Can arts save their way to health?

July 1, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

"Arts organizations that consistently do good work and are aggressive about their marketing are the ones which succeed, both programmatically and financially."

So says Michael Kaiser, President of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in a recent item at Huffington Post. Kaiser will be hitting the road, visiting all 50 states, to lead "Arts in Crisis" discussions. Included is an August 11 stop in Indy. Details here.

He states that canceling performances, eliminating educational programming, shortening seasons, or "dumbing down" product in the name of accessibility is wrongheaded.

"These approaches to dealing with the current recession all assume that cost is the underlying problem of the arts; conventional wisdom suggests that an arts organization can 'save its way to health.' But this is wrong, dangerously wrong."

Is Kaiser right? If quality stays up and the message gets out, will audiences (and donors) show up? Does what he says apply perhaps to the Kennedy Center's home in Washington, D.C., but not to Indianapolis?

Your thoughts?

ADVERTISEMENT
  • HarveyFJuly 1, 2009 5:14 PM
    Why wouldn't his comments apply to Indianapolis? Of course they do. Or, should we just dumb down what culture we have left out of existence here in corn country? Maybe the ISO could have an evening of Bob Seger music...
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • SteveJuly 2, 2009 11:13 AM
    Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes! Once one heads down the road of dumbing down the product, in effect talking down to one's audience, the road back becomes awfully hard to find. I see it all over, not just in Indiana. This holds true in the political/governmental realm, too, but that's a discussion for another time and place.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • JMJuly 2, 2009 11:42 AM
    The problem with cutting programs to reduce overall expenditures is the assumption that the programs are not necessary in the first place. I know of no arts organization that develops a program just for the heck of it--it ALWAYS serves an expressed or observed need. The need will remain whether or not the program exists. The key is to carefully do a needs review to identify programs that are happening just because they've been institutionalized--they once served a need that is no longer there. Then the impact of removing the program(s) should be assessed, both financially (since people have come to expect the program and may stop coming if it is no longer provided) and mission-related.

    Making programs more accessible (i.e., dumbing down the content) is unacceptable. Altering quality to remove controversy and attract a wider audience is likewise unacceptable. Cuts can be made by reducing overhead; unfortunately, at this time, reducing marketing overhead is tempting but wrong as well.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • AaronJuly 2, 2009 12:14 PM
    I think its presumptious to assume that if you have a good product and get the message out, audiences and donors will just continue to show up - at least in the same way they have been. They may want to show up, but if they don't have the cash, it won't matter.

    However, I do think you can carefully analyze how and what your organization is doing and determine ways to keep your programs and quality, while cutting costs - and it's not necessarily cutting overhead. For some organizations, there is little overhead to cut - i.e. volunteer based organizations. It's more of focusing efforts and being realistic about what will and will not pay for itself. It may be necessary to do more things for a less amount of time - fewer performances - shorter gallery time - etc. This may actually cost more - more time and overall more money because things are changing out more frequently- but can widen your appeal with variety, and mean more people come through the door - balancing it out.
    But, you still have to get the word out.

    Don't dumb down the content. That's just a bad idea all the way around.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Cindy DashnawJuly 2, 2009 7:57 PM
    Making content accessible does not mean the same thing as dumbing it down. The ISO's Symphony on the Prairie season is a good example: Throughout the summer, you can hear music from the Grateful Dead and the Beatles, and you can hear Mozart, La forza del destino and Bolero. At the Eiteljorg Museum, you've had the chance to see art from popular, blockbuster artists such as Dale Chihuly and Ansel Adams, and you can see the work of classic Western artists such as Frederic Remington every day.

    Accessibility simply lowers the intangible barriers people unused to visiting cultural institutions build up in their minds. Once you get them in the door, you have the chance to convert them. But you have to get them in the door first. I don't call that dumb at all. I think it's pretty smart.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

ADVANCED SEARCH
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

  1. liek the rest of America

  2. These quaint,obsessed musings by the stalkers are certainly entertaining, but I'm trying to figure out what, if anything, all the yelping below has to do with Zak Brown.

  3. It's evident that Moffett was pushing the right buttons and corporate America is now trying to squash him. He just wanted to withdraw the free pilot services provided to the company by the pilots to try and put some pressure on a company that has not been interested in negotiating a contract in over 5 years. The company does not provide a contract because not having one has saved them a bundle of money. Shame on any Republic pilots not standing behind their union leader just because things are getting tough, can you not see such strategic moves by the company as putting the last union president in a corporate position and into THEIR pocket. Do you really believe the last union president is so appalled at the attempts by Moffett, do you not remember his oppositions to the company? We stood behind him. It has been proven over and over again for thousands of years without fail, a man cannot serve two masters. Anyone that believes people vote contrary to their paycheck and livelihood deserve to be taken advantage of, the recent statements by the former union president are laughable as he denounces the current union president from his new corporate position. Have you ever seen a drafted sports player score points for his previous team, it cannot be done, he is not on the pilots side anymore, he gets his money a different way now than you and I do, and he should not be allowed to remain on the seniority list. A drafted player brings strength, credibility, tactical knowledge, and a strategic advantage to his NEW team, he would not be drafted or paid were it otherwise. We are all forced to choose only one side to play for and support, not doing so has many references in life such as insider trading and shaving points, all illegal for good reason. This basic fact is why corporate moguls, scientist, and engineers all sign non-discloser agreements and non-compete clauses, as protection in case they are lured into switching sides as our former union president has done. No NFL coach ever drafted a player so that both teams could benefit and better understand each other, they are recruited to win the game against that former team, period. Likewise the company does not recruit the former union president by accident or mutual understanding, its strategy. Don't confuse playing the game with good sportsman-like conduct in support of common business and prosperity goals, with the requirement to only play for one side. Good men we all love and favor fall subject to this manipulation, often without their knowledge, and it is not a betrayal of their friendship to oppose them when they switch sides. If we did not love and trust them, they would not have been chosen and lured to the other side in the first place. The deception by the drafted player is not made at a conscious level, it's just human nature and it's all about money and power which corrupts our ability to be objective and loyal to two masters. This is why our court system created the defense attorney, and why our military created counter intelligence. Its strategy and its propaganda, and it works, and that's why the "powers to be" manipulate the chess pieces by sometimes changing their colors. Some players know they are being manipulated when their color is changed, but it brings them more money and power so they do not care. The rest have good intentions but do not even realize they are being manipulated. This tactic is also known by another name, Divide and Conquer. In battle sending an imperfect message with an imperfect team is obviously not ideal, but it's still being sent by YOUR team, your union leader, a leader that has common goals and common rewards with you, they are the best, because we have elected them to do a job for us. If you are not backing Moffett but believing the spin by those that have recently switched sides, you are taking food out of your own mouth. Showing unity and backing an imperfect situation still results in taking just as much ground, it's about unity and bargaining power. It's not necessary to wait around for that perfect attack because it will never come, the company will spin and attempt to destroy anyone that gets in their way. Ultimately it's not about any specific attack anyway, ASAP or whatever it makes no difference, it is and always has been only about power. If this company cared about safety it would not build pairings with 8 hour overnights, come on, are you that naive? Besides, do you really think Hoffa cares, no, he got a call from corporate America and was squeezed into denouncing Moffett. If he didn't they would spin the safety card against him and the Teamsters National with implication for truckers, future contracts, insurance rates etc...saying something like the Teamsters use safety as a bargaining chip, blah blah blah... Do you really think any pilot is going to do something unsafe for the contract, absolutely not, the only ones threatening safety here is the company with reduced rest, fatigue, and poverty. Do you not find it odd that Hoffa and the Teamsters are opposing a Teamster president publicly? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and work with one of their own? Why did they not sit down and help him strategize, correct any mistakes, and charge ahead? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and leverage a contract for all those pilots that have been paying Teamster dues, isn't that why we have all been paying Teamster dues in the first place? I sure haven't been paying dues so that the Teamsters National could come along and write this kind of an article undercutting our union leader and our unity. Whose side is the Teamsters National really on, it's obviously not the Republic pilots side.

  4. No matter what Moffatt does the company is going to spin it like he is the terrorist and brainwash people like you into believing it, wake up, back your players that are trying to change things for you and your livelihood. Where has Hoffa been for the last 6 years, except collecting our dues. Seriously, do you really think an FO going for upgrade, signed off by a checkairman ready for the upgrade, who then fails, is not even capable of returning as a First Officer.

  5. whoa!

ADVERTISEMENT