadiums, ballparks and basketball arenas for the benefit of massive corporations, so too should the public be responsible for funding arts and culture. The arts, at least, provide intellectual development, aesthetic refinement, the cultivation of emotional complexity and moral uplift; considerably more positive benefits than the steroids, arrogance, sexual violence, licentiousness and ignorant conspicuous consumption promoted by so-called professional sports.

This leads back, inevitably, to the notion of repositioning - if we are going to ask the public to participate in sustaining and arts + culture infrastructure we need to reassert arts + culture relevance in civic life. Which leads back to requiring artists and curators to work much more closely with non-arts partners - economists, sociologists, scientists, computer programmers, city planners, demographers, etc. - to identify the pressing conceptual issues of the day and what conversations we need to be having for the future and start having them.

Funding-wise if arts organizations had sustained and reliable general operating expenses this would alleviate the fear and stress engendered by a constant state of financial peril. This would encourage evaluators to assess administrator performance using other criteria - such as relationship building with non-arts institutions, program impact, possibly even revenue generated through the creation of intellectual property.

If arts + culture institutions invested in human capital to make administrator jobs really valuable and hard to get, they would attract better people by introducing a wider field of competition - just like Wall Street! This would also open the field in a way that no longer privileges the privileged. Currently the major qualification for executive arts leadership is often donor cultivation - which is best done by peers. This does not necessarily correspond with managerial prowess, vision, leadership or accountability.

Providing an adequate baseline of funding for a multi-disciplinary shared civic cultural space and increasing arts administrator wages so that it could be a lifelong career would create competition; rewarding experience and talent over privilege.

This would also require the implementation of a more visible and definite line between the administrative and curatorial arms. But an adequate baseline of funding would alleviate the fundraising pressures, strengthening the administrator’s ability to manage in a responsible way. It would also remove the pressure for art to be commercially viable or conventionally successful - concerns best left to the entertainment industry.

3. Decentralize Cultural Production

Think globally, act locally, get connected. Use the internet, new media and all tools available to facilitate conversation and information-sharing and artist exchange. “Regional” rtist shouldn’t have to mean “provincial” artist.

As the cost of cultural production skyrockets in major urban centers, we need to decentralize the process - finding cheaper places to build arts and culture while assuring quality and sophistication that will be competitive in a global arts market. In this day and age there is no reason why cultural civic centers can’t facilitate ongoing global dialogue, artist exchanges, residencies and public programs on the relevant issues of the day.

In addition, we need to cultivate and improve networked performance and real-time trans-geographic interaction. We must identify new ways for artists to collaborate over distances, find ways for audiences to engage regardless of place.

Ultimately this will not only benefit the field of arts and culture but it will bring the arts to life in a new way in each city and/or region. Local art museums should show local artists. Local theaters, symphonies, operas and cultural centers should all actively support the creation of new work in their communities. Projects like the New Museum’s 3M or Museum As Hub initiatives suggest possibilities for collaborative development.

Alternately cultural production could be distributed regionally according to resource availability.

4. Increase Arts Education, Widen the Frame and Democratize Cultural Access

Let’s start by “widening the frame” of what we identify art so that young people find arts and culture are RELEVANT and USEFUL. We must now remedy the 30 years of intentional destruction of the arts education in America and make the arts accessible to all and relevant to the younger generation.

That doesn’t mean forcing them to listen to opera or go see mediocre, didactic plays - it means identifying the new, encouraging innovation and inviting young people into the process of creativity; it means identifying what young people are already doing with technology and encouraging them to contextualize their natural curiosity and creativity as art.

Video games, digital music production, digital video production, web-based interaction - all of these new technologies are not merely utilities they are landscapes for imaginative play. We must encourage young people to move beyond utility and look at technology as fun - a way to make art and play and imagine and dream.

We can’t start arts education with the old, demanding that today’s kids learn about theater, classical music, poetry, etc. on our terms. We must re-frame expression and experience in a way that affirms the aesthetics of our on-demand, “personalized” society and creates new access points to art. Once we re-introduce the idea of imaginative play we can grow young people’s awareness of the history of the arts and culture, point to precedents and empower them to investigate the world around them.

We must be willing to relinquish the dominant narrative and educate young people, give them the tools to express their personal agency in the construction of narrative with intellect, insight and responsibility.

Widening the frame cannot succeed without a commitment to arts education and art appreciation in the schools. It cannot be an afterthought - it must be restored to the core curriculum along with basic science, mathematics, English and social studies.

As culturally-specific museums renegotiate their representations of identity, they are creating literally thousands of new access points to culture for people of all identities, ethnicities, backgrounds and social status.

We need to reintroduce the arts as an educational tool and a tool for empowering young people with the skills of critical thinking, creativity and innovation.

We also need to understand that arts education is not a one-size-fits-all endeavor and consciously tailor artistic educational programs to demographics. Affluent students who come from historically philanthropic backgrounds may well require different educational access points and priorities from those who come from less comfortable backgrounds. The end goal is not unified arts education but providing as many access points as possible and giving young people whatever tools they need. Democratizing access to cultural resources also means scaling those access points strategically. It is not enough just to make things cheap - we need to make things relevant.

Arts Education is not one-sided - arts + education need to be integrated more fully and thoughtfully. We must revise and innovate the integration of educational components into the cultural production process. Every cultural institution should have in-house dramaturges and educational curriculum development professionals. They should keep records of research and process during the creation of new work, developing bibliographies, guides, online documentation and all the paratext surrounding the work. By having educational and dramaturgical professionals on-hand, working on parallel and simultaneous tracks, we can increase the transparency of the artistic process and reinforce the connection between art, ideas, public policy, politics, cultural attitudes, philosophy, economics and entertainment.

To have an informed populace in the information age, they must have the tools to parse the media - and art can create a critical context for developing skills in media analysis. Even though this sounds abstract, the right approach can make it accessible to anyone. Whether it is talking about why video games look the way they do, or why a specific camera angle is chosen, today’s youth need to be educated as much in visual and media literacy as in textual literacy. Arts + Culture is a great tool for that.

In this new world, everything is art if you see it that way. Culture is vast and all-inclusive. We must provide the citizens of tomorrow with the tools to frame cultural experience in an intelligent, empowered way. If America is to remain a dominant global cultural force then we have to be artistically and culturally advanced, conscious of the images we create and messages we disseminate and we must have a population that is literate enough to engage in these conversations.

5. Innovate Funding and Revenue Models For Cultural Production and Distribution

This is the big one - and I’m not giving it away for free. Not yet. But if you’ve read everything I’ve written thus far and think I’m talking big government and socialism, um, you’re wrong.

*I HAVE WRITTEN LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF PAGES ON THIS and would be able to write a much more cogent and complete assessment if offered a book deal [and editor!) that would enable me to quit my job and devote my energy to writing. I would love to write a lengthy treatise on the economics of cultural production in the U.S. and the systemic function it breeds, but for expediency’s sake I am reducing it to some bullet points and short paragraphs on how to fix the arts + culture infrastructure and reposition the arts in relationship to both the public and private sectors

Adrian Ellis raises some interesting questions for the museum field but they certainly carry over to all of the arts!

The recession and US museums

How to compensate for the loss of philanthropic, endowment and visitor incomes

By Adrian Ellis | From Editorial & Commentary | Posted: 11.3.09

“That was then; this is now.” A blunt expression often used in negotiations when one party wants to make clear to the other that previously reasonable expectations are unlikely to be met because of some adverse and unalterable change in circumstances. It is an expression that the cultural sector’s leadership is likely to hear frequently over the next few years as it seeks to navigate a radically changed economic and political map. The global recession that we have entered will not just knock the froth off things; it will permanently reconfigure the cultural landscape. This may happen more slowly and the events may be less flamboyantly newsworthy than the bankruptcy of Iceland, the collapse of the international banking system or the failure of the American mortgage industry, but the underlying forces at work are just as strong—indeed, they are the same forces.

This observation is hardly revelatory. The past five years of the decade-long upswing of the art market—predominantly the contemporary art market—has been largely speculative in nature, and the market correction that we are experiencing has been predicted by most parties who do not have a vested interest in the prolongation of the bubble: a period of declining volumes and prices and a shrinking of the market’s entire infrastructure—galleries, auction houses, art fairs and ancillary publications, and public relations. (In February, Standard & Poor’s gave Sotheby’s a credit rating of BBB, for example.) The scale and duration of the contraction will be directly related to the scale and duration of the wider recession. The art market trails the economy—as a whole reluctantly, but obediently. To give some indication of what’s ahead, the last time the art market experienced a major slump followed the 1987 stock-market crash. The art market fell later but further than the stock market, finally hitting bottom in 1993, with prices falling 56% on average. The market was thinner then, and therefore more volatile, but the current recession is broader and deeper, and likely to last longer; and the fall is from a higher speculative peak.

The impact of world recession on museums will be more subtle, but no less profound. The conspicuous consumption that has fuelled the art market is umbilically linked to the conspicuous philanthropy that has fuelled much of the growth in contemporary art museums throughout the US, the Middle East, South East Asia and Europe. These institutions have been significant beneficiaries of the growing and, to many, morally indefensible disparities of wealth throughout the world. It has left them heavily reliant on, and overly attuned and attentive to, a narrow constituency whose long-term appetite or capacity for support is highly questionable. The sector has come to rely disproportionately on the very wealthy, and on the role that museums can play as mechanisms for the translation of wealth into status, and status into power.

Most fundraisers in the arts freely acknowledge how much the pyramid of giving has narrowed in the past decade, with a greater reliance on an increasingly diminishing number of very wealthy donors. In Russia, India and the Middle East, the pyramid is practically a sheer-faced column—the museum sector is to a large extent the domain of the newly super-wealthy. The almost inevitably speculative nature of rapidly acquired wealth can lead to dramatic reversals of fortune, and thus of largesse. Interestingly, the success of President Obama’s electoral campaign in using web-based social networking to secure smaller donations is the talk of the charitable sector internationally. But art museums are not just short of the technological know-how to widen access to a donor base. They are also short of the arguments to galvanise them, as can be seen in the reaction of the US Congress to the provisions for the cultural sector in the Federal Bailout Bill. Museums have given a great deal of time and attention to stratification and hierarchy for the upper tiers of donors. With conspicuous consumption less in favour, speculative fortunes trimmed and priorities adjusted, the social class that art museums have smooched with most intimately is also the group most likely to sit out the next few dances.

The contraction of anything short of all-weather philanthropic support is, of course, compounded by dramatic drops of 30-50% in endowment income (whether museums’ own or of the trusts and foundations on which they rely). The precipitous drop in Brandeis Uni­versity’s endowment led to its president’s ill thought-out plan to close the Rose Museum and sell its collection. A more wily plan may well have attracted less attention. It is also compounded by cuts in public expenditure as local and national governments enter a prolonged period of austerity, reflecting their reduced tax base and the increased demands for fiscal intervention. UK Culture Secretary Andy Burnham said in January: “All parts of government have to hear that message and live in the real world. Some people may not like it, but the arts has [sic] to live in the real world too. Nobody is immune from what is happening.” In the US, the State of California is sending out IOUs instead of the tax rebates it owes, and most state and city arts departments—far more significant in the US than federal arts funding—have either implemented cuts or warned that they are on their way. Layoffs, furloughs (unpaid leave), pay cuts and shortened public openings are common in smaller museums and galleries in the US.

Museums of art have tended to rely more heavily on spectacle than programme to attract visitors—loud headlines rather than a fine print of involvement in the community. This is despite exhortations by trade associations such as the American Association of Museums in the US and the Museums Association in the UK that their members adopt agendas that increase and parade their social relevance, and myriad programmes of outreach and social engagement.

In the painful process of the prioritisation of public expenditure, the prospect of political underwriting—that is, a sense of obligation to sustain cultural institutions by civic leadership—is greatly diminished both by the realities of public expenditure constraint and by the growing sentiment of politicians that the art world, at least at its current scale of activity, is simply not central to a civic agenda congested with crises in health, housing, employment, education and the environment.

The brunt of the squeeze will be borne disproportionately by operating budgets (exhibition programmes, education programmes, conservation, research and curatorial functions). This is because, short of closure, the fixed costs associated with expanded infrastructure (new buildings, wings etc.) are just that—fixed. It is the need to balance the books from a higher baseline of fixed cost that is causing the pain. The drift is clear: we are entering a period when all but the most privileged and well-connected of art museums are going to come under very real financial constraints and many will be doing so with a weakened safety-net of well-disposed stakeholders. Outside of the restitution of art to Holocaust victims and the occasional censure of miscreants, museums have for the most part shown limited capacity for effective collective action. Industry-wide responses to problems (analogous to those for banks or the automotive industry) would require an appetite for solidarity that does not come naturally, even if the industry found a more willing ear in government.

Much of the reaction to these trying circumstances will therefore be confined to what individual museums, or small coalitions of museums, can do. Museums’ boards and directors are—quite reasonably, given their central mission of stewardship—highly conservative and, perhaps less reasonably, highly motivated by peer approval. Therefore, radical alternatives to genteel but irrevocable decline—such as merger, relocation, restructuring, resource sharing—are only likely to be contemplated as a last resort when an institution is faced with imminent closure. By that time, solutions are significantly more difficult to implement, as the time, money and organisational will required have been exhausted. As Hegel said, “the owl of Minerva flies at dusk”. It is interesting, if not entirely comfortable, to speculate on some of the fault lines that are likely to grow as the pressure caused by the triangulation of the dark forces of speculative expansion, recession and a diminished civic mandate increases.

Here are three possible ideas. First, dramatic and competitive physical expansion and large-scale temporary exhibitions have, in a sense, substituted for an effective agenda of community engagement. These strategies have served as a way of generating buzz and money while interest in the traditional mission of the art museum was waning to the point where it was insufficient to generate the funds required. These strategies are now stalling because of their expense; the contraction of the philanthropic and public sector funds and the cultural tourist market on which they are premised; and the diminishing returns the strategies secure in a crowded, winner-takes-all marketplace. Art museum agendas will have to shift to seek viable alternatives to these warhorses and with them, the skill sets required of museum leadership will also shift.

Second, in the search for resources, the desire to explore ways of capitalising collections will continue to grow. The straightforward fiat that is the current international norm—no deaccessioning unless you spend proceeds on more art—will either be finessed or ignored under the pressure of financial realities.

Third, what museums accept they cannot do alone, they will explore doing together more thoroughly and earnestly than in the past: collection sharing, joint acquisitions, pooling conservation resources, and pooling curatorial appointments. The museum economy is increasingly globalised and these trends will be global in their impact. The alternative to the open-minded exploration of radical alternatives is a sombre one, in which the energies and ingenuities of the sector are devoted increasingly to the support of a dysfunctional pseudo-mission: that of maintaining appearances at any cost, even if the museum becomes a sort of “living dead” organisation, in which any capacity for aesthetic or intellectual endeavour is sacrificed to the goal of keeping the institutional ego protected.

The writer is a regular columnist for The Art Newspaper and a director of AEA Consulting

Funding Opportunities

Below is a great summary of some of the funding opprouniutes for the arts from the Stimulous package - notice it isn't just the NEA funding, there is a little money out there - for better or worse. Get creative people.


http://www.nasaa-arts.org/nasaanews/stimulus-opportunities.shtml


And, the NEA and NEH got $10M budget increases from the FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act.

http://www.americansforthearts.org/news/afta_news/default.asp

Cultural Post in the White House

The day after the Presidential election I started here from several friends and organizations about a push for an arts-related staff position in the Obama White House. At the TCG fall forum, the Performing Arts Alliance and American for the Arts platform clearly called for a Arts advocate on staff in the administration. Then we heard cries for a cultural czar or a cabinet level position be established and internet petitions begin. It seems the work paid off.

According to the New York Times President Obama "has established a staff position in the White House to oversee arts and culture in the Office of Public Liaison and Intergovernmental Affairs." No other real information is in the article (copied below) other than the person who is to fill the position is Kareem Dale (brief bio from Google search and a link his campaign blog below).

I have to say I am sort of glad that the call for a Czar or Cabinet level position didn't pan out. I always felt that it was asking for trouble and I didn't quite like the idea a federal arts directive under any administration. But a staff position is a completely different angle and could be something that really works well for the arts. Of course without a job description and frankly with no idea what the Office of Public Liaison and Intergovernmental Affairs really does, I guess we will have to wait a bit to see what it really means.

I am going to remain optimistic. I hope that Mr. Dale is able at the highest level to help clearly define the value of arts in this country - for educational, cultural, and economical reasons (it's not like we artists have been doing that great job of it). We have a unique opportunity at this time to reinstate the value of the arts to society - our President and first family seem to be active arts participants by choice not force and in times of great change/challenges the arts usually become a touchstone for society. Let's put all of our creativity into creating great art and getting the word out and maybe we (with the help of the Obama administration) will be able to put the arts in a better position than they have ever been in.




Kareem Dale's Campaign Blog

Originally from Chicago, Illinois, Dale previously served as the National Disability Director for the Obama for America campaign. He also served on the Arts Policy Committee and the Disability Policy Committee for then-Senator Obama.

Dale graduated from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign with a Bachelor's degree in Advertising in May 1995. He received his JD/MBA in May 1999 from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, graduating Cum Laude. While attending law school, Dale was also active in community service, including serving as president of two organizations, the Black Law Students' Association and Open Forum.

New York Times
March 14, 2009

Arts, Briefly

Cultural Post at White House

By ROBIN POGREBIN; Compiled by Patrick Healy

President Barack Obama has established a staff position in the White House to oversee arts and culture in the Office of Public Liaison and Intergovernmental Affairs under Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser, a White House official confirmed. Kareem Dale, right, a lawyer who last month was named special assistant to the president for disability policy, will hold the new position. Mr. Dale, who is partly blind, previously served as national disability director for the Obama campaign. He also served on the arts policy committee and the disability policy committee for Mr. Obama when he was a senator from Illinois. Bill Ivey, who served as the administration’s transition-team leader for the arts and humanities, said he was encouraged by the appointment and would meet with Mr. Dale next week. “It’s a big step forward in terms of connecting cultural and government with mainstream administration policy,” Mr. Ivey said in an interview on Friday. The White House declined to describe the position in detail, since Mr. Dale’s appointment has yet to be formally announced. Mr. Ivey, a former chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, said he expected that the job would mainly involve coordinating the activities of the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute of Museum and Library Services “in relation to White House objectives.” Although there have been staff members assigned to culture under past presidents, they usually served in the first lady’s office, Mr. Ivey said.