| Please add updates@feedmyinbox.com to your address book to make sure you receive these messages in the future. | |
| Legitimacy III: The Mythology Of Reputation
December 21, 2009 at 6:53 pm
|
| I went and saw a friend's performance at Lee Strasberg's professional institute, and I noticed something really striking: there appeared to be only one American enrolled. There were Germans, Australians, Swedes, French, Italians--but no Americans. The performances were a rather impressive melange of international accents. It was a little bit of a pity that the archetypal "American" school of acting is really no longer about Americans.
This, by the way, is on the heels of NYU (where I attend) severing its ties to Strasberg, believing that its reputation is no longer enough to justify their poor relationship.
It hadn't occured to me that reputation rots from the inside out. The last people to hear of your fame will be the last ones to hear of your fall. Your original fans are the first ones to jump off your bandwagon--which I suppose is why Stella Adler and Sanford Meisner were the first to get disenchanted. |
| Legitimacy II: Denialism / Medical Fatalism
December 21, 2009 at 6:50 pm
|
| The author if Denialism was on the Daily Show recently, and he talked for some length about various aspects of denialism. Most of the points were well taken. One of the things he was talking about, however, was increasing paranoia about vaccination, and there I wonder if he didn't miss another point that's equally important.
I've watched quite a few people in and out of the hospital recently -- family and friends -- and I've started hearing the same phrase come up over and over again.
"Doctors don't know anything."
The story goes just about the same every time. Someone goes to the doctor with some very bad condition. The doctor either comes up with a label for it, or isn't able to make a diagnosis. In one case, the doctor told them that it was psychological. They test them out on some prescription drugs that don't have any effects. Months go by, with a few more trips to the doctor, to other doctors who give wildly different prescriptions. Basic mistakes are made; in one case, it takes four doctors before any one of them considers running a test for mono, despite the fact that all of the symptoms are consistent with mono. In another case, a doctor wants to give the upper layer of skin an acid wash, which another doctor calls completely hyperbolic and unnecessary.
The story usually ends the same: the person in question stops wanting to go to the doctor. They say that sentence above ("Doctor's don't know anything!") and wonder why they should waste money and time for doctors who don't appear to know more than them.
I have to admit that I have had one of the most galling examples of this in my life while I was in a fairly good hospital in the Czech Republic (a private clinic, which was targetted at wealthier ex-pat Americans or visitors). I came in with a condition that I had had diagnosed in the US before I left, but which hadn't improved. I told the doctor all the information I knew about the subject. He Googled it.
Let me repeat that. A Doctor GOOGLED MY CONDITION IN FRONT OF ME. AS I WAS SITTING IN HIS OFFICE.
I could have done that. In fact, if it wasn't for the fact that the medication I needed to relieve my symptoms was by prescription only, I never would have bothered going to the doctor -- after all, the last doctor had given me enough information for me to treat myself.
It feels like, over time, I've observed a fatalism about medicine taking hold in myself and my friends.
So when the author of denialism was talking about people avoiding getting vaccinations, I have to admit, I have also been avoiding some of those vaccinations myself. That's not so much because of denialism, but because, well, the last two times I got a flu shot (three and four years ago, respectively), I instantly caught a fever with muscle pains and respiratory illnesses. When I went to the doctor, insisting that I had gotten the flu after taking the flu-shot, he told me that what I really had was a "flu-like severe cold." Ah. Well I feel much better then. | | | 
|
| Please add updates@feedmyinbox.com to your address book to make sure you receive these messages in the future. | |
| Legitimacy III: The Mythology Of Reputation
December 21, 2009 at 6:53 pm
|
| I went and saw a friend's performance at Lee Strasberg's professional institute, and I noticed something really striking: there appeared to be only one American enrolled. There were Germans, Australians, Swedes, French, Italians--but no Americans. The performances were a rather impressive melange of international accents. It was a little bit of a pity that the archetypal "American" school of acting is really no longer about Americans.
This, by the way, is on the heels of NYU (where I attend) severing its ties to Strasberg, believing that its reputation is no longer enough to justify their poor relationship.
It hadn't occured to me that reputation rots from the inside out. The last people to hear of your fame will be the last ones to hear of your fall. Your original fans are the first ones to jump off your bandwagon--which I suppose is why Stella Adler and Sanford Meisner were the first to get disenchanted. |
| Legitimacy II: Denialism / Medical Fatalism
December 21, 2009 at 6:52 pm
|
| The author if Denialism was on the Daily Show recently, and he talked for some length about various aspects of denialism. Most of the points were well taken. One of the things he was talking about, however, was increasing paranoia about vaccination, and there I wonder if he didn't miss another point that's equally important.
I've watched quite a few people in and out of the hospital recently -- family and friends -- and I've started hearing the same phrase come up over and over again.
"Doctors don't know anything."
The story goes just about the same every time. Someone goes to the doctor with some very bad condition. The doctor either comes up with a label for it, or isn't able to make a diagnosis. In one case, the doctor told them that it was psychological. They test them out on some prescription drugs that don't have any effects. Months go by, with a few more trips to the doctor, to other doctors who give wildly different prescriptions. Basic mistakes are made; in one case, it takes four doctors before any one of them considers running a test for mono, despite the fact that all of the symptoms are consistent with mono. In another case, a doctor wants to give the upper layer of skin an acid wash, which another doctor calls completely hyperbolic and unnecessary.
The story usually ends the same: the person in question stops wanting to go to the doctor. They say that sentence above ("Doctor's don't know anything!") and wonder why they should waste money and time for doctors who don't appear to know more than them.
I have to admit that I have had one of the most galling examples of this in my life while I was in a fairly good hospital in the Czech Republic (a private clinic, which was targetted at wealthier ex-pat Americans or visitors). I came in with a condition that I had had diagnosed in the US before I left, but which hadn't improved. I told the doctor all the information I knew about the subject. He Googled it.
Let me repeat that. A Doctor GOOGLED MY CONDITION IN FRONT OF ME. AS I WAS SITTING IN HIS OFFICE.
I could have done that. In fact, if it wasn't for the fact that the medication I needed to relieve my symptoms was by prescription only, I never would have bothered going to the doctor -- after all, the last doctor had given me enough information for me to treat myself.
It feels like, over time, I've observed a fatalism about medicine taking hold in myself and my friends.
So when the author of denialism was talking about people avoiding getting vaccinations, I have to admit, I have also been avoiding some of those vaccinations myself. That's not so much because of denialism, but because, well, the last two times I got a flu shot (three and four years ago, respectively), I instantly caught a fever with muscle pains and respiratory illnesses. When I went to the doctor, insisting that I had gotten the flu after taking the flu-shot, he told me that what I really had was a "flu-like severe cold." Ah. Well I feel much better then. | | | 
|
| Please add updates@feedmyinbox.com to your address book to make sure you receive these messages in the future. | |
| Scott Walters Talks Diversity
December 19, 2009 at 12:48 pm
|
| One of those posts that stands out amongst the crowd, from Scott Walters.
It has a very simple but very very radical idea at its core, one that's simple enough that I've gotten it but radical enough that I still don't know how I think about it and am trying to fight me knee-jerk urge to reject it and instead actually sit with it. My initial reaction was negative, although I've been going back and forth about why exactly. I think that when Scott is talking about "giving up some control," I think he's underestimating the amount of control that is being given up. It's a philosophical difference, at the end of the day -- as an artistic director myself, I can't imagine myself putting up a show that I couldn't defend as being the show I had chosen to put up. Will randomly selected shows be good? Maybe. Often not. Scott may be right that regional theaters don't always have the best track record in selecting plays. But at least when they are wrong about plays they select, they are responsible.
I guess the question that has to be asked is this: if you put on a play that is diverse, but is not well accepted by your audiences--it's just another forgettable show--have you accomplished something? Because if the answer is yes, then by all means, use the lottery. But I don't think so.
It is always hard to find the right show. But I don't think you need to trade artistic integrity for diversity. | | |  |
|
| Please add updates@feedmyinbox.com to your address book to make sure you receive these messages in the future. | |
| Scott Walters Talks Diversity
December 19, 2009 at 3:05 pm
|
| One of those posts that stands out amongst the crowd, from Scott Walters.
It has a very simple but very very radical idea at its core, one that's simple enough that I've gotten it but radical enough that I still don't know how I think about it and am trying to fight me knee-jerk urge to reject it and instead actually sit with it. My initial reaction was negative, although I've been going back and forth about why exactly. I think that when Scott is talking about "giving up some control," I think he's underestimating the amount of control that is being given up. It's a philosophical difference, at the end of the day -- as an artistic director myself, I can't imagine myself putting up a show that I couldn't defend as being the show I had chosen to put up. Will randomly selected shows be good? Maybe. Often not. Scott may be right that regional theaters don't always have the best track record in selecting plays. But at least when they are wrong about plays they select, they are responsible.
I guess the question that has to be asked is this: if you put on a play that is diverse, but is not well accepted by your audiences--it's just another forgettable show--have you accomplished something? Because if the answer is yes, then by all means, use the lottery. But I don't think so.
It is always hard to find the right show. But I don't think you need to trade artistic integrity for diversity. | | |  |
|
| Please add updates@feedmyinbox.com to your address book to make sure you receive these messages in the future. | |
| A Litmus Test For Newspapers
December 17, 2009 at 9:27 am
|
| | I was thinking about the Wall Street Journal recently, and its seeming decline in partiality and editorial quality ever since Rupert Murdoch purchased it. Then I was wondering, "How did I come to the conclusion that the Wall Street Journal has declining editorial standards, considering I don't read the Wall Street Journal."
I realized that it is because I get my news from Google News, and in Google News I see Wall Street journal headlines and literally it is just the headlines that sometimes get me steamed enough to not ever want to crack open a Wall Street Journal again.
I wanted to come up with a litmus test for partiality in news, and I came up with a simple one that is, almost certainly, reductive beyond all belief. If I ran a newspaper, I said to myself, I would make sure that its headlines contained no modifying adjectives, and could only use action verbs relating to an event. If the headline was about someone something said, it goes in the politics or opinion section. Period.
With that in mind, let's look at the front page of the New York Times.
UN Officials Say American Aide Plotted to Replace Hamid Karzai. Notice that are not only one, but two modifiers between this headline and US Replaces Hamid Karzai, the headline of an actual event. UN Officials SAY that the American Aide PLOTTED. Is this important news? Perhaps. But is it actually true that a plan that went nowhere and might not actually have existed is the top story of today?
M.T.A. Approves Big Service Cuts In Transit. Well, I'd prefer something more descriptive than "Big Service Cuts" since it basically puts the fear of God in your average NYC person. I've also always been torn about whether the New York Times should carry local news on the front page, but I guess it is still the New York times.
That Tap Water Might Be Legal but May Be Unhealthy. Is this an opinion article? I read the article, and it bundles together a bunch of anecdotal evidence (a lack of increase in regulated chemicals) with a bunch of not-very-in-depth-examined studies about the health of tap water in America. The Times appears to be choking on impartiality. Clearly they think our water is unhealthy (as it is a front page story), but then they don't want to say "Your water is unhealthy" so they throw in a bunch of tempering words, making the article easily forgettable. The net effect of this article will probably just to be to convince more people to buy bottled (tap) water.
Pakistan Reported To Be Harassing US Diplomats. Who is reporting it? US Diplomats. In fact, most of the article appears to be an interview with "One senior American diplomat." Is it true? Well, a senior American diplomat said it, right?
I was kind of hoping that one of the Times' headlines would be a statement, like US Commits 30,000 Troops to Afghanistan (which is an event) or Bomb Kills X in Helmand Province (which is an event) or House Passes Temporary Finance Measures (which is an event).
As for the WSJ:
Insurgents In Iraq Hack US Drone (which is an event -- but bonus points for their web edition carrying Readers React - 'We Can't Be This Stupid!')
US Ready to Join Climate-Aid Fund - not an event in the present tense, but a promise of an event in the future, which I think is acceptable news.
Mexican Drug Boss Killed In Raid (event)
The only one I spot which isn't an event (or which doesn't lead with Opinion:) is:
Bernanke Foes Seek to Curtail Fed.
Well, well, I didn't expect the WSJ's headlines to do better for me than the NYTimes. Ah well. |
|
December 17, 2009 at 9:26 am
|
| | | | 
|
| Please add updates@feedmyinbox.com to your address book to make sure you receive these messages in the future. | |
| A Litmus Test For Newspapers
December 17, 2009 at 9:46 am
|
| | I was thinking about the Wall Street Journal recently, and its seeming decline in partiality and editorial quality ever since Rupert Murdoch purchased it. Then I was wondering, "How did I come to the conclusion that the Wall Street Journal has declining editorial standards, considering I don't read the Wall Street Journal."
I realized that it is because I get my news from Google News, and in Google News I see Wall Street journal headlines and literally it is just the headlines that sometimes get me steamed enough to not ever want to crack open a Wall Street Journal again.
I wanted to come up with a litmus test for partiality in news, and I came up with a simple one that is, almost certainly, reductive beyond all belief. If I ran a newspaper, I said to myself, I would make sure that its headlines contained no modifying adjectives, and could only use action verbs relating to an event. If the headline was about someone something said, it goes in the politics or opinion section. Period.
With that in mind, let's look at the front page of the New York Times.
UN Officials Say American Aide Plotted to Replace Hamid Karzai. Notice that are not only one, but two modifiers between this headline and US Replaces Hamid Karzai, the headline of an actual event. UN Officials SAY that the American Aide PLOTTED. Is this important news? Perhaps. But is it actually true that a plan that went nowhere and might not actually have existed is the top story of today?
M.T.A. Approves Big Service Cuts In Transit. Well, I'd prefer something more descriptive than "Big Service Cuts" since it basically puts the fear of God in your average NYC person. I've also always been torn about whether the New York Times should carry local news on the front page, but I guess it is still the New York times.
That Tap Water Might Be Legal but May Be Unhealthy. Is this an opinion article? I read the article, and it bundles together a bunch of anecdotal evidence (a lack of increase in regulated chemicals) with a bunch of not-very-in-depth-examined studies about the health of tap water in America. The Times appears to be choking on impartiality. Clearly they think our water is unhealthy (as it is a front page story), but then they don't want to say "Your water is unhealthy" so they throw in a bunch of tempering words, making the article easily forgettable. The net effect of this article will probably just to be to convince more people to buy bottled (tap) water.
Pakistan Reported To Be Harassing US Diplomats. Who is reporting it? US Diplomats. In fact, most of the article appears to be an interview with "One senior American diplomat." Is it true? Well, a senior American diplomat said it, right?
I was kind of hoping that one of the Times' headlines would be a statement, like US Commits 30,000 Troops to Afghanistan (which is an event) or Bomb Kills X in Helmand Province (which is an event) or House Passes Temporary Finance Measures (which is an event).
As for the WSJ:
Insurgents In Iraq Hack US Drone (which is an event -- but bonus points for their web edition carrying Readers React - 'We Can't Be This Stupid!')
US Ready to Join Climate-Aid Fund - not an event in the present tense, but a promise of an event in the future, which I think is acceptable news.
Mexican Drug Boss Killed In Raid (event)
The only one I spot which isn't an event (or which doesn't lead with Opinion:) is:
Bernanke Foes Seek to Curtail Fed.
Well, well, I didn't expect the WSJ's headlines to do better for me than the NYTimes. Ah well. |
|
December 17, 2009 at 9:27 am
|
| | | | 
|
| Please add updates@feedmyinbox.com to your address book to make sure you receive these messages in the future. | |
| Broadway on Talk Shows
December 11, 2009 at 11:02 pm
|
| Well, I had never seen it before, but in the span of two weeks, I've seen Mary Poppins on The Tonight Show (which doesn't have a clip, but the full episode is here), and Fela (with Bill T. Jones) on The Colbert Report.
I don't have much to say on the subject except a few loosely collected thoughts:
- Mary Poppins' segment was, IMHO, terrible. My first impression was "Why did they let the air out of the music of the movie? Couldn't they just do the music the way it was in the movie, which is basically what we're paying for?" The dancing felt less impressive too. When compared with the movie (as I'm sure EVERYONE is doing when they watch -- again, that's basically what they wait for) it suffers.
- Fela's segment was also a bit odd, but worked a little bit better. It just seems weird in context of the show, in a way. The success of the segment on its own was largely the engaging performance of Kevin Mambo, who plays Fela.
- However, beside the performance, I was far more engaged in Fela largely because, well, Bill T. Jones sat down for an interview. He talked about why the show exists, why it is important, and he put forward an argument that tells why Colbert Report watchers would be interested, rather than just people in general. The aspect of using music to speak truth to power--well, let's just say it's a good argument to put in front of Colbert's audience.
- Mary Poppins, on the other hand, kind of appeared contextless: "Here's a Broadway show that wants your money. Enjoy?"
At the end of the day, it's a good step to bring shows to the talk-show circuit (Will straight shows find a way to do this? Will non-profits?) But you can't just plop a big fat crowd-pleaser with no context on whatever show has a good market share. You should get your artists to talk as well as perform, leverage your assets, and make the case for why the TV audience would want to see the play.  | | |  |
|
| Please add updates@feedmyinbox.com to your address book to make sure you receive these messages in the future. | |
| Broadway on Talk Shows
December 11, 2009 at 10:18 pm
|
| Well, I had never seen it before, but in the span of two weeks, I've seen Mary Poppins on The Tonight Show (which doesn't have a clip, but the full episode is here), and Fela (with Bill T. Jones) on The Colbert Report.
I don't have much to say on the subject except a few loosely collected thoughts:
- Mary Poppins' segment was, IMHO, terrible. My first impression was "Why did they let the air out of the music of the movie? Couldn't they just do the music the way it was in the movie, which is basically what we're paying for?" The dancing felt less impressive too. When compared with the movie (as I'm sure EVERYONE is doing when they watch -- again, that's basically what they wait for) it suffers.
- Fela's segment was also a bit odd, but worked a little bit better. It just seems weird in context of the show, in a way. The success of the segment on its own was largely the engaging performance of Kevin Mambo, who plays Fela.
- However, beside the performance, I was far more engaged in Fela largely because, well, Bill T. Jones sat down for an interview. He talked about why the show exists, why it is important, and he put forward an argument that tells why Colbert Report watchers would be interested, rather than just people in general. The aspect of using music to speak truth to power--well, let's just say it's a good argument to put in front of Colbert's audience.
- Mary Poppins, on the other hand, kind of appeared contextless: "Here's a Broadway show that wants your money. Enjoy?"
At the end of the day, it's a good step to bring shows to the talk-show circuit (Will straight shows find a way to do this? Will non-profits?) But you can't just plop a big fat crowd-pleaser with no context on whatever show has a good market share. You should get your artists to talk as well as perform, leverage your assets, and make the case for why the TV audience would want to see the play. | | |  |
|
| Please add updates@feedmyinbox.com to your address book to make sure you receive these messages in the future. | |
| Discussing As You Like It
December 3, 2009 at 12:12 pm
|
| My friends over at the New York Neo-Classical Ensemble (who've put on some good Shakespeare lately) have gotten into a back-and-forth between different Ensemble members on their blog about the merits of As You Like It.
Attention: potential producers and directors of As You Like It! Put your copy on the floor, pour gasoline on it, and light a match. Would you put on a play whose plot dies halfway through? Would you put on a show with completely unmotivated character changes? Would you actually put on a show that had unfunny jokes and an absurd ending? This play should never be produced, you monster!
Why would you shatter the already too fragile opinion of Shakespeare that's held by most people? All the good writing is entirely in the first half. Characters are drawn, plot is focused, and trajectory is established. Two unhappy children are exiled to the forest with nothing more than the clothes on their backs and the money in their pockets. This will surely be a great survival play, right? What are these uptight courtly young lovers going to do once they reach the hard, gritty world of Arden forest with its lions and hunting and despair? Surely not sit around and write poetry, surely not that?
That's only the beginning. The tract continues, picking specific plot points and gripes with the text. I have to say it's not necessarily all that persuasive, but it does raise a lot of interesting questions about why people produce Shakespeare's less good plays.
Many of those raised questions are tackled by company member Teddy in his defense for the pro column, which wraps up with: I don't think As You Like it is and more or less flawed then most (its certainly got a lot more going for it then Two Noble Kinsmen, but Gorilla Shakespeare's production may prove me wrong). All plays, I find, follow more or less similar paths and it tends to be the points of contention, disconnection, scary and weird shit that makes them individual. The only way that we'll get more people to "like" Shakespeare is not by staging comfortable productions to protect a fragile opinion held by some, but by bravely staging productions we believe in. Not every will care for any production, but if we continue to stage work we're proud of, I think we further the case for Shakespeare's talent far more than if we limit ourselves to a select number of titles. The more scared and uncertain I am of a play when I begin working on it, the more ability I have to get really loud and messy, scratching at the walls of the plot and the sensibility of the character. | | |  |
|
| Please add updates@feedmyinbox.com to your address book to make sure you receive these messages in the future. | |
| Discussing As You Like It
December 3, 2009 at 12:19 pm
|
| My friends over at the New York Neo-Classical Ensemble (who've put on some good Shakespeare lately) have gotten into a back-and-forth between different Ensemble members on their blog about the merits of As You Like It.
Attention: potential producers and directors of As You Like It! Put your copy on the floor, pour gasoline on it, and light a match. Would you put on a play whose plot dies halfway through? Would you put on a show with completely unmotivated character changes? Would you actually put on a show that had unfunny jokes and an absurd ending? This play should never be produced, you monster!
Why would you shatter the already too fragile opinion of Shakespeare that's held by most people? All the good writing is entirely in the first half. Characters are drawn, plot is focused, and trajectory is established. Two unhappy children are exiled to the forest with nothing more than the clothes on their backs and the money in their pockets. This will surely be a great survival play, right? What are these uptight courtly young lovers going to do once they reach the hard, gritty world of Arden forest with its lions and hunting and despair? Surely not sit around and write poetry, surely not that?
That's only the beginning. The tract continues, picking specific plot points and gripes with the text. I have to say it's not necessarily all that persuasive, but it does raise a lot of interesting questions about why people produce Shakespeare's less good plays.
Many of those raised questions are tackled by company member Teddy in his defense for the pro column, which wraps up with: I don't think As You Like it is and more or less flawed then most (its certainly got a lot more going for it then Two Noble Kinsmen, but Gorilla Shakespeare's production may prove me wrong). All plays, I find, follow more or less similar paths and it tends to be the points of contention, disconnection, scary and weird shit that makes them individual. The only way that we'll get more people to "like" Shakespeare is not by staging comfortable productions to protect a fragile opinion held by some, but by bravely staging productions we believe in. Not every will care for any production, but if we continue to stage work we're proud of, I think we further the case for Shakespeare's talent far more than if we limit ourselves to a select number of titles. The more scared and uncertain I am of a play when I begin working on it, the more ability I have to get really loud and messy, scratching at the walls of the plot and the sensibility of the character. | | |  |
|
| Please add updates@feedmyinbox.com to your address book to make sure you receive these messages in the future. | |
| Solutions V: Swerve + Collaboration
November 27, 2009 at 1:48 pm
|
| A while back, I decided to keep a list of arts solutions, different approaches people could take to reforming the arts. Very few of them are ideas I thought of myself--mostly, they're ideas I've seen that I think of as repeatable. Today, as I recover from an AMAZING meal at my brother's fiance's family, I'll add two more that I've thought of recently, and repost the list for the benefit of anyone who missed them the first time around.
Here's the two new ones--new to my list:
- Swerve - When people travel from point A to point B, if they see something along the way that might have something they were looking for at point B, they'll swerve out of their way to see it. That's the principle behind malls, or areas like the Flower District. Arts organizations can do that themselves by ganging together and attracting interest in a group. Broadway is an example of that, but my favorite in the entire world is Fourth Arts Block.
- Collaborator Subscription - What I've discovered in my arts training is this: many people feel a much stronger connection to a work if they've been connected to the art along its entire lifespan, rather than just at the moment of its presentation. There's a personal connection in watching an artist learn and practice, especially if you're in conversation with the artist the entire time. So why not offer, aside from one-off tickets or a subscription, something like a Collaborator Subscription: an interested audience member can pay a certain yearly fee, and then they have access not just to any performance, but to any rehearsal, workshop, etc. and they are entitled to give feedback like any professional who would be sitting in your rehearsal. It gives them a personal investment in your work, and you get some good audience-feedback before the big day.
And here are the old ones:
- Soup-To-Nuts - Rather than approaching the cultural environment in a one-off fashion, approach cultural environment as a whole. This is difficult, and is one of the reasons people are working on developing a quantitative approach to arts cultures... Richard Florida's early work suggests a direction, but doesn't provide the answers yet. One example might be the Knight Foundation's Magic of Music Initiative.
- Baby Conservatory - The Harlem's Children Zone is probably the current Overachieving Nonprofit du jour, but they're exploiting a very important principle in their Baby College approach to education: children are most influenced between the years 0-3. That may go for economic success, but I bet it works for the arts too. And that means we need a conveyor belt that tracks a child's artistic development, so that by the time they graduate, they have an artistic literacy. In some way, trying to "expand your audience" of 20 year olds is probably far, far too late.
- Involving Social Bigwigs - At the League of Independent Theater's Get Lit with LIT event, the New York State Council of the Arts' Director of Theater Robert Zuckerman (a good person to know) talked about strategies for getting politicians to notice what we do. He talked about a group in the Bronx (I can't remember their names -- sorry!) that have a Politicians' Amateur Night, basically a talent show for politicians. No matter how terrible the politicians are, it gets them visibly involved in arts--and Zuckerman observed that it also gets their lobbyist friends butts in the seats. Stemming from that, I would suggest that arts groups try to get comp tickets into the hands of politicos and maybe other important social heads. After all, there's no better "application" for support than having them enjoy your work.
- Instant Reviews - The post that used the phrase Guyyedwabian was actually about a South African group's attempt to start conversation in the immediate aftermath of a performance. Basically, they attended the National Arts Festival in Grahamstown, and afterwards tried to engage the exiting audience in a review directly after the performance. The concept is outlined here, and an informative post-mortem is outlined here. (By the way, does your organization perform post-project post-mortems? You really should.)
- The Less than 100k Project - Built to address the NY-centrism of the theater world (although the principle could apply to any art discipline), Scott Walters is developing a funding approach to cultivate community arts in small communities. The thrust of the idea is to allow theater groups in small communities that lack theaters to apply for a 3 year developmental process that will eventually wean them into independence.
- Community Storytelling - A conversation I had with Scott about the aforementioned project asked "how do we make such a community theater actually part of the community?" My suggestion was that the theater focus on the stories and history within the community--go into the community, collect their stories, and present them. This invests the community in the product, and serves a needed social function. This idea was inspired by StoryCorps, the Laramie Project, and Anna Devere Smith's work, but as Scott pointed out, rather than having the stories leave the community (such as the way StoryCorps deposits the stories in the Library of Congress), the stories become a part of the community. Not everyone understands what "theater" is or could be, but everyone loves sharing stories.
- Shared Measurement - The company I currently work for specializes in standardizing business processes for Information Techonology companies. As the aforementioned FSG report documents, there is a rise in non-profits standardizing their tools of self-analysis, and sharing the results. In the same way that these metrics allow the for-profit world to study impact, non-profits need to have a more methodical approach to their role in society, both instrumental and intrinsic. My personal belief is that public policy needs to take this up rather than trying to match the foundation's per-project or per-organization funding model... but more on that when my analysis comes out.
- Healthcare Reform - We all want Healthcare Reform for a bigger, more universal reason than just the plight of artists. However, the current employer-based healthcare system discriminates against two groups: the unemployed, and free-lancers. Artists are, often, free-lancers (as opposed to the Arts Administrators who are often full-time employees). If a public option for healthcare were to support artists, it would ease the burden of artists attempting to support their healthcare--and might ease the bottom-line of small non-profits that have to spend a lot on healthcare for their employees. It might even help heal the divide between Administrators and Artists.
- Creativity Education - The current arts education approach has been, in my experience, a largely instrumental one: music training, for instance, teaches you how to play an instrument, not how to listen to music or how to write music. This is a large failing in the arts, because it tells people that art = craft, not art = creativity. Granted, as Theresa Rebeck rightly points out in her discussion on the topic, these two concepts are not mutually opposed. However, our early arts education stresses craft and ignores creativity, which probably creates the anti-craft backlash later on. Augusto Boal describes some very interesting approaches to what he called "Arts Literacy" that were attempted in Peru at the time--my favorite was where he talks about asking children questions and asking them to answer the questions in photographs. One question was "Where do you live?" and the answer was a photograph of a young boy whose upper lip was chewed off by rats. The teacher asked "How is that photo 'where you live?'" And the boy answered "I live in a country where these things happen." A much better understanding of art than learning how to draw a human face properly.
- Showcase Code - Create an easier and fairer showcase code to let independent theaters reap the successes of popular showcase codes without having a gigantic step up in costs. Also, allow recording of performances for non-commercial purposes.
 | | |  |
|
| | | |
