Joe Patti

I have been writing Butts in the Seats (BitS) on topics of arts and cultural administration since 2004 (yikes!). Given the ever evolving concerns facing the sector, I have yet to exhaust the available subject matter. In addition to BitS, I am a founding contributor to the ArtsHacker (artshacker.com) website where I focus on topics related to boards, law, governance, policy and practice. I am also an evangelist for the effort to Build Public Will For Arts and Culture being helmed by Arts Midwest and the Metropolitan Group. (http://www.creatingconnection.org/about/) My most recent role was as Executive Director of the Grand Opera House in Macon, GA. Among the things I am most proud are having produced an opera in the Hawaiian language and a dance drama about Hawaii's snow goddess Poli'ahu while working as a Theater Manager in Hawaii. Though there are many more highlights than there is space here to list.

CONNECT WITH JOE

[novashare_follow button_size="medium" button_shape="square" networks="twitter=https://twitter.com/buttsintheseats,linkedin=https://www.linkedin.com/in/joe-patti-14aa666/,subscribe=https://insidethearts.com/buttsintheseats/subscribe/"]

When You Grab That Cute Ball Of Fur, You Also Get The Teeth

by

Sometimes I wonder if my first entries for this blog were among some of the best because I seem to find myself drawn back to their topics more often than later entries. A recent piece [ed. original link is broken, updated with 2014 retrospective post] I read via Artsjournal.com by Melodie Bahan, the Director of Communications at the Guthrie Theatre makes me think back to the piece by Chris Lavin I wrote about early on. Bahan, like Lavin argues for better writing by arts journalists. Like Lavin, regarding the depth of coverage sports sports receive, Bahan notes that articles on movies provide a fair bit of background information to a reader while it is hard to discern between preview and review pieces for theatre.

Features about theater are often glossy, shallow puff pieces that are indistinguishable from reviews. I can’t count the number of times I’ve had someone say to me, after reading a feature story about a show that hadn’t opened yet, “Wow, great review in the paper today.” And the very sporadic stories that do get reported are disproportionately about money – or the lack thereof – and therefore focus on only the large theaters. Plus, because these stories are so sporadic and lacking in context, complex issues are boiled down to one line conclusions.
[…]
When the Playwrights’ Center or the Guthrie or Mixed Blood gets a grant, the papers run a paragraph culled from a press release announcing the grantor, grantee, amount and purpose. And then…? Our critics don’t have time to follow the money to see how it actually creates art because they have to write reviews of the six shows that opened this week, an interview with an American Idol reject who’s appearing in a touring production of Grease, another profile of that really gorgeous actress they’ve profiled twice this year, and a Valentine’s Day poem.

In this performing arts community, there are personalities and huge egos and unsung talent and incredible artistry and gossip and bad blood and conflict. Readers are being denied those stories because our writers are spending their time writing reviews that won’t be nearly as interesting, vital, or even as accurate.

Bahan points to the work of papers like Time Out Chicago as something of an ideal. (Though she admits she might not welcome their attention were it turned on her organization.) She cites as constructive contributions to the arts articles examining the causes behind the preponderance of Caucasians in Chicago theatre and the positive and negative impact of large commercial shows on the local theatre scene.

His stories are fully reported and sourced – nowhere in his stories did I read, “Some say…” or “The theater community is buzzing about…” – both phrases used by journalists who have no sources to confirm their own opinions. Real arts journalism is informative and detailed and interesting, and it makes theater relevant.

Artsjournal also carried a rebuttal interview with Claude Peck, senior arts editor for the Guthrie’s home town paper, the Star-Tribune. Peck acknowledges that theatre reviews are generally designed to advise people whether they should spend money on a performance or not. His most pointed criticism for Bahan was that it is difficult to do any substantive journalism because arts organizations, the Guthrie especially, deny them access.

He paused, somewhat dramatically: “Very difficult, for example, in the case of the Guthrie, which has had a long reputation of giving the barest minimum of cooperation for our newsgathering efforts.”

By this point, I realized this had become a February Festivus — a full-scale airing of grievances. Bahan had exorcised some demons about writers, and Peck was now unloading on subjects: If they plead for tougher journalism, they best not be hypocrites when their own phone rings.

“We recently did a story on Guthrie director Joe Dowling’s salary,” Peck said. “Melodie made it clear to me in a conference before the story ran that she and the Guthrie would officially participate in no way whatsoever, be of any help with any numbers for that story.”

He added, “I told her I didn’t blame her, and we would try to newsgather in any way we can. And fortunately, we found board members willing to speak on the record.”

After the piece ran, he says she wrote him an email “comparing that story to a Molotov Cocktail tossed into an already fearful community. And yet we did see the news value in that story: Dowling was making more than any New York not-for-profit theater director or any regional director — even discounting a one-time $100,000 bonus, he was at the top of the heap nationally. As the economy was heading into the shitter, we felt that was some news we wanted to write about.”

This all recalls portions of Chris Lavin’s earlier piece:

When compared to the open access a sports franchise allows, most arts organizations look like a cross between the Kremlin and the Vatican. Casting is closed. Practices closed. Interviews with actors and actresses limited and guarded. An athlete who refuses to do interviews can get fined. An actor or actress or director or composer who can’t find time for the media is not uncommon….How often have journalists either ignored or been kept from financial problems that plague many arts organizations until a “crisis” makes publicity — late as it is — unavoidable.

The parallels with Lavin’s observations go a little further in this case. Bahan criticizes the local papers for not sniffing out the massive financial troubles at Theatre de la Jeune Lune. Peck notes that the guarded status the arts world maintains kept his paper from confirming any rumors of problems Theatre de la Jeune Lune had for quite some time.

I just thought the whole situation was a great reminder to us all that when we bemoan the lack of good arts coverage, we should be mindful that what we wish for is a double edged sword situation and not entirely the ideal we envision.

Programming Comfort Food

by

I attended the season planning meeting of my block booking consortium today. As I suspected, many projects which would have been quickly picked up by the membership in recent years were deferred to other years because of financial concerns. One partner is going into a major retrenchment mode reducing their events from 10 to three or four. I left the meeting with fewer details solidified than in the past, in part because there were fewer tours available to collaborate on. There are a few dangling possibilities that I can pursue but I will have to work much hard to build a tour working on people individually than I would have in the meeting.

The situation was expressed best by one of the members. She spoke about her audiences orienting on “comfort food” rather than experimenting with new fare. While she isn’t moving toward more pop culture acts, many of the performers she is looking at have performed at her venue before or are similar enough to previous artists to provide audiences with a familiar reference point. Because of this approach, even though economics are driving so many decisions, she actually turned down the opportunity to present a less expensive, lesser known act that would be more intellectually challenging in favor of a much more expensive, better known one.

There were a couple positive outcomes to the meeting. A board member flew over with the director of his organization in an attempt to understand how the consortium worked. When a board member is motivated by financial uncertainty to involve themselves in some aspect of operations, it can be a iffy proposition. Negative judgments made after a short exposure to an unfamiliar process can be unhealthy for an organization. In this case, it was a positive experience all around because the board member asked a lot of questions and seemed to recognize that the problems they were facing were widespread and not particular to them or due to missteps by the director.

That was the second positive outcome of the meeting. For the first time since I have been a member of the consortium, people actually took the time to talk about a number of subjects. The people who attended the Arts Presenters conference last month spoke about the Marketing Segmentation Study Alan Brown from Wolf Brown spoke on. I was pleased, of course, since I am a believer in arts people taking the time to stay abreast of recent literature and generally stay informed.

There was also discussion of different strategies people are using in pricing, marketing and sponsorship. I took quite a few notes. The one idea I couldn’t believe I hadn’t thought of was providing show sponsors with the option of either having a full page ad in the program book or donating the space to a non-profit. That is a win all around since the sponsor gets points with both the theatre and another non-profit and gets to write off more of the sponsorship as a donation since they didn’t get the value of the ad space. The theatre gets the financial support and scores a few points with the non-profit and its supporters. The other non-profit gets increased exposure.

Is This The First Step To Better A Structure?

by

If you haven’t heard yet, Michael Kaiser, President of the Kennedy Center has decided to turn the Center’s resources, knowledge and expertise toward helping arts organizations around the country weather the current financial turmoil in a program called Arts in Crisis.

I am very hopeful about this effort and I want to encourage people to participate either as a seeker of knowledge or as a mentor. Like many people, I have some reservations. My primary concern was if he and his staff were really equipped to do this. It seems like a big job. I haven’t really been impressed by ArtsManager.org which is also a service they offer. The discussion boards are barely trafficked, resource area doesn’t have much and job boards are completely empty. I can participate in more lively discussion on blogs and other forums without having to register. There are much better free job and resource sites.

On the other hand, Arts in Crisis effort might be closer to the Kennedy Center, and certainly Kaiser’s true competencies. There are few organizations in the country who have the resources and knowledge to act as brokers of knowledge in this manner. Frankly, if this is going to work Kaiser might do well to tap those other few organizations to get involved and provide guidance, resources and leadership in encouraging people to become mentors. This may mean that Arts in Crisis needs to leave the Kennedy Center’s direct control if another has the infrastructure to marry knowledge with need. The National Performing Arts Conference Conveners and Partners, for example, have databases full of arts professionals and have had more personal and direct contact with them than the Kennedy Center has.

My optimism and hope is that the current necessity is the mother of invention of a method of partnering, mentoring, information sharing and learning that arts and cultural institutions sorely need. If some strengthening network emerges out the road Michael Kaiser and the Kennedy Center have started upon, that will be great.

My concern is that for this to happen there is a lot of resistance to overcome. People might have fear of revealing weaknesses to local competitors or fear of mentoring a competitor only to have them use the good advice to eclipse them. It might be best to match up people who aren’t too far away to drive for site visits but distant enough not to be in direct competition.

There might be fear of helping another organization will mean neglecting your own. Or people might just not think they have anything to offer. One of my initial thoughts was that I wished I had the knowledge necessary to help–forgetting for a moment that I have contributed a respectable amount of constructive feedback for the PACE construction project.

The truth is, a lot of arts professionals with a great deal to offer may not have the first clue about how to effectively mentor and provide feedback to others in the industry. It will probably be important for the Arts in Crisis team to provide training videos and printed materials to assist in the process. My suspicion is that it may take a lot of poking and prodding from discipline service organizations and state/local arts councils to get people to imagine themselves as a mentor and download the materials.

As I said, the best of all possible worlds will be one where the industry emerges with greater strength and unity, confident and having proved they are a force to be acknowledged by governmental entities.

Going beyond that, the ideal would be for many organizations to form productive partnerships and then be able to go out and instruct others in their core competencies. One group might have developed a crackerjack presenting consortium, another might have a great method for developing and producing new works in partnership with higher education writing and performing arts programs, still another might have successfully leveraged their collective purchasing power to share legal, accounting and facilities services.

What will ultimately strengthen us is not depending on the expertise concentrated in a few central entities. It is going to be cultivating collective strengths
and having a system by which others can access the knowledge, even if it is as simple as having a list of the right people to call.

Is Audacity What Counts?

by

In December I wrote that one of the initial speakers at the Arts Presenters conference was going to talk about how the current financial crisis evolved. Arts Presenters posted Jeremy Nowak’s conference remarks today. It is a little long, but if you are seeking an understanding of the forces and situations that came into play, he does a thorough job explaining things.

His suggestions on how arts organizations should operate in the new economic climate appear at the end of the piece. He talks about collaboration, emphasizing the economic and status quo smashing value of creativity and cautious management, but ambitious planning.

His observations under the heading “Defining What Counts” resonated with me most. (emphasis mine)

“A crisis brings an opportunity to define what is most important – the core part of what you do and what counts the most. In this sense, a crisis can be a painfully clarifying opportunity. A crisis also creates a political screen to eliminate legacy programs and initiatives that are hard to remove for historical reasons but can be justified at a point of financial duress. A crisis is a time to preserve what is core; organize your constituents (including funders) and define what efficiencies can be instituted.”

My first thoughts connected back to a story he told early on. He talks about how his organization is rebuilding a community made famous in HBO’s The Wire.

“Two weeks ago, in a magically irrational economic act, we purchased a liquor store that was selling alcohol to young people and functioned as a gathering place for drug distribution. We overpaid because its demise was worth more to us than the market value (and the owners knew it). We then added to this irrational act by publicly burning the liquor license – which we could have sold on the market for $75,000. At least it got us a good article and picture in the Baltimore Sun.”

My first thought was that this act defined what was important. It exemplified the an argument for investing in arts and culture in times of crisis. Even though there may be a higher cost involved, you pay it because it changes the dynamics of the community and improves the environment both directly and indirectly.

My second thought focused more on the sentence in bold above. Although Nowak meant it to be an internal practice, crisis very frequently provides a political screen to eliminate funding for arts programs in communities and schools. What it is that matters is not easily defined. The result is that often the trash trimmed away having been determined not to matter can very well be another person’s treasure.

Both Andrew Taylor and Greg Sandow have entries along these lines. Sandow specifically cites the oft used argument that if a government entity supports the arts, then babies will have to go without food and medicine. This seems a bit of a false choice because there are plenty of other categories of things you can choose to cut as well that can result in more people being fed. How many more children would be alive if legislators didn’t have franking privileges? Not a question entirely lacking in relevance given the NEA’s budget is generally measured as about two postage stamps per person in the U.S.

I want to make it clear that I haven’t really been a big proponent of some sort of arts bailout. I am still not convinced the sector is best served by jumping on the bandwagon. That said, I am beginning to think that the arts and culture industry ends up being treated thus because they are not audacious enough. There is never any money in the budget for the arts but we can go deeper into debt to bailout the banks, automobile companies and wage wars.

I will acknowledge that perhaps the production methods and business models the arts employ might be as behind the times as those of the automobile industry and are need of revamp. I have admitted as much throughout this blog. It really requires some cojones to take bailout money from the government meant to provide relief to debtors and pay yourself huge amounts in bonuses. Yet despite all the displeasure the U.S. citizens. and their president feel for this activity, the administration is still working their butts off to convince Congress to find a way to give them another infusion.

I know that arts organizations get “bailed” out by state, city and county governments and concerned citizens on a regular basis and in many cases, the organization is back asking for more a couple years later. But I can’t think of any who have been accused of so blatantly misdirecting these funds the way the financial sector has, much less on the same scale. The peril is genuine.

I begin to think that maybe we should be standing up and asking for a bailout. While the effort should be entirely serious, the ultimate goal might not be to get the money as to become less timid about asking. If the banks aren’t cowed by the idea of people being dispossessed of their homes and belongings, maybe we shouldn’t be deflected in our efforts by protests that saying yes to us means people will die or live in agony. I think we are all comforted by how empathetic arts and culture people are but I wonder if the recognition of that is being employed to manipulate us.