In arts administration there is a lot of terminology that gets thrown around when it comes to people interacting with an arts experience. Example: Board members and staff at an arts org are trying to build audiences by partnering with teachers who educate students. These students then invite their parents to a free event hosted for the community. I think I've heard every step in this example called "ENGAGEMENT" including the very first -- board and staff working together. I'm not even sure I know what engagement means anymore.
From my experience it all comes down to two ideas: Who is driving the interaction, and who is ultimately meant to benefit from it?
Here is a map of what I mean:
Okay, it's a graph with a bunch of words on it, but I think it could be really useful. Let me try to break this down.
Each quadrant of the map shows a different type of activity. The X axis is the range of primary impact, i.e., To what extent are the main effects of the activity felt personally by the individual or more collectively as a group? (Of course, with any framework there are a bunch of superimposed assumptions--things that are supposed to fit into nice little boxes, but don't in reality. In this case, there will always be a blend in any activity and cumulative effects that happen overtime.) The Y axis shows the extent to which the activity is driven by an arts organization or by the constituent. For "constituent" I just mean any person or group that is meant to benefit from what is being offered (even though the organization also benefits).
Why is this important? I think that arts organizations are at a critical point of needing to articulate what their real mission is. This plays into tax-status debates, relevance in popular culture, perceptions (or actual acts) of elitism, and the role organizations play in making communities a better place to live. ALL of the activities on the map are valid, and I'd like to spend some more time on this blog exploring each quadrant and defining the chop suey of terms that comes up along the way. In the meantime, I think it's most important that arts organizations are brutally honest about which arrow they are following at any given time...not only internally with themselves, but with funders and especially with those they intend to serve.
Excuse the overt gender bias for a moment, and think about those
memories. For me, this was a hallmark of childhood; a simple choice I had to
make when standing on my tip toes at the McDonalds counter.
As an adult, I delight in the nostalgia of artifacts from my youth. For
instance, I don't think there’s much harm in a cringe-inducing reference to
Family Matters or a Disney singalong now and then among friends. Hey, it’s a
great way to remind ourselves that we all survived the 90s. But more than that,
a memory of watching the TGIF lineup reminds me that I’m connected to other
people of my generation in this small way and that we shared this Friday night
ritual at one point.
Hollywood has long known how to tap into this. I mean, who isn’t
excited about the new TMNT? Producers know that they have a built-in audience
if they adapt a cartoon, do a prequel of a blockbuster, or tell the life story
of [Insert Historical Figure] add some vampires and feature songs inspired by
the lyrics of [Choose Your Own Pop Star]. All this makes me wonder, though.
Hollywood is clearly grasping at straws and abandoning originality in favor of
recognizable franchises and brands. And with some luck they’ll continue to
superimpose a narrative onto inanimate brands creating hero characters for the
next generation. But I think pop culture has its work cut out for it. Can they
continue to find brands that resonate with a large cross-section of the
population? Will the next [Insert 90s Toy] movie still evoke the same nostalgic
chuckle from adults as the last one?
Today it is all about the prevalence of choice and customization.
Companies know that you like spaghetti SAUCES, not spaghetti sauce. They might
even know you better than you know yourself.
Consumers now have reasonable expectations of variety and curation
based on their personal preferences and past behavior.
Luxury = Uniqueness
Modern Advancement = Individualization
Niche interests build clout by staying underground, as opposed to the
rather uncool alternative of selling out and going mainstream. This is all
powered by influence and data, delivered through responsive devices and multiple
media channels. So I wonder what will bind us together now that popular culture
and generational identity is a patchwork of crowd-sourced and self-selecting
experiences. Will the children of tomorrow grow up without sharing nostalgic
chuckles because their artifacts are wholly unique to them? What will feed our deep-rooted need for
ritual and connection through common experience?
I was recently asked to define what I want from a musical
leader:someone who will be responsible
for shaping a musical experience for a large group of people on a regular
basis. I’ve spent plenty of time thinking about how people experience the arts in
their lives, and what leadership means in nonprofit arts administration. But
this was the first time I stopped to think about what personal expectations I have
about leadership in music. When the expectation is to “change people’s lives”
through music, what talents does a person need to bring to the table? How do
you set parameters for the person who ultimately decides what music to present
and how it’s produced?
Musical experiences–the kind that leave you transformed–are
very difficult to deconstruct. There’s no formula for a “perfect” concert or
choir practice. What makes a performance or sing-along life-changing for me,
may be decidedly dreadful for someone else.
So I guess we have to start with why a musical
leader is trying to change people’s lives in the first place?What are the underlying values and
principles? If music is the universal language, what are we trying to
communicate? For me, music is less about the message and the content; we can
spend years talking about what quality and excellence means. What’s more
important, I think, is creating the environments for people to explore, have a
dialogue--find meaning and a sense of belonging.
In contemporary chamber music, the only way I can explain
musical leadership is when a composer can write a piece that asks you a
question, rather than telling you an answer. And he or she does this through
the choice of instrumentation, key, tempo, creating a mood and environment.
Then layer in the choices that a producer or player makes around
interpretation and presentation: use of space, wardrobe, cohesion, dynamics. I
can only explain a “good concert” as one that massages a part of my brain that
I didn’t know was there. For the dude sitting next to me, a good concert might
be something completely different – perfect intonation, the narrative arc told
through the chronology of the pieces, something under 60 minutes that leaves
you humming the tunes, etc. What it takes to get to get an audience member to
that place is a series of complex choices on the part of a musical leader, not
matter which role in the process.
Creating meaning and belonging through music can mean
something completely different for participatory experiences. When I want a
safe place to sing at the top of my lungs it’s because I want to feel a part of
something bigger than myself. In these cases, musical leadership is no
different.It still comes down to the
choices made around creating a transformational experience.It takes a person who can orchestrate an
environment that makes you remember the playfulness of participating in a
school play, the anonymity of a darkened campfire sing-along, or the power of singing
happy birthday with a roomful of co-workers who happen to be professional opera
singers.
In this context, leadership is less about putting forward an agenda,
choosing the right repertoire, and banging a baton over perfect entrances. Musical
leadership is setting a vision about what it means to create great music and
understanding the people you want to involve.What are the qualities and talents that will attract excellent players that
believe in this larger vision?Make
quality the lowest bar set you can set. What personality and judgment will it
take for a leader to express the musical equivalent of:
“Welcome! Step into this
new world and stay awhile. Feel free to poke around, have a conversation, or
just relax.Let’s play.”
In response to “The Pernicious Rise of Poptimism” by Saul
Austerlitz
Check out this thought-provoking
article in last week’s New York Times Magazine. It’s about the rise of
consensus-driven coverage in music criticism. Austerlitz explains that there
has been a shift away from critical thought caused, in part, by the fact that
music is essentially free to consumers. Critics embrace “poptimism” as a means
to stay relevant and are now driven by human-interest, “descriptivist” stories
(and the millions that will Google Justin Bieber’s recent arrest rather than
his latest album). In the age of free information and essentially free access
to music, he is trying to make the point that the role of the critic has been
downgraded from “telling consumers what
to purchase” and arguing and pleading for the “underappreciated” to
cheerleading for pop stars.
I definitely agree that the platform for music delivery and
music criticism has changed. Mass distribution of music and music criticism,
like radio or even MTV, allowed fewer producers/critics to have more influence
over a broader population. Across all aspects of information and experiences
(not just music and not just online), we now have a proliferation of curated
delivery channels that are customizable down to our target age/location/personality/and
mood. Niche genres are reinforced as decidedly niche in those dark corners of
the Internet (and in-person Meetups facilitated by the web) that allow specific
groups to congregate in ever more insular circles. Conversely, what’s popular
is what rises in Google optimization --- the most votes, the most shared, the
most likes.
So for music criticism, what will it take for “honesty,
curiosity, diligence, and pluralism” to cut through the noise? How can critics
play their role and not come off as “snobbish” or out of touch? Here is where I
think Austerlitz misses the point. The role of a critic is not tell people what
to buy or root for the underdogs; it is to help people think for themselves and
make informed decisions.
Austerlitz explains that other disciplines like books, film
and restaurants still uphold a rightful place for critics because people still have
to pay to for the products. But I would argue it has less to do with the price
tag and distribution, and more to do with the way these industries have
empowered consumers. They have maintained a role for curators
because they have done a better job of fostering amateur movements and
ownership among fans. Blogs are to Books, as YouTube is to Film. In music,
Myspace fell flat as an amateur music platform.
In the realm of informed decision-making and criticism,
AllRecipes.com, Yelp and Iron Chef are the three new Michelin Stars. At dinner
parties, people are more likely to speak freely about umami and the presentation of their last meal out, rather than out
themselves with more than a passing comment about the last show they saw. I
actually applaud “American Idol” and “So You Think You Can Dance” that
helped put the vocabulary of experts in the mouths of the American masses. But I
think they fell short with only a binary judgement mechanism. It still came down to
whether you liked or disliked it.
Why is it that we have wine tasting parties where hosts hand out a
tasting wheel, giving us the power to fully appreciate and discuss the
complexities of our experience, but when it comes to music, critics keep the
tasting wheel to themselves. Where was the Siskel and Ebert of music growing
up? If critics want a role in music, step it up. Give listeners a toy
chest of vocabulary, an ARENA for loudly expressing their own critical
opinions, and a new playground for a music makers movement. Leave cheerleading
and the buyers guide to the corporate producers and Billboards. Critics have
bigger fish to fry.
Whether you are emerging in your career or switching to a new company,
you are facing a steep learning curve. They say starting a new job ranks right up there with moving house on the stress meter.
A fresh
perspective is valuable.
In addition to the copious notes on new procedures, keep a list of questions and observations. You may
not know yet who to go to for answers – but you’ll learn to navigate the
departments soon enough.More
importantly, you are bursting with “we should try X”, “why aren’t we already
doing Y”, and “at my old job we did Z.”
This is a result of the rapid fire connections you are making
between your unique combination of past workplace experiences, the new team and
resources you now have and your personal beliefs. The verve of aligning your skills with the vision of the
company was crystal clear during your interview process – you are now ready to
apply it!
That’s awesome. Hang on to that energy, write it down and find the best
path.
Organizational
Change.
Bringing you on means change for the organization. Any small question of “Why do we do it
this way?” can actually be questioning a delicate balance of power, ritual and
accumulated institutional knowledge.
If
the answer you get back is: "That’s the way we do things around here."
My
first instinct is to
If
that is not an option, check out Kotter’s
Model for an 8-step process of leading change. The new buzzword is “intrapreneur” (God help us) and the most useful framework I’ve
found is the Competing Values Framework
developed by Jeff DeGraff. Check
out the Opera Conference 2013 presentation given by one of Jeff’s protégés, Ann-Li Cooke (she's on at 1:14:20).
Why it matters.
Avoid frustration when you are not able to implement everything you want to immediately.
Find a positive and productive path for applying
your valuable skills and ideas.
Understand how organizational culture and
history are factors in navigating change going forward.
Sounds like something only a vampire would want to do, but let’s get real. We’ve all seen by now people getting what they want and confirming the old adage, “it’s not what you know, it’s who you know.”
What? Info interviews are short meetings or phone calls so you can learn more about a person, job, or field.
Why? It’s really one of the best ways to expand your network, whether you are looking to change jobs, find professional partners or just get new ideas.
Who? Think of someone whose work you admire. Who has your dream job? Don’t get shy here.
How? It’s always best to get a personal introduction, but cold emails are worth a try too. Do some research on their org, latest project, career path, etc. Shoot an email asking for only 20 minutes of their time, highlight at least one thing you find interesting about them and explain that you want to learn more about their work and career path. Even if you’d love it to be a job interview, it’s really not, so don’t send your resume unless they ask.
Sample Questions:
What were some of the most influential experiences that got you to where you are today?
Describe your typical day; what are your daily responsibilities?
What are the biggest challenges of your job?
What gets you up in the morning and what keeps you up at night?
What are some trends in the field that you foresee over the next few years?
Where does your organization want to go and how do you want to get there?
Who else would you recommend that I talk to?
This last one is key. Pick out one topic that you chatted about to hone in on and ask if they can recommend someone else you can talk to. And thus the networking continues.
Why it works.
Curiosity and enthusiasm go a long way—people love talking about themselves and giving advice to eager people and reflecting on their own paths.
They will remember your face (ideally you can meet in person), interest, energy, etc. Even better if they remember you when there is a job opening they hear about.
Generally when you ask people about themselves, they’ll return the favor and you’ll get to share your passions, aspirations…or more explicitly what kind of work you are looking for.
.jpeg)
