Tag Archives: artist

«Not being noticed or known by our busy community» How to Deal with the Concentric Circles of Acclaim

spiral

You’re sitting in the middle of a tornado of activity that feels, well, loud.  You spend time and energy with a cadre of equally incentivized artists creating a gallery show, a play, or an exhibit.

Then you go next door and put up a poster.  You hear, “Oh, when’s that happening?”

Then you invite an artist and he forgets to come until after it closes.

Then you invite your doctor and she says, “What’s that?”

Eric Rubio of the Wheaton College Artist Series of Wheaton, Illinois gave us this issue for August.  People working within arts organizations feel the tornado, but just a thought process away, others are ignorant.

PR isn’t an accidental occurrence.  Good PR assumes readers know nothing about the newsworthy piece.  Groundswells of guerrilla marketing techniques may be the answer to your indispensability factor.

Advertisements

Successful Nonprofit Arts Organizations, Like Successful Buildings, Depend on Successful Hierarchies

Gaudi

Level One:

Bricklayers.  Carpenters.  Stagehands.  Electricians.  Actors.  Musicians.  Painters.  Singers.  Writers.

Easy to find hacks.  Difficult to find experts.  Project-based.

 

Level Two:

Foremen.  Department heads.  Designers.  Curators.  Musical directors.

Small universe of successful ones.  More skills required.  Still project-based.  Work toward a larger goal than Level One, namely a finished piece.  Excellent collaboration skills.

 

Level Three:

Contractors.  Directors.

Smaller universe still.  Hire and manage Level One and Two (no requirement to perform at their skill level).  Work toward a slightly larger picture, although still project based.

 

Level Four:

Architects.  Executive/Artistic/General/Producing Directors.

Scarce universe of specialists.  Determine “what.”  Hire Level Three – several Level Threes, in fact.  Understand projects, themes, and cohesion.

 

Level Five:

Owners.  Boards.

Tiny, zealous universe.  Hire Level Four.  Determine “how.” Has personal stake.

 

Level Six:

The Community.  The Mission.

Top of the hierarchy.  Determines “why.”

Artists vs. Craftspeople – Nonprofit Arts Organizations Require the Former to Act as the Latter

hat

Artists produce work from their creative souls, nurtured by a series of cultural, environmental, and psychological motivations.  They create “a hat,” as Stephen Sondheim once wrote, “where there never was a hat.”  Talented artists create from their current state of mind, without boundary.

Craftspeople produce work to fill a need.  They possess a series of cultural, environmental, and psychological motivations which channel into art that produces a desired impact.  Craftspeople create hats because they’re the best answer to a question.

All craftspeople are artists at their core.  Many artists have no capacity to become craftspeople.

Nonprofit arts organizations require craftspeople.  If the organization is more important than any artist, and the mission is more important than the organization, then employees on the organizational chart need to be, by definition, craftspeople divining an impact, not artists divining inspiration.

Feedback from You (yes, you): 9 Words That Describe the Nonprofit Arts Issues That Are Placing You at the End of Your Rope

rope

This blog, as most are, is pretty much one-way.  I share experiences, advice, consultation, and observations; you read ’em.  I can discuss 1,000 issues that affect nonprofit arts organizations.

But that’s me.

What keeps you up at night?

What concrete issue (not just “there’s no funding for…”) is fraying your rope?  Or better, what issues are figuratively tying a noose around the end of your rope?

Here’s your assignment.  In 9 words (no more, no less), write that issue and send it to info@137words.com.  That’s it.  Beginning in August, we’ll periodically take each issue and I’ll give my take.  Then we’ll open up the discussion to everyone who reads 137 Words.  Let me know if you’d like your name in or if you’d like to be anonymous.  And if you’d like my help privately, let me know that, too.

Have Nonprofit Performing Arts Organizations Moved Beyond the Idea of Artistic Directors?

leader

Just read this article from an artistic director who wonders whether artistic directors should be their organization’s leader, whether the model is archaic.  Nonprofit performing arts organizations take note. The leader is the mission, not the AD.

Is your artistic director the custodian of your mission, passing that duty on to the next artistic director?  Or does the legacy of the organization reside in the legacy of the AD?  Is “artistic vision” really a thing, or is it theory?  Wouldn’t it make more sense for an executive director with an artistic sensibility to curate the company’s impact?

Maybe your leader ought to be the company’s leader, not merely the artistic leader.  With artistic personnel hired to support the mission (instead of supporting the artistic director), your institution will become far more flexible as tastes and impacts change.

Nonprofit Arts Organizations Without Flexibility Present a Disconnect When It Really Matters

Orlando

On September 12, 2001, we issued an internal memo at our nonprofit arts organization.  We proffered the notion that standing by our programming and “moving forward” was the best way to fight back.

We were wrong.  Putting on blinkers never helps.

On June 12, 2016, after one attack in Orlando and a foiled one in Santa Monica – key nonprofit arts organizations are right now readying memos rationalizing the same advice.

Move forward.  That’ll show ‘em.

At what tipping point do we scrap activities to reflect the damage inflicted on people?  Why must we wait for a year to see the first artistic responses?  Why not now?  Why worry about the production quality of said response?  As nonprofits, when do we sacrifice our comfort zone to provide leadership to our communities for some resolution?

Or should we just move forward?  Yet again?

Talk to Me Like I’m 10: a Lesson in Long-Term Planning for Artistic Directors and Board Chairs

talk to me like I'm 10.jpg

Does long-term planning cause a rift between your artistic director and those other people?

Does it cause discord between your board chair and those other people?

Seen all the time among arts charities:  carefully (and successfully) executed annual development plans reduced to rubble after the board institutes a high-priced capital campaign.  The capital campaign sucks up all in its path, causing 5 years of stakeholder repair.  Indispensable Chair happy.  Staff leaves.

Artistic directors substituting their taste for vision and their personal and professional relationships for core values.  Idiosyncrasy obviates mission.  Indispensable AD happy.  Board leaves.

Both cases: company imperiled, stakeholders leaving.

Time to create an action plan, written at a 5th grade level.  Make it about impact rather than income.  Test the theory that your arts nonprofit is indispensable.  Make sure that your most important stakeholders don’t leave.

Nonprofit Arts Board Members, Executive Directors, and Staffs: Has Your Board Been Assimilated? Have You?

BORG-CUBE

Board membership for a nonprofit arts organization is a privilege. It requires commitment of time and money.  It requires the urge to change things for the better.

It’s not for self-aggrandizement.  It is not about being thanked endlessly.  It’s not about banquets, galas, and being fed.

It’s a job.

Group thinking can be inspirational, but “groupthink” can poison your organization’s health.  When your board only votes unanimously, for example, or the newly-approved mission is just reverse-engineered to current activities and reduced to pabulum, you may no longer have a board.  You may instead have a Borg.

Borg members wait for orders.  They don’t debate.  Resistance is futile.

The Borg is powerful.  Borg Presidents lead by autocracy.  Borg Queens (often founders) drive staff away by insisting the organization’s activities revolve around them. Borg Drones atrophy.

Board or Borg?

Artists and Non-Offensiveness: The Tyranny of Over-Sensitivity, Feelings, and Participation Trophies

safespaces

There’s a troubling trend.  There’s an absurd unwillingness to offend that seems pervasive among arts creators.

Not that creators are creating “Pleasant Art,” per se.  Writers and artists are creating lots of work that is designed to make audiences uncomfortable.  Which is good.  The work may be about single issues and not terribly complex, but it’s good.

However, there are too many artists raised in atmospheres where everyone wins, even when they lose.  In the name of inclusion and self-esteem, they live in a world where, like toddlers, “feeling bad” is simply unacceptable.

They believe they’re special.

To these artists:

  1. You are not special.
  2. You do not deserve success.
  3. Sometimes you lose.

It’s what you do with that information that defines you.

If you believe that nobody should ever have hurt feelings, you’re not doing your job.

Arts Organizations: 137th Post, 137 Thanks, and 137 (of Other People’s) Words That Guide Inspiring Leaders

erasse2

“We must reject the idea — well-intentioned, but dead wrong – that the primary path to greatness in the social sectors is to become “more like a business.” Most businesses…fall somewhere between mediocre and good.” (Collins)

“If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” (Thoreau)

“People don’t buy WHAT you do, they buy WHY you do it.” (Sinek)

“When they say things like, we’re going to do this by the book, you have to ask, what book? Because it would make a big difference if it was Dostoevsky or, you know, ‘Ivanhoe.'” (Anderson)

“‘To be is to do.’ (Socrates)  ‘To do is to be.’ (Sartre)  ‘Do be do be do.’ (Sinatra)” [Vonnegut compilation]

Face-palms in the arts world: Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright; the band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light

Head in Hands

Somewhere…

  • A managing director is face-palming because the budget draft is still a departmental wish list;
  • A marketing director is face-palming because the artistic director decided that he knew more about marketing than the marketing director;
  • A development director is face-palming because the board chair has fashioned a multi-million dollar “capital” campaign (actually, a “get-out-of-debt” campaign) with no feasibility study, no regard to the annual development campaign, and no accountability to anyone else;
  • An artistic director is face-palming because the plays she wants to do don’t jibe with the mission of the company;
  • A board member is face-palming because every meeting is about reporting, money, by-laws, and the gala;

And somewhere, performing arts audiences and constituents are collectively face-palming, hoping against hope that the arts folks in their region remember that for them, it’s about the art.

If You’re _____________, Then Your Nonprofit Arts Organization is Probably Unsustainable (with apologies to Jeff Foxworthy)

Single woman sitting lonely in an empty cinema or theatre

  • not paying your executive director because s/he is independently wealthy and actually donates 6 figures to the company;
  • working 70 hours/week every week and see nothing wrong with that;
  • hiring part-time employees and expecting them to work full-time free of charge;
  • of the belief that your employees are less important than your equipment or your building;
  • insisting that anyone besides your marketing director is the final word on your marketing;
  • keeping your artistic director away from donors because s/he doesn’t know how to interact with them;
  • in the mindset that any of your people are more important than any other of your people;
  • playing “Dialing for Dollars” to meet your payroll;
  • arguing that “keeping the base” is more important than expanding the audience, while…
  • thinking that you can do both;
  • sweating a little right now after reading this post.

Differentiating Between What’s Great About the Arts and What’s Great About YOUR Arts Organization

economic impact argument again eecard

You can look anywhere to discover what’s important about the arts.  Try here, here, here, here, and here for starters.

The key to “sustainability” (which, as previously written, is not “survival”) is proof that your particular arts charity is achieving specific community goals.

Each social service and social justice charity measures its results toward the execution of their mission.  Those results have a direct link to funding and community support.  Your arts charity, then, must find results that apply specifically to your organization.

Charitable results cannot be measured by paid attendance or positive economic impact.  Those are commercial results and byproducts — data used by sports teams to get cities to build them stadiums or by entertainment conglomerates to allow regions to let them build casinos.

So what makes your arts charity charitable?  Answer that and you’re 99% there.

Quantifiable Outcomes and Social Impact Applies to All Nonprofits – Including Arts Organizations

if-quantifiable-outcomes-arent-important-then-i-can-fire-my-whole-development-team-and-just-do-what-i-want-yay-me-7dc56

Oh, I can hear it now.

“See?” they’ll say.  “People don’t care about outcomes when they make donations.  The Washington Post said so.  Ergo: we don’t need outcomes.”

To come to that conclusion is just whistling past the graveyard.

Remember these hard facts:

  • The arts are not mentioned in section 501 (c) (3) of the US tax code (you know…the law). The arts fall under “charitable organizations,” which require a measure of public good.
  • Using the arts as a cover for an individual’s vanity vision is fine, as long as it’s a commercial venture. Once you pull the taxpaying public into it, ethics demand an outcome.
  • The arts can be transformative, both on a commercial and nonprofit level. What differentiates the nonprofit is that a measurement of positive change of the human condition is necessary to rationalize funding.

Don’t Be a Company with a Mission; Be a Mission with a Company

cart-before-the-horse

I’ve been reading a number of articles discussing arts charity marketing as a whole-company tool, not a ticket-sales tool.  Here’s one from TRG.

I was disappointed by Advancement Northwest’s Major Gifts Symposium keynote speakers’ idea of including donors within a charity’s mission.

I have been met with resistance from key artistic and production personnel who have been taught that “we do the art and everything else is a necessary evil.” (Actual quote.)

It’s just human nature for stakeholders to overvalue their contribution. Board members do it. Employees. Volunteers. Audience. Artists. Donors.

Here’s the thing: arts nonprofits that are created to solve a societal problem don’t have these issues.  These issues fester when the company is created prior to creating (and rationalizing) a mission.

Create your company as an answer and horses and carts will sort themselves out.

Stop Kibbitzing Your Nonprofit Arts Marketers — They’re the Experts at What They Do (And You’re Probably Not)

art of marketing

Jerry Yoshitomi wrote a brilliant article last October.  And in learning and unlearning of audience development skills, all too often marketing people are brutally disrespected by the other areas of the organization.  I’ve heard marketing departments referred to as “a necessary evil” dozens of times.

Compare the following sentences:


“Anyone can market your arts organization.”

“Anyone can market your arts organization SUCCESSFULLY.”

“Anyone can act, paint, sing, dance, sculpt, direct, and play the tuba.”

“Anyone can act, paint, sing, dance, sculpt, direct, and play the tuba SUCCESSFULLY.”


Don’t be caught in ancient thinking.  Just because all consumers react to marketing doesn’t make them good marketers.  Treat marketers as you would treat other artists, because that’s what they are.  They are the best interpreters of your product to the public.  Don’t stand between them and your organization’s success.

Aphorisms for the Modern Arts Charity Leader

Fortune Cookie

If it ain’t broke, break it. Then fix it.

You only read books in one direction.

Your legacy ends when you leave.

Institutional survival is not the goal.

Missions are gods; mission statements are bibles.

The best leaders are the best assistants.

Learn why before you continue.

Success is measured by impact, not excellence.

“Fiscal responsibility” is a business practice, not a mission statement.

Volunteers are employees who work for $0.

If your people are averaging 50+ hours a week, you’re failing.

Always use transitive verbs in your mission statements.

The cool kids are back in high school.

Sharpen your point of view; that’s why it’s a point.

Be completely, spectacularly wrong.

Treat candidates like employees.

Treat employees like human beings.

Treat human beings as though you are one.

Fire yourself regularly; interview yourself for your job.

Be funnier.

Leadership by Forcing Audiences to Follow: “This is How We’ve Always Done It” Didn’t Work in 1776 and It’s Not Working Now

RevWar_134 (475 x 315)

Overall, there are 28% fewer television viewers between 18 and 49 than there were 4 years ago.  The average television viewer is now 50.

They’re streaming and DVRing. “Appointment Television” is becoming increasingly obsolete, apart from the Super Bowl…so far.

Broadcasters are sweating bullets and taking golden parachutes.  It’s guerrilla consumer behavior and to them, it’s just not fair.

Just like the Colonial armies – they didn’t stand in neat, straight lines as the British did in the Revolutionary War.  They broke the rules of battle.  Not fair.

Just like younger people bolting from old-school arts organizations – those whose customs and rules work for the producer without working for the video streamer.  Not fair.

Predictable, season-oriented, excellently-produced but inadequately result-oriented programming has become today’s version of Artistic Redcoats.  Pretty, stubborn, old-fashioned, and easily destroyed by Artistic Neo-Colonials.

Guess who wins that battle?

Charity Leadership: Are “Family” and “Company” unconnected? Read on…

Family dynamic: parent(s), children, siblings. Extended to include: grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins. Further extended to include: spouse(s), in-laws, in-laws’ spouses. May include lifelong friends and, sometimes, pets.

Company dynamic (charity): trustees, leaders, directors, managers, administrators, jobbers, customers, targeted beneficiaries. Extended to include: co-leaders, benefactors, additional management layers, corporate partners, colleagues. Further extended to include: advisors, non-targeted beneficiaries and, sometimes, the government.

Family is not company. Company is not family.

Each seeks a “home.” Neither seeks dysfunction. Few achieve functionality. Both are worthy.

Family members often yearn to be companies with direction: clear and evenhanded parents, rebellious and aspiring children who just need additional experience, collaborative siblings.

Company members often yearn to be families with humanity: caring but autocratic leaders, ambitious managers, iconoclastic jobbers, entitled customers, and grateful beneficiaries.

Is it best to treat families and companies as unconnected?

The Case for Individual Artist Support Begins with Measuring Hope

Painter sculptor carver glassblower metal-artist potter actor set-designer lighting-designer costume-designer sound-designer playwright director choreographer jazz-dancer ballet-dancer modern-dancer opera-singer jazz-singer classical-singer musical-comedy-singer performance-artist rock-singer rock-musician classical-musician poet novelist ballroom-dancer hip-hop-dancer hip-hop-singer beat-boxer aerialist cinematographer folk-dancer native-dancer folk-singer Latin-dancer swing-dancer belly-dancer tap-dancer clog-dancer sketch-artist screenwriter clown mime country-singer storyteller improviser busker magician juggler composer lyricist ethnically-specific-singer ethnically-specific-dancer ethnically-specific-visual-artist

Apologies to those I neglected.

Art breathes life into our lives.  Art offers us the only thing on the planet that has the capacity to make us better – hope.  Even existentialism compels us to rebel… and hope nonetheless.

Unfortunately, hope is not a measurable outcome.

We must find it within our best selves to find a system to fund individual artists separate and apart from arts organizations.  Not instead of, but in addition to.  We deserve to hope for better.

This Just In: Artists Value Money Just Like You Do

I just read an article in the Chicago Tribune about actors receiving no payment for some performances. I’m not sure why it was written, except as acknowledgment that, well, actors receive no payment for some performances. Even for hit shows.

But why? “We can either pay you guys and not do a show — or not pay you and do a show,” said one producer in the article.

Here’s the thing: there are lots of performers. The competition forces them to undervalue themselves.

But that doesn’t mean that it’s ethical not to pay them. At least minimum wage. For rehearsal and performance time.

If that producer decides not to make money on a project, that’s his prerogative. But no pay to performers is abusive, unless he’s offering 40 acres and a mule after the run of the show.

Neither artists nor nonprofit arts organizations are entitled, they just act that way sometimes

Every kid wins trophies.

There are two possible takeaways from this fact:

a) Trophies don’t mean much; or
b) Every kid deserves trophies.

Or both.

If a), then the result is that external recognition must be useless.  Which means:

1)      We reward mediocrity.
2)      We foster cynicism to greatness.

If b), then the result is that external recognition must be unrelenting. Which means:

3)      We reward everything.
4)      We foster entitlement to greatness.

I have rarely seen folks as entitled as those in the performing arts today, at least here in Seattle, the epicenter of externally-based self-esteem.  I’ve known dozens of actors who have insisted that they’re too talented to audition. Dozens more of nonprofit arts organizations feeling too holy to follow a mission.

Consider: Oscar Isaac had to audition for the role of Llewyn Davis. It wasn’t handed to him.

%d bloggers like this: