The Torpedo Factory

There is an old torpedo factory on the waterfront in Old Town, Alexandria, Virginia. Now, pretend you're an arts administrator, and try to imagine what is the best possible re-purposing use of a building like this, provided there is no longer a market for that many torpedos. A non-profit arts center, of course, would be your answer. I visited last weekend, and though the idea was simple, I was really taken with the implementation of it. Its name and logo reflects its original use, and its interior structure has retained much of its original character, as well. The inside space has be split into smaller units that are usually shared by two artists, and used as both work studios and gallery sales spaces. On a Sunday afternoon when I was there, many of the artists were working or selling work in their space.

A few good things happening here:

• An opportunity is created for a conversation between artist and patron; many times a patron is more likely to purchase art, and it means more to them, when they develop a connection with the artist

• Putting lots of artists in one space creates a nice community for the artists

• Putting lots of artists in one space creates a fertile ground for idea exchange and artistic progress, many times resulting in higher quality work

• Putting lots of artists in one space creates a better sales opportunity, as patrons can go and find them all easily. If the artists were spread all over town, people would never make it to all of them in a day.

• Putting lots of artists in one space creates more possibility for exposure to art that a patron would not seek out on his own. Ex. You go to look at the oil paintings, and discover you like ceramic sculpture.

• Provides a lower-cost option for an artist than having his own studio

• Surrounding community probably benefits from having hip cool artists around - people are attracted to the area and generate economic activity in the coffee shops, restaurants, clothing stores, etc. (Though, as a good student of Dr. Rushton, I have to disclaim about the ability to generate an exact price tag for the economic impact.)

• An old building was not torn down so a new one could go up - the old one, full of character, was used for a new purpose, retaining character in the neighborhood, but allowing for new activity to thrive

• Torpedo Factory does the marketing for the group, like an antique mall

• Torpedo Factory is in a prime location in Old Town, and on the Potomac River, that artists probably wouldn't have access to for work spaces otherwise (the views out some of the studio windows are breathtaking)

• Torpedo Factory uses the building for special event rentals, and has a gift shop, for ancillary income. (From this gift shop, I bought an embroidered patch for my backpack. I like souvenirs, and I like to show my support of places doing cool things.)


What are some other benefits we can think of? Or any major drawbacks?







I took these photos during my visit. Yes, I brightened them in Photoshop. Don't judge - I had to - it was dark in there.

Smithsonian packs a (free) party and brings home the bacon

The Smithsonian was a zoo this weekend! (The cultural activity of my Oct 17; I'm almost up to date.) It was rainy outside, the museum was free, and the people came. There were children and strollers and umbrellas and wheelchairs. I was trying to decide if the museum staff was elated or frustrated.



My friend Stacie, who was visiting from out of town, commented that she really appreciated that all the Smithsonian museums are free. I said I definitely agree, but was surprised they were not more aggressive in collecting donations at the door - usually people will give a small amount when enjoying something free (this is how all NCTA folk festivals operate - what we call the "bucket brigade" - where volunteers wander the grounds and collect money in buckets). Maybe wandering is less appropriate in a museum, but they could have large donation signage and containers at the entrances. It occurred to me that maybe they don't solicit individual donations, because they receive a dominant amount of money from the government -- but I checked and there's a donate option on the Smithsonian website. I don't know how much of their income comes from public money versus private contributions, so I looked it up on GuideStar (a great resource). Here's the rundown: Their revenue was just under $493.5 million in 2008. Of this, $129 million was from public support, $119 million was from government contributions, $74 million came from program service revenue, $50 million came from membership, $43 million came from sales of inventory (gift shop, cafe, maybe?), and the rest was mostly split between assets sold, interest on savings, and special events (remarkably small at $262 thousand - recalling to mind a valuable lesson that special events are not all they're cracked up to be, in terms of relative earning potential). Their expenses came in at $406 million, giving them a solid bottom line in the black of about $85 million. So what have we learned? The Smithsonian is financially responsible, and has amazing free museums, with really high attendance, especially on rainy days.

We also ventured into the East building of the National Gallery of Art and perused the contemporary art floor. My favorite viewing was Matisse's Paper Cutouts, on special exhibit, the bright colors of which covered entire walls. He began to make them when he was recovering from surgery and painting was physically difficult.

Photos are of the main hall of the Natural History Museum, and an overhead shot of the Sea Life wing. I took both of these. The one below is me in front of the Smithsonian Castle, taken by Stacie.

Working Waterfront Festival

On September 25-27, I traveled with an NCTA co-worker to help out at the Working Waterfront Festival in New Bedford, Massachusetts. It was sunny Saturday and rained hard on Sunday (part of reporting the how-it-went of any outdoor festival inevitably includes a weather report). During the very last dreary hours on Sunday, there was scheduled to be the second performance of the New Bedford Harbor Sea Chanty Chorus. They already had one performance earlier in the day, the festival was nearly empty of its visitors, and the rain location for the concert was in a building a bit off the beaten path; suffice it to say I had low expectations for the turnout. Assigned to serve as the coordinator and presenter, I showed up half hour before the start of the set, prepared to say, "You know, you guys don't have to perform; I'm so sorry to say there may not be an audience to appreciate your songs." I didn't get a couple words into this sentence when they said, "Oh, not to worry! We're used to singing for ourselves! It'll be fine! And someone might show up to listen - you never know!" So they went on, and slowly but surely, people started to trickle in the warehouse. They pulled up chairs and the singers circled around them; an inverted and encompassing experience for listeners. Grandchildren showed up with bright eyes; neighbors came. I sat and listened quietly. They sang about their town, their traditions, the sea, the fishermen, and the Schooner Ernestina that they all volunteer and raise money to restore. They forgot some of the words to their songs, but the inside of the warehouse glowed with their spirit. And this is what it reminded me: festivals have different purposes. The NCTA folk festivals serve to bring artists and types of music to towns that otherise wouldn't be exposed to them; they focus on access and exposure; they bring in something new. The Working Waterfront Festival serves to encourage a community to come together and discuss its working culture, political issues related to commercial fishing, and celebrate its unique identity; it relishes and renews something old. So this is what all people who work in events, festivals, and arts orgs should ask themselves: what is the purpose of this event, who is it really for, and measure its success by how well it serves that purpose and those people. The Working Waterfront Festival left me feeling very satisfied. And I'm not even from New Bedford.

Self Publishing

I came across this website: lulu.com where one can upload their writing, design a book cover, and start selling their own book instantly, without years of publishers reading manuscripts and saying "no thank you" before getting a break. I'm naturally skeptical, as this process bypasses the normal publishing and distribution system. I was taught that consumers view their time, not their money, as their most valuable resource - so they won't sit through the consumption of things they don't enjoy (movies, books, concerts). For this reason, we have gatekeepers - experts in respective fields that produce movies, books, etc, that say red light, green light, on projects depending on their quality and potential to sell well. (Though keeping in mind, "nobody knows," via Rushton and Caves, which is why we have flops sometimes.) Gatekeepers help weed out lesser quality projects from reaching the public, and make it easier for average consumers to find things they enjoy, without having to sort through every artist in a field themselves.

That said, gatekeepers became less important in the music industry, when homegrown bands started uploading their music on the web, sharing it, and experiencing success by the popularity democratically gained. Record labels are still useful, however, for marketing and distribution, and assumption of risk, but the way something becomes popular has definitely changed. I wonder if this could happen next with books. Lulu does rank top sellers right on their front page, so you can buy what other people buy - generally a good indicator you might like something. I guess the question would be, is are major book publishers paying attention? Are they cruising for their next bestselling author on these sites? (And if they bite, does it decrease their risk, because they have evidence this writer is already somewhat popular?) Or will they continue to read manuscripts and find their authors and take risk in the usual way?

NEA's New Chairman: "Mercurial"

The NEA has a new Chairman: Rocco Landesman. Here is a nice profile of him from the NYTimes.

Highlights of the story for me were the following:

His leadership style: smart, decisive and “a very entertaining person to be around,” but also “mercurial,” “unpredictable” and “an extraordinarily hardheaded businessman.” I'm always interested in leadership style - and particularly like the word "mercurial" meaning "subject to sudden or unpredictable changes of mood or mind; sprightly, lively" when we perhaps typically think of good leaders as the antonymous stable or steadfast.

His branding with a slogan: The new chairman said he already has a new slogan for his agency: “Art Works.” It’s “something muscular that says, ‘We matter.’ ” The words are meant to highlight both art’s role as an economic driver and the fact that people who work in the arts are themselves a critical part of the economy. As for the former agency slogan, “A Great Nation Deserves Great Art,” he said, “We might as well just apologize right off the bat.” Really interesting - illustrating the undertones of a slogan - equating the language of appealing to what we deserve to an apologetic nature.

He must be reading Richard Florida: “When you bring artists into a town, it changes the character, attracts economic development, makes it more attractive to live in and renews the economics of that town,” he said. “There are ways to draw artists into the center of things that will attract other people.”

His money source for projects: Given the agency’s “almost invisible” budget, he said, goals like these would require public-private partnerships that enlist developers, corporations and individual investors. I like this a lot - my fiscally conservative upbringing still makes me question how much public funding should go into the arts - though not the merit of the art or the importance of it finding alternative funding sources than the traditional market provides - so I'm a big fan of private sources (developers/corporations/investors) trading resources for benefit and creating partnerships.

Trouble with Merchandise Sales

I went to Richmond, Virginia, with the NCTA for a couple days last week for planning meetings for the Richmond Folk Festival. While there, we stopped in a local music store that is an old favorite of my co-workers. The store is apparently not faring well, in part due to the economy, in part because CD sales are down due to the popularity of digital music downloading. Josh spoke to someone working there and reported back to the rest of us this fun fact: To compete with the downloading trend, some of the suppliers have been discounting CDs to only $6 or $7 dollars. The result has been an apparent skyrocket in sales, but only in the 80's hair metal band genre.

Next, during one of the meetings, we were discussing how to drive merchandise sales at the festival. We want to use some kind of incentive to encourage the marginal patron to buy. (Those who want to buy already are, those who don't, won't, but we want to capture the people on the fence about it - right at the margin.) Generally, this is done with price discrimination pricing structures - where the front row theater tickets are still $100, but you can sit up in the balcony for just $30 - so you don't lose the revenue of those willing to pay more, but you capture the "maybe" buyer with the incentive of reduced price tickets. Anyway, the problem with these folk festivals is that admission is free, and CD prices are all set by the artists, not within our jurisdiction to offer at reduced prices. One suggestion was made of offering a prize of a complete set of CDs - one from each artist at the festival - to one lucky winner in a contest you were entered to win with the purchase of any piece of merchandise. Not bad. But not sure that's enough to drive sales. Is there a way to offer incentives to marginal buyers to drive sales, without changing prices?

I'm also wondering why some markets can support $20 for an official poster (the Ann Arbor Street Art Fair), and some struggle to sell many for $5 (Richmond Folk Festival). The merchandise is similar - reproduced from original art work with similar appeal. The easy answer would be in the demographic differences between the audiences, which I don't have enough information about to report on, except that attendees of art fairs are there to purchase things, attendees of free music festivals go in without the expectation of purchasing things. But I wonder if it also has to do with the heritage of the event - the art fair being 50 years old, and the folk fest being 5 - and people kind of "wanting a piece" of something with more lineage? Any other ideas?

The essence of programming, and a roadtrip mix

Program is an overused, tired word - anyone can call anything a program. But in the context of the arts, there's a big difference between a quality program and a pointless one, or a season being well or poorly programmed: How well did we really communicate with the audience? Did we do anything to bring new light to the work? Did the art presented mean something together, as a body of work?

A programmer for a presenting arts organization, for an outdoor music festival, say, or a performing arts center, selects work from a variety of sources, to be presented to the public as a collection. A good programmer presents some background information: here's why these works were selected - here's what they mean in context of each other - here is why this work is artistically important, and what we are trying to do for the world by presenting it - here are the themes and ideas that can be extracted from each individually and as a group - and here's what I hope you'll be able to take away from seeing them together. For a producing organization, this function is performed by the artistic director, who selects the work the company will perform that year. At a museum, this job is done by the curator, who selects different individual works and puts them together to create an an exhibit focused on a time period, or theme, or genre.

The important thing, I think, is this: A programmer does not just select random work and set it before the audience, hoping for magical fireworks of understanding, but rather uses his background and expertise to give information, a short, informal education to the audience about the work (plural) and its relevance as a collection.

I went to a concert here in DC of the University of Michigan Men's Glee Club spring tour, in which my brother was singing. I was struck by how extraordinarily well their director, Dr. Paul Rardin, programs and presents the program to the audience. The concert was split into sections, with themes such as "House of God" and "Youth and Pleasure" and "Love and Water" which would otherwise seem nebulous to an audience not well-versed in the music. With Rardin's brief, insightful explanations before each section, however, the audience became privy to the intricacies of sound to listen for, the meaning of foreign-language lyrics, and the connection between the varied cultural traditions from which the songs originated - it was impressive how much meaning was packed into what could otherwise seem to be a simple selection of songs. I could look around and see by the delighted faces responding positively to his witty remarks, many were able to better enjoy and understand the music. A true expert and excellent programmer - who prioritizes not only the music, but equally important, the audience's appreciation for it.

So Rardin being a good example of a programmer, I am truly a lower-end one, but here is my lesser quality example that illustrates my new idea about programming at its simplest:

My mom and I went on a road trip to her home state of Nebraska a few weeks ago to see our family and say goodbye to my grandpa's house. For the twelve-hour car ride west on highway 80, I put together a burned CD for her, made up of songs about "home, travel, and leaving," I called it. Its tone was a solemn one. I pointed out the lyrics to her, "one more song about moving along the highway" in So Far Away, and "Home where my thought's escaping" in Homeward Bound. And as she said, "You know how much I love Carole King!" I said back, "Well, it's my small attempt at programming."

And then it occurred to me, I think the mixed tape (I'm just barely old enough, but I did indeed make mixed tapes in the 90s before CDs came out) is one of the greatest rudimentary programming endeavors that we've all tried our hand at. You put together a collection of carefully selected works with a common theme or story, and hand it off to someone else with a perhaps fumbled explanation, hoping the collective message, if you've communicated it accurately, will be as meaningful to them as it is to you.

Shepard Fairey and the Obama poster

This flashed me right back to Langvardt's art law class.

Artist Shepard Fairey is the creator of the famous Obama "hope" poster. But the high-contrast, red and blue shadowed images were apparently based on an Associated Press photograph, taken by freelance photographer Mannie Garcia. (Additionally, there still seems to be some contention about who holds the copyright between Garcia and the AP, but we might suppose Garcia took the photo on a work-for-hire basis granting the AP the copyright). The parties sued and counter-sued, and I've google-news searched it and I can't find any results. So the question stands: did Fairey violate copyright law?

Fairey's poster is a derivative work, and only the owner of a copyright maintains the right to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work. Strike, he's out?

Fairey might argue "fair use." Fair use includes use "by reproduction...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching..., scholarship, or research..." and is not considered copyright violation, meaning you can use someone else's work without permission and without paying them if you're using it for these purposes. Fairey might claim commentary, but this wouldn't be obvious without his explanation. These four factors must also be considered in determining if the use of a work is fair use: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes (Purpose of the original was to report the news, the purpose of the derivative was to influence a campaign and project an opinionated image of a candidate, giving the derivative some transformative boasting rights; that said, Fairey sold his posters and kept the money); (2) the nature of the copyrighted work (the photograph had been published); (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole (derivative used one of the two significant features of the photograph); and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work (use has definitely INCREASED, not damaged, the market value for the original work to $1,200 apiece for prints).

What do we think?

I might argue an additional consideration is that Fairey's Obama image is not so obviously derived from Garcia's photo, until you put them side by side. Obama is a consistent looking guy, generally lacking any drastic facial expressions - most photos of him look similar. A talented arist could render an image of him that looks seemingly identical to a thousand pictures of him. Garcia himself did not recognize Fairey's image as a derivative of his own. A Reuters photo by Jim Young was so similar, the photo was incorrectly reported as the source of the poster image, for some time. Fairey used only a portion of the original photograph; if the original was a zoom-in on Obama's face, it might be different.

Copyright infringment is qualified by three factors: (1) access to the original work can be proven (Fairey found the pic on google. Check.), (2) there was copying of the distinct expression of the original work, not just the idea, or style, (Maybe...AP/Garcia has a copyright on the composition of the photo, not on Obama's facial features and posture.) and (3) the substantial similarity to the original work is evident – that is, there is enough copying that it could not seem coincidental to an average observer (The buck stops here....) If I looked at Garcia's original photo, and all other Obama photos, and realized as I have that his facial expression is about the same, the copying of the head tilt in Fairey's poster would probably seem coincidental to me. It's not; Fairey did use Garcia's pic. But it took months for anyone to notice, and hours for image searchers to put the two together.

Arts supporters walk a fine line regarding which way we wish copyright law to fall - both sides are worthy of support: 1) you want intellectual property to be protected so artists can make a living from what they create, and have incentive to create, but 2) you don't want it too strict, so other artists can make new art from old art and not stiffle new work.

Contribution to a more peaceful world

Hunt and I didn't always agree, but I credit him with this good idea that I've held on to and have repeated for others: If we can expose people to art, to live performances, and thus to culture that they were previously unaware of, or misunderstood, and their new understanding causes them to connect with people different than themselves, in a new way, then we as arts administrators can make a difference; that is our contribution to a more peaceful world.

I thought of that recently when I read Tribeca Film Festival is hosting a second Tribeca film festival in Doha, the capital of Qatar, defined as an independent, progressive Arab state. "...The festival aims to bridge the east-west divide and showcase the most innovative films from the region." One leader emphasized developing a healthy climate of freedom of expression.

Sponsorship matchmaking

Now here's a good idea. This company is called Festival Media Corporation. They match big companies that want to engage in experiential marketing by being corporate sponsors of events (fairs, festivals, rodeos, etc.) with events whose audiences are appropriate for the market segment the company is trying to reach.

If I were running a festival today, I would want to be in these guys' database. They'd send the sponsors my way; I wouldn't have to hunt them down.

Facebook and copyright law

A friend directed me to this article about Facebook.

Facebook, apparently, can use your photos, videos, or any other content you upload on your profile in any way they want, even after you deactivate your account.

Now I remember in Prof. Langvardt's class, I learned a copyright on creative work is applied automatically when the work is created. No one can use your work without your permission, of course, even if it's just facebook photos and you haven't registered for a copyright. You are automatically protected.

So I wonder about the legal intersection of these two policies. I'm sure Facebook is a responsibly run company and they wouldn't have legal policies that weren't well researched, and they're so high profile, it'd be too high of a PR liability if they were to actually use a user's photos inappropriately. But out of principle, I bet their users aren't aware what they're giving up rights to.

Stimulus package - "arts: bonbons for a leftist elite"

I'm back home in Michigan to visit my parents for a bit. I was without internet for a bit, then traveling across Michigan to see friends for another bit, and I am behind on my posting. So back to it.

On Feb 6, the Senate voted to eliminate funding from the stimulus package to help "...museums, theaters and arts centers...." Apparently, some conservatives denounced the arts as "bonbons for a leftist elite." In the final package approved this week, however, $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts was included, after supporters argued for the economic impact of the arts.

This raises one of our most common questions in arts admin; should the arts get public funding, and why? And to complicate it, during an economic crisis? And to complicate it FURTHER, with the justification of economic impact?

I won't ever agree that the arts are "bonbons" of frivolity to our functioning in society. But in the face of crisis, I understand that perception. If the stimulus package were giving money only to the basics to get things up and running again, I'd say leave the arts out (though I make myself an enemy of my field in doing so). To argue for the economic impact of arts to keep them on the bill, too, has its flaws. The arts rarely cover costs independently; they rely on generous donations and grants. Yes, they employ a lot of people and generate tourism and spending, but so do restaurants, so do athletics. I'm trained to think you can't fund the arts based on their economic impact, because they're then expected to play by those rules that says what makes money deserves to stay, and the arts have always rendered their value outside of economics.

Am I happy I'm going to be paying through the nose for this bill until I'm 80? No. But as long as everything else got money (and there are pork projects on there more frivolous than arts) I guess I'm glad the arts weren't left behind. Though justifying funding the arts through economics is treading on wobbly ground.

NYTimes article on it here:
Saving Federal Arts Funds: Selling Culture as an Economic Force

Fairness: Loyalty versus accessibility

At Sundance, tickets are in high demand, especially for premiere category films and particular screenings in the first few days. We don't say a film "sold out" because it may still be possible for people to get tickets in the waitlist line - but this does not appease many patrons who have bought ticket packages and called to fulfill them over our call-in line and can't get tickets to the screenings they want. Some patrons have been coming to Sundance for years, even decades, and understandably become frustrated that their lottery-assigned time to reserve tickets is later in the process and tickets for some screenings have run out.

Shouldn't they have had the chance to get the best tickets first? Shouldn't they be rewarded for loyalty? Good question.

In many arts non-profits it seems a good idea to offer preferential treatment (such as early ticket selection opportunity) to long-standing patrons, especially those paying big bucks for large ticket packages. The problem is, in an organization as big as Sundance, with an enormous number of people who have been long-standing patrons, plus the number of people who come in as part of the industry/press and artist groups, we would run out of tickets for anyone else if we rewarded everyone who has some kind of connection or loyalty to the organization.

Sundance honors a strong commitment to be accessible to a wide developing independent audience, and also to give some priority to the local Utah community. To be true to these goals, we have to make tickets available to these groups, not just those already in the industry, and those that have been attending for years. The most fair way the ticketing dept has found to make tickets available is with a lottery system - you register to get a time slot and one is randomly assigned to you within a few-day period. This results in happy people, who got early time slots, and generally less-happy people who got later time slots. This puts everyone on the same playing field for ability to obtain tickets.

The idea of accessibility is something we ponder a lot in grad school. As arts administrators, is it our jobs to make the arts accessible to all? To break down stereotypes and social barriers that serve up the arts as "elite?" It seems an ideal notion; art for all. And I've noted this week that this commitment comes at a price - telling loyalists preferential treatment is not available and perhaps risking their support and some sales. It's particularly difficult to honor this when other organizations CAN give preferential treatment to some (often without sacrificing accessibility for all). But I like Sundance's ideals - regardless of how big and popular they get, they seem to stay true to their roots "supporting independent artists and audiences." So I continue to explain on our customer service line this week..."I'm sorry you got a later ticket selection time, but this is the most fair way for everyone to have a chance to get tickets."

Democratization and gatekeeping

It's a common idea that entertainment has become more democratized with user-generated content dominating more of our attention in everything from blogs to videos to computer games.

YouTube presents a problem along with its opportunity: no gatekeeper function, resulting in bad videos. With no way to filter what content is good and bad, fewer people will use the service as a form of browsing entertainment. (I know it's most useful to my peers when we need to deliver a newly-made presentation to a group without transporting hardware.)

The Onion's reporting on this is very funny.

So they're stepping up with a little gatekeeping; or at least a way to steer users to making and viewing better content. This is what I've noticed so far:

YouTube Project: Report
In partnership with the Pulitzer Center, the project asks users to submit content that tells a 5-min documentary-style story. It's a contest "intended for non-professional, aspiring journalists to tell stories that might not otherwise be told." The winners were decided in Dec and now these videos are being promoted on the homepage.

YouTube Project: Direct
In partnership with the Sundance Film Festival 2009, the project asks users to submit short 5-min films incorporating 3 famous props. With a grandprize of a trip to Sundance and a screening of your film there, YT is pushing users to SUBMIT better content. Also by asking users to vote on the 10 selected finalists, YT is helping viewers to find better content to WATCH (and serving some artistic purpose, drawing some attention to young filmmakers.)

YouTube Symphony Orchestra
If you're a musician, you download your part of the custom-written song, and practice, and record and upload yourself playing it. And you can view other people playing their parts to see how you measure up. They then select winners to go play in Carnegie Hall. This is also interesting for what it means for the arts; a new way to find artists, an online-based community for musicians to connect and collaborate, etc.

What do we think? Will efforts like this increase YouTube's use for entertainment purposes, rather than simply looking up music videos? I took a few minutes and watched the Project:Direct finalist short films. Some were ok...

Airfare and arts: What are you paying for?

I travel around a bit, so I'm on the constant search for cheap flights. I flew over the weekend to Omaha to be with my family for Christmas. I went Southwest, one of my favorites, due to their low and predictable prices. Spirit is also incredibly cheap, offering fares often under $50. Explaining my flight options to my family, someone said, "how can some airlines offer fares so cheap, when others are so expensive?"

I thought for a moment, and knew the answer. Fares are cheap when there is less variety or choice in where and when you fly. You can only fly to a limited number of cities, and/or fly on very specific days. They keep prices low because they ONLY offer what is most cost-efficient for their company to produce, which may mean flights close to their headquarters, or flights between popular cities.

This reminded me of Rushton's explanation about the cost of books (the literary art form). Why are books cheaper in grocery stores or big-lots stores than they are in bookstores? Because the grocery stores only offers the absolute best sellers, a small variety, only what they know will sell and cover its own cost (John Grisham, Mary Higgins Clark, etc). Bookstores, whether small/independent or Barnes & Noble, offer more variety, so prices are higher to cover the cost of stocking lesser-bought books like poetry (they're a bookstore; it's their job to have variety, but they still have to pay for it somehow).

This also applies to performing arts, as explained by Doug Booher. Shows can be more expensive at performing arts centers that have more variety, because the blockbuster shows are underwriting the more experimental shows that don't cover their costs. The same with museums - they bring in the blockbuster special exhibitions that will bring in enough admission fees/sponsorships to cover other smaller or lesser-known but equally artistically important endeavors.

The arts are considered a “mixed commodity” because they are in part a private good – they can be sold to an individual purchaser and their benefits are enjoyed specifically by him (the ticket to a concert, for example). They are also in part a public good, because their presence enriches society as a whole (preservation of collective cultural heritage, prestige and identity conferred upon a body of people, developing aesthetic public tastes, etc, suggested by economists Baumol and Bowen). I might argue many other services are like this that we don't realize; enriching society in the form of options from which we may not individually benefit, but rather benefit indirectly, collectively, simply from their presence. (Example: Do we perceive our country to be more free, mobile, and well-off, if we have seemingly infinite commercial flight options, even if we ourselves do not take advantage of them? And are we as a whole benefited by this mindset? Do we take pride and comfort in knowing we COULD go somewhere if we need or want to, or that our children will have the opportunity to take advantage of these options in the future, contributing to more peace of mind? It may not be tangible, exactly, but the spillover externalities could be far-reaching.)

Point is, in many situations, when you're wondering about the price of something, consider if you're paying ONLY for what you yourself get (private good), or if you're paying for the options you have, or for the availability of lesser-popular offerings, the mere presence of which, it might be argued, enrich society as a whole.

Mary & Max

Mary & Max is our opening film at Sundance on January 15; it's an animated claymation film for adults about a reclusive middle-aged man in New York and his penpal, a little girl in Australia.

A couple interesting things here:

First, the filmmakers used Skype to collaborate on the film, over the course of 13 months. This is an example of technology advancement enabling the arts, rather than providing competition, as we often think of it.

Second, the style of photographer Diane Arbus inspired the visual thematics; evidence intellectual property law shouldn't be too strict, because good new art comes from old art, and makes the world better (uses old ideas in new ways, connects ideas, etc.)

read it all here:
http://festival.sundance.org/2009/news/article/the_odd_couple/

first week at Sundance

My arts admin classmates and I have started a blog to keep in touch, and so it is there that I wrote the update of my first week at Sundance. You can read it here.


I will add this here:
On my first day, orientation was supposed to start at 9 AM, and we were pushed back an hour, while the big wigs had a emergency budget meeting. I heard later the result of this meeting was a 20% budget cut. The festival usually runs on about $10 million a year. They just cut it to $8 million (4 weeks before the festival); not because they don't HAVE the money, but because they're conservatively trying to SAVE the money, as the future is uncertain with the economy.
It was also noted that, on the other hand, they feel an obligation to spend it, because that's why donors give it - they want to see their money go toward the mission of the organization, not sit in a bank account somewhere. This year, however, safety wins.

Witch hunt

Thanks to Scott for pointing me toward this article. I've been up on the Prop 8 news, but this adds a new layer of complexity.

Since Prop 8 passed in California, denying gay people the right to marry, activists and gay rights advocacy groups have been making noise across the country. We even had a protest here in Bloomington. In particular, high-profile individuals that made donations to the Mormon church's heavy-handed effort to pass the proposal, have come under attack. (I blogged about this before, in regards to Sundance. But this post addresses a different issue.)

Notably, the director of the LA Film Festival, Richard Raddon, stepped down from the position he has held for eight years, after his donation was made public. Similarly, Scott Eckern stepped down from his position as artistic director of California Musical Theatre in Sacramento, after a protest in reaction to his donation that came to light. Admittedly, it seems counter-intuitive: a guy running a film festival in LA or a musical theater company in Sac could support a cause against gay rights? Raddon claimed a vague separation of his social beliefs and his religious obligation, if that explains it. Regardless. What seems more counter-intuitive, and to me is really the issue at stake, is that leaders in the arts community can be forced out of their jobs for holding unpopular beliefs. These are people whose career objective is to support and bring exposure to minority voices and contrary, often counter-culture, ideas, through film, music, and theater. If their organizations are anything like most non-profit arts orgs, these directors work every day to make the world a safer place for alternative-thinking art and people. And in this case, they themselves held the unpopular viewpoint, and expressed it monetarily. And now they're being persecuted by those who generally benefit from the work of their organizations. Ironic, right? (It should be noted the Board supported Raddon, citing his commitment to equality and diversity as a director, and were unwilling to fire him for his personal/religious activities. Well done. He stepped down, it seems, based on public pressure.)

It's hypocritical - these activists believe in rights for all, but then insist those who hold different opinions not be able to express their rights (in this case with a donation). You can't protest for equal rights, and then deny them to those who disagree with you.

The way I understand it, we are all constitutionally guaranteed equal rights, and if some are denied the right to marry when others are not, their rights are being violated. BUT we can't force people out of a job for disagreeing based on their religious affiliations. That's discrimination, and violating their rights.

If you support equal rights, practice what you preach: leave the individuals alone who don't support them. They're entitled to an opinion, same as you, without jeopardizing their professional careers. Quit the witch hunt, and instead of targeting individuals, protest the proposition or the institutions that supported it. If anything, protest to revoke the Mormon church's non-profit status due to their teetering political activity incompliance.

More on Patricia Martin's RenGen, and the careers of artists

Patricia Martin also notes in her interview that the Renaissance Generation, regarding their involvement in art and creative work, "doesn’t have the same negative notions about commercial work.... Rather than waiting 30 years to see if the Museum of Modern Art finds their work worthy, they will shoot a 30-second spot for DDB Needham [a highly-ranked advertising agency]....They are also incredibly savvy about when they are being marketed to, so you cannot lie to them." They're market-savvy and artistic, and so likely have a knack for creating advertising that is more honest and interesting. This means artists can find steady company work that is also somewhat artistically fulfilling. I think you see ads that have more artistically advanced cinemotography and concepts all the time; artists undoubtedly have value in the commercial world. (Examples: AmEx, Cadillac)

Strategy-wise, the advertising industry has recently engaged in a blurring of the line between advertisement and entertainment. As I first learned in a marketing class back in undergrad, advertising is becoming so easy for consumers to bypass, traditional ads don't work anymore. One tactic to solve this is product placement. Another is to make ads that become a form of entertainment in themselves. I think good examples of this are recent commercials featuring new musicians/songs (Hilton features Brett Dennen, Old Navy features Ingrid Michaelson, Jeep features Steve Poltz.) Other companies generate web content so good that the consumer is driven to seek out the ad, often sharing it with friends (example: Axe Body Spray). Who is contributing to these ads? Artists, whether hopeful filmmakers, musicians, or script writers.

Artists not opposed to commercial employment can find a home in this line of work, as Martin suggests they would be good at, and as the market now demands more creative advertising.

Martin goes on to observe, however, that "Unlike their parents, who would have stayed at the [advertising] agency, [young artists] will use that money to fund their independent documentary." It's a good market match: artists need jobs to make money to finance future independent work, and advertising companies need creative workers (and probably don't mind high turnover for fresh ideas). And that takes us back to the role of entrepreneurship. If they navigate ways to financially achieve their own work earlier in their careers, we may see artists finding success and being recognized for their own work at a younger age. The change in technology, affecting our attention spans, and thus advertising strategies, may have further-reaching effects on artists' careers than we realize.

Perks to the economic downturn

An economic downturn rarely seems to be a good thing. Particularly in the art world, where we battle the idea of art being less than necessity.

And the downturn is hurting the art market, according to experts. BUT a couple of interesting perks were pointed out by artists in this video taken at a Guggenheim fundraising auction, on the New York Times website.

1) "People who are in it only for money get weeded out in a way, and there's a good side to that." So art can be purchased by true art lovers, rather than those just looking to make an investment. It seems artists like this idea. Rushton tells us they're not really in it for the money, anyway.

2) "When the prices are lower more museums and public institutions will be able to acquire them [pieces of art]." If more art is in museums and public institutions, more people are exposed to the art. If the art can only be afforded by mega-rich private individuals, fewer people have access to it. As administrators, I think we all generally believe better art access = better world.

Michelle Facos, beloved museum/art history professor, exposed us to the auction world last year. A highlight was a fieldtrip to Chicago and a visit to Sotheby's.