The Artful Manager: Andrew Taylor on the business of arts and culture.

May 13, 2008

Even when the big-boned lady sings, it ain't over

When you're in the business of building loyalty and coaxing repeat purchase from your audiences (and aren't we all?), a positive experience with your programming is only part of the battle. The real impact comes in how the experience is remembered over time. Brain science is starting to discover how and why the actual experience and the remembered experience can be radically different.

This article from Miller-McCune describes recent discoveries about the brain that suggest our memories don't evolve linearly from experienced fact (called ''verbatim'' memory) to remembered essence (called ''gist''). But rather, these two systems are working simultaneously. Says the article:

When an event occurs, verbatim memory records an accurate representation. But even as it is doing so, gist memory begins processing the information and determining how it fits into our existing storehouse of knowledge. Verbatim memories generally die away within a day or two, leaving only the gist memory, which records the event as we interpreted it.

The two tracks of encoding can sometimes lead to a disconnect between what actually happened, and what the individual remembers:

Under certain circumstances, this can produce a phenomenon [experimental psychologist Valerie] Reyna and her colleagues refer to as ''phantom recollection.'' She calls this ''a powerful form of false alarm'' in which gist memory -- designed to look for patterns and fill in perceived gaps -- creates a vivid but illusory image in our mind.

Not that we should all toy with the minds of our audiences (or, should we?), but the discovery of verbatim and gist running in parallel does suggest some strategic opportunities for cultural managers. For example, can we create an environment in which patrons remember neutral experiences favorably, or in which positive experiences are encoded in gist memory with an extra boost?

Since we all tend to construct the context and relevance of an experience within groups, rather than alone (social semiotics anyone?), we might have important opportunities to rig the game in the moments following a cultural experience -- or in spaces within one. Any effort to help an audience member bring relevant context to the experience before, during, and after might help, as well.

In essence, verbatim and gist memory suggest that the performance may be over when the fat lady sings, but the encoding and recollection of that performance will take days to find its shape.

May 12, 2008

Attendance vs. engagement

Three foundations -- Pew, Wallace, and Philadelphia -- are ponying up $6.3 million to boost cultural engagement in Philadelphia over the next 12 years. It's a bold initiative by any measure, but vulnerable (already it seems) to some common sandtraps around goals and means.

The biggest sandtrap is to conflate observed attendance with ''engagement'' or ''participation.'' The observation usually presumes you have a specific frame to do your counting (attendance at professional arts events). And the attendance expectation usually means you want more volume, rather than more impact.

Even this short article goes back and forth between volume and depth, beginning with a goal to ''double audience participation at area arts events over the next 12 years,'' and ending with an emphasis on casting a wider net (at least around how ''engagement'' is defined...although still with a bias toward more formal cultural experience).

So, what's the problem? Nothing necessarily. More money to help arts organizations engage their audiences and communities is a good thing. More inclusive metrics to measure their success (the proposed ''Cultural Engagement Index'') can be extraordinarily helpful in focusing long-term strategy, as well.

The trick in advancing ''cultural engagement,'' however, lies in truly embracing the complexity of the concept, and the many channels that facilitate it. A rich cultural ecology includes thousands of entry points and connections -- some small portion of them provided by nonprofit, professional arts organizations. The larger universe of ''engagement'' and ''participation'' is provided by informal groups (book clubs, knitting circles, amateur photographer clubs), commercial venues (paint-your-own pottery, Home Depot, the local music store), and social organizations not primarily about the arts (churches, schools, social services, hospitals). Funding by arts-focused foundations and alliances tends to favor the professional, nonprofit arts (understandably so), even though that part of the system has little influence on the rest.

It should be fascinating to watch how this initiative becomes operational -- what projects are funded, what measures emerge, and what outcomes (attendance vs. engagement) take precedence when the two are mutually exclusive.

(Thanks to Mark for the link and the thoughtful commentary.)

May 9, 2008

Visualizing the connections

Thanks to Lex Leifheit's reference to one of my posts, I found a really cool programmatic innovation through one of her posts (such is the way the weblog world works). The DAISY system provided by New Haven's International Festival of Arts & Ideas encourages visitors to explore the entire content of the festival through many different angles: genres, events, themes, and artists.

DAISY (aka, ''Dynamic Arts & Ideas Search Yielder'') offers a branching graphic view of the festival programs. With a specific event at its center (like a Liz Lerman lecture, for example), the graphic offers related artists, events, themes, and genres...each of which can be selected to become the new center of the exploration.

It's an intriguing response to an age-old problem in cultural programming -- how to slice, dice, and segment a season or series of events in a way that simplifies choice, but doesn't presume a particular bias (clustered by genre, or artist, or discipline, or even price). DAISY seems to allow for multiple entry paths, and to encourage a more organic approach to the material for the prospective audience.

I'll be really interested to see how festival-goers use the system, and whether it leads them to find or select events they might not have otherwise connected.

Thanks Lex!

May 8, 2008

Creating space for play

One of my MBA students (thanks Michal) connected me with this useful article about creative play and its importance in childhood development. I particularly like the list of tips for facilitating play (included below). It seems that cultural managers could use some version of this list in many situations, by substituting the word ''children'' with '' staff,'' ''artists,'' ''board members,'' ''audiences,'' ''volunteers,'' and the like.

Let the play begin.

Facilitating children's play
Young children need a balance of opportunities for different kinds of play, indoors and outdoors. They need the support of knowledgeable adults and parents who do the following:

Provide long, uninterrupted periods (45-60 minutes minimum) for spontaneous free play.
Provide a variety of materials to stimulate different kinds of play--blocks and construction toys for cognitive development; sand, mud, water, clay, paint, and other open-ended materials for sensory play, dress-up clothes and props for pretend play; balls, hoops, climbing places, and open space for gross motor play.
Provide loose parts for play, both indoors and out, and encourage children to manipulate the environment to support their play.
Consider the opportunities for challenge and age-appropriate risk-taking in play.
Ensure that all children have access to play opportunities and are included in play.
Let children play for their own purposes.
Play with children on their terms, taking the occasional ride down the slide, or putting on a hat and assuming a role in pretend play.
Recognize the value of messy play, rough-and-tumble play, and nonsense play.
Understand that children need to feel a sense of belonging to the play culture of childhood.
Take an interest in their play, asking questions, offering suggestions, and engaging eagerly as co-players when invited.

May 7, 2008

Because art is context

In the visual art equivalent of the much-blogged-about Joshua Bell in the subway experiment, a Belgian arts channel placed an influential contemporary painter out of context to see who would take note. How many stopped to watch Luc Tuymans painting? About four percent.

It's a bit of a rigged experiment in both cases, as commuters and street-wanderers often have something else on their minds. But it underscores the importance of context, place, and focus to so much artistic work. It also makes me wonder what would happen if both Bell and Tuymans had some training from an accomplished busker (which, perhaps, is a good way of describing the arts administrator's role in the system).

May 1, 2008

Three words, three problems

During the recent Association of Arts Administration Educators conference here in Madison, the increasing proficiency and professionalism around our collective conversation was both a source of pride, and a cause for pause. As a field of educators, researching and teaching cultural management and leadership, we're clearly growing in reflection, connections, and success. But what if we're doing so at a time when the profession, as we've defined it, is changing rapidly? What if we're all getting increasingly proficient at a decreasingly relevant part of the ecosystem?

Consider, for example, the three-word phrase that often crops up at such conferences: ''professional arts organization.'' This phrase captures, in shorthand, the specific category of cultural endeavor we tend to be discussing. Professional arts organizations require professional management, aesthetic integrity, curatorial control, and stable but responsive structures to hold them together while moving their mission forward. These are the standards that drive our teaching and learning about the field.

But each of those three words -- ''professional,'' ''arts,'' and ''organization'' -- is in radical flux at the moment. That suggests that a phrase (and an assumption) combining all three could mean less and less in shorthand form.

This concern may come from my current reading matter, Clay Shirky's new book Here Comes Everybody, about the increasing opportunities for collective action without traditional organizational structures -- think Flickr or Wikipedia or iStockPhoto. But there's something rumbling in the world that questions our basic assumptions about arts and cultural management. Let's take a look at each word in the phrase, in reverse order:

Organization
The formal organization (social, commercial, political, etc.) evolved in response to a set of structural barriers to collective action. Work that required more than one or a few people to complete -- highway systems, national defense, mass-produced goods, save-the-spotted-owl initiatives, performing arts touring networks, museums -- created large problems of coordination, alignment of resources (enough money in one place under one decision system), and high transaction costs (everyone having to agree every time...exhausting). The organization resolved these challenges through formalized decision structures, consolidated resources, and persistent identity (for example, a corporation lives separately from its founders, and is endowed with many/most of the rights of an individual). There was a cost to this structure, to be sure. A significant portion of any organization's energy is consumed by self-maintenance rather than delivering on its purpose. Since the option was to not do the thing at all, we figured the costs were acceptable and necessary.
With the evolution of digital communications networks and software, however, many of the original challenges that required an organization are gone or significantly reduced. Collective action is increasingly available to distributed groups who don't even know each other by name, and may convene around a cause only to disburse thereafter. The cost of production and distribution has dropped to almost zero for many goods and services. Organizations are still necessary and essential parts of the mix, but they're not the only (or even the optimal) solution to every question, as they once were.
Arts
There's little need to go on about this particular word, which we all would agree is a fast-moving, increasingly amorphous creature. When we talk about ''arts'' in the context of ''arts management'' or ''arts organizations,'' we still generally mean predominantly Western forms of expression, with an assumed emphasis on technical or aesthetic excellence. We don't always mean this, of course. But if you nudge most conversations by professionals, you'll find this assumption just beneath the surface. Evidence comes from the fact that we still add qualifiers to the word when we mean something other than the above: ''community arts,'' ''amateur arts.''
Professional
Specialized organizations in specialized industries require specialized professionals -- trained in the task by formal process or apprenticeship. Professionals earn the term when they are paid for their specialized work and when the nature and frame of their efforts are defined and evaluated by their peers rather than by their customers. Professional writers define what professional writers do. Professional doctors and realtors define the parameters and certifications for their peers.
But, again, what happens to the word ''professional'' when works of comparable quality and skill can be conceived, produced, and distributed without expensive or centralized means of production? Flickr has millions of exceptional images, many shot by individuals with no formal training, expecting no pay, and unfiltered by a traditional gatekeeper (curator, publisher, agent). Says Shirky:

When reproduction, distribution, and categorization were all difficult, as they were for the last five hundred years, we needed professionals to undertake those jobs, and we properly venerated those people for the service they performed. Now those tasks are simpler, and the earlier roles have in many cases become optional, and are sometimes obstacles to direct access, often putting the providers of the older service at odds with their erstwhile patrons.

So, am I suggesting that we abandon our foundational phrase ''professional arts organization''? Of course not. As long as there are complex processes, specialized physical requirements of expression (theaters, museums, even on-line forums), and a recognition of the value of extraordinary skill, vision, and voice, we will need organizations, professionals, and filtering systems to find, foster, and connect expressive works to the world.

But we may want to recalibrate our underlying assumptions as an industry (and as educators who hope to advance that industry and its goals) about the specific role of what we now call ''professional arts organizations.'' These are a subset of a massive ecology available to us to achieve our larger purpose. If we stick too rigidly to our terms, we may become obstacles to the missions we claim to have.

April 30, 2008

Still digging out...

www.flickr.com

I'm still working to dig out all the deferred detritus on my desk following the ramp-up and hosting of the recent Association of Arts Administration Educators conference here in Madison last week. It was an extraordinary event, with rooms full of smart, funny, and insightful people, all eager to learn and share about developing new generations of cultural leaders.

We heard about the brain science of happiness and compassion from Dr. Richard Davidson; about the structure and strategies of cultural policy from Jonathan Katz; and about the shaping and shifting of vibrant, creative cities from Carol Coletta. And in between, the various panels and work sessions explored cultural research, consulting, standards, international issues, university politics, arts in small communities, and other compelling topics now challenging arts administration degree programs.

There's more to come. But for now, the groaning stacks of ignored paperwork on my desk beckon me back. Thanks to ALL who made this past weekend such a glorious conversation. It was an honor to have you all with us in Madison, Wisconsin.

April 21, 2008

Focusing energy off-line

I'm playing host to an international conference later this week, welcoming my colleagues from degree-granting programs in arts and cultural management from around the world. I expect great conversations and engaging arguments about how we all find, enroll, prepare, and support innovative and productive leaders for arts and cultural organizations. I also expect to drink a reasonable amount of cocktails and beer with people I like and admire.

But the endeavor will keep me off-line this week, preparing for and producing the event with the Association of Arts Administration Educators' powerhouse staff of one (thanks Barb).

See you next week!

[ read more entries in The Artful Manager archives ]

BlogPulse Profile

May 13, 2008

Even when the big-boned lady sings, it ain't over