More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Michael Kaiser

GET UPDATES FROM Michael Kaiser
 

Why Do We Do This?

Posted: 07/18/11 09:19 AM ET

This is the most difficult time to be an arts manager in my 26 years in the profession.

The development of new technology has given our audience members new forms of entertainment and new ways to spend their discretionary time and money. This has made it far more difficult to sell tickets at prices that cover most, if not all, of the cost of production. People now entertain themselves with iPads, iPods, iPhones and numerous other electronic devices. They are entertained for so little money that high-priced performance tickets lose their appeal.

This is happening, of course, at a time of financial instability. This has made our audiences more price-sensitive and our donors less likely to make major contributions.

Of course, with more competition for entertainment dollars, we have to produce even more exciting and important art -- and this often costs more money.

But with earned and unearned income difficult to come by, risk-taking seems death defying rather than simply scary.

And our boards are pressuring for less risk and less expenditure of funds in this cash-constrained climate.

But risk-taking is necessary to attract new audiences who are not habitual arts consumers. Yet the reduction in coverage of the arts in the media makes communicating with these new audience members far more difficult.

And our audiences of the future -- young people, many of whom have had virtually no arts education -- have little or no exposure to the arts at all. As budgets get cut at every level of government, it seems education is the first area to be cut, especially arts education. (Even as politicians say that we must eradicate deficits to protect our children and grandchildren!)

But if we do not invest in our children's arts education, who will be our audience members, board members, donors and volunteers of the future? Are we working in a dying field?

It all seems like one large Catch-22 that is overwhelming and terrifying.

In the hundreds of conversation I have had with arts managers over the past year, the sense of fear is palpable. We all believe that the arts should play an increasingly important role in our world, that is not in question, but we simply do not know how to achieve greatness and stability in this changing environment.

Arts managers are working in new territory. We are pressured on many sides. It isn't easy. And it often isn't fun.

But then...

The curtain goes up on a simply beautiful production; audience members can't wait even to leave the theater to tweet about their remarkable experience; a busload of children exits the theater bubbling with excitement; you leave a meeting with astonishing, creative minds who challenge and excite you; members of the public stop you in the street to tell you how much they appreciated a recent festival.

Suddenly, the fears simply feel like challenges to overcome and going back to work each morning seems like a privilege rather than a sentence.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 6
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
01:23 PM on 07/25/2011
I wonder if we in the non-profit arts industry can learn from the demise of Borders. Borders was way behind the curve in technology innovation and how people consume books, which led to their downfall. It's not that people aren't reading anymore, it's that they don't read and purchase books they way they used to. Instead of going to brick and mortar stores to browse and purchase books, they purchase them online and read on e-readers. Borders made a big mistake and outsourced their online sales to Amazon. Furthermore, they did not launch an eReader or e-bookstore I believe until 2010. A few years back they launched a new concept store, which allowed consumers to download content and mix CDs in the store, but was still an attempt to drive in-store sales.

In the orchestra business, we are still so focused on driving "in-store sales" that we cannot allow ourselves to innovate and move our business to where the consumers and audiences are. They are downloading classical albums, checking out great performances on You Tube, yet we fear our art is lost. It's time to refocus our energy on using 21st century channels to deliver our content. New audiences will come to the hall or theater, but not without connecting to audiences online or on their phones first.
04:04 PM on 07/28/2011
Exactly spot on Kdylla, another correlation is the newspaper business, that seems to parallel audience trends for traditional readers (= subscribers to orchestras, theater, dance, etc...) and on-line readers. Look how newspapers like the NYTimes have branched out through partnerships, lectures, etc... not a panacea but it certainly makes them an important part of the information/cultural landscape. In the arts world we need to totally rethink not only how we deliver the arts to the public, but we must rethink our role in our communities. As managers we can create the platform for creative artists to do their best work, create partnerships and keep pushing the envelope. In these times it's a hard concept for many non-profit boards to accept, many members a have a passion for an idealized view of the arts. Artists, as well, especially musicians must go out of their comfort zones. Supporting the visionary in this climate is tough, but that is how we will make it through this.
09:19 AM on 07/25/2011
I recently saw Jerusalem, War Horse, and Sleep No More, all in one weekend. I was energized by the scope and originality of this work, but then realized with some sadness that they were all British imports, unlikely to have been developed in the US arts [funding] environment. But, as you note, when the lights goes up on something truly stunning, what matters is the work and all the other concerns fade into the background.
03:57 PM on 07/20/2011
Isn't it worth recognizing that there are major unmentioned differences within our "arts"? Take music as an example: There are musicians doing amazingly creative things charging in excess of $400 a ticket and who still have thousands of fans attending live concerts, even though those fans are tweeting, youtubing, mp3ing and all the other technology-ing that's out there. And then there are those who are playing it safe, subduing presentation, withholding digital presence and suffering with audience attendance.

Call me whatever, but this sounds like commercial music vs. [the modern-day presentation of] classical music. Berlioz was the Lady Gaga of his time with huge, extravagant productions and outrageous publicity. Bach was no different than Eminem on or off the stage (actually, I think B fathered many more children with different women than E has). Yet our obsession with boxing things into neat 'categories' seems to reflect those who survive vs. those who don't. It's embarrassing to read articles like this that focus on one aspect of one field in one 'industry' yet hide under a generic umbrella.

If we're going to talk about "the arts" then let's do that. I'd be more open to discussing this topic if it started with: "This is the most difficult time to be a [theater/ orchestra/ ballet/ youth arts center] manager in my 26 years in the profession." with the subsequent text being less generic about 'the arts' and focusing more on the sub-artform the author is actually concerned about.
10:02 AM on 07/20/2011
"But if we do not invest in our children's arts education, who will be our audience members, board members, donors and volunteers of the future? Are we working in a dying field?"

I find it amazing how arts administrators constantly leave out practicing artists as needing saving also.
That the administration of arts organizations feel the organization of art is more important than the creation of arts.

creating art IS a job
07:45 PM on 07/19/2011
So true. You touched on every thought that goes through my head in this job.