The Times Devotes Some Major Space to Cultural Economics

It's pretty unusual that the New York Times, or any publication for that matter, goes into much depth about cultural economics - so if you're into that sort of thing (and I know my readers are!), I highly recommend reading Michael Kimmelman's thoughtful piece on the German performance venue Festpielhaus Baden-Baden.

As you probably are aware, European cultural policy is pretty much the opposite of American cultural policy (as in over there, almost all funds come from the government). In my experience, most American arts-makers swoon over this idea. I'm ambivalent. While far from perfect, I'm a big fan of the diversity in the American arts funding model. Anyway, Kimmelman's article goes into some really interesting detail about the pitfalls of state-funding arts - namely, inertia and complacency.

From the article:

...[T]he system, bloated and not everywhere well managed, inevitably produces much mediocrity. The reality is that about 20 percent of the budget for Berlin’s three struggling opera companies today must come from private contributions. Bayreuth scrambles to raise nearly half its budget from donations and ticket sales. It would have gone bankrupt by now if donors hadn’t made up for deficits due to bad leadership.

The concept behind the Festspielhaus was to rejuvenate this city of 50,000 as a cultural destination. “It was a revolution,” said Rüdiger Beermann, the Festspielhaus’s spokesman, “and also a blasphemy in Germany, even though it always used to be the dukes and the counts and the rich people who paid for the arts. At first nobody, absolutely nobody except our patrons supported the idea, and also the audience and the artists, who enjoyed coming.”

Mr. Mölich-Zebhauser elaborated on that thought one recent morning. “With the private sector comes enthusiasm, competence in finance and responsibility,” he said.

... “The truth is that Americans might do better to increase public funding for the arts a little,” he added. “And here we have to become a little less lazy.”

What's Next?

Adam Thurman has a great post today over at Mission Paradox about using a "who's next" strategy to recruit board members, like if you want to recruit a lawyer, instead of looking straight to the partners, maybe check out "who's next" in the succession line.

This reminded me of something a super-successful director once told me - that no matter what he's working on, he always has a "what's next" ready, like "I'd love to direct a version of King Lear in Sarajevo", or "I want to do a water-ballet version of The Trojan Women", or "I want to direct my friend's script about food poisoning". (None of these were his actual idea, which was so great I don't want to spill the beans on him.)

I am now addicted to "what's next". I love my job, I love going to school, but I know exactly what I would do if someone offered me $10,000 (or $100!). I know how to express my dream in one sentence. I'm not a director, but I think this is a brilliant way to approach any career in the arts.

Like your company just launched a successful new-play festival. What's next? A full production of one of the featured plays? An initiative to add a playwriting fellowship to next year's programming?

Or you just got a job at an organization you love. What's next? Thinking about going back to school part-time? Using your newfound fiscal stability to start a reading series? Writing a blog?

Or you were just selected for a prestigious directing fellowship. What's next? Setting a goal to re-mount one of your shows professionally? The Trojan Women as water-ballet? (Just kidding.)

On Priorities

Last semester, the big assignment in one of my classes was a group case study of a performing arts organization. On the day of our final projects, my very wise professor asked each group what the artists thought about working for these organizations. Most of us were stumped (luckily, my group had an answer). In all of our diligent research, ours was the only group to reach out to the artists employed by the company, and I'll admit that our efforts were pretty weak. Talk about a wake-up call.

No matter how basic this sounds, when you're sticking your arms elbow deep into Forms 990, balance sheets, and industry trend reports, it's hard to keep your priorities where they ought to be: on the art. Clearly, this effect can cause some big problems. I mean, why on earth would a respectable institution like the New York Theatre Workshop build a costume and scene shop, then promptly fire its entire production staff (see: ecoTheater)? I'm sure there are things going on there that I don't get, but it seems like a pretty lopsided decision to me.

To counter this disappointing turn of events, here's a story I came across via the Fractured Atlas blog: Luis Cancel, the newly appointed Director of Cultural Affairs for the City and County of San Francisco, declares that affordable housing for the city’s artists is a top priority. Hooray!

So, a New York theater fires its production staff in a move to stay fiscally afloat (so they say), and on the other side of the country, an entire city declares that artists are so important that keeping them around is a top priority.

I keep thinking about those blank stares offered up by myself and my classmates when asked about the artists' opinions. I mean, shouldn't that have been the first thing we checked? We were all pretty well prepared for questions about the institutions' fiscal health... but if the artists aren't happy, then you've really got nothing to sell. I'm not a big advocate for artist-managers, but this seems like a compelling argument for more direct managerial involvement in the production of art. (See the excellent 99 Seats for more thoughts on artist-manager integration.)

By the way, I'll say it again: Fractured Atlas is cool as hell. Read their blog. It is wonderful.