Mr. Taylor,
Congragulations on your new appointment as the president of the Association of Arts Administration Educators. I am currently finishing my doctoral degree in Art Education/Arts Administration and looking forward to teaching arts administration and managment in the future. I have three questions about the association and your future plans:

(1) Will the association establish a research agenda for the field?

(2) How will the association continue to collect and manage up to date information on emerging arts administration programs across the country, i.e. Howard University, Wagner College, and others?

(3) How will the association build better bridges with arts organizations to develop meaningful internship and service learning experiences for pre-professional arts administrators?

What about governance and the boards? How do they fit in helping an infantile profession develop curricula and educational experiences that are valuable and meaningful to pre-professional arts leaders?

What do they want? Do they want to employ arts leaders with corporate business savy, but no real knowledge of the art form they propose to manage? Or do boards want arts leaders that know the art form, but lack the business cognizance neccessary to create the best possible art within a balanced budget?

This is the paradox of arts administration education and an area where further research is needed to begin providing a solution to this problem.

To both David and Andrea I am tempted to suggest that their positions are "reductio ad absurdium," but fear that a Latin quote, too, will be decried as elitist. They seem to be advocating that we reduce our "product" to the lowest common denominator, a generic entertainment commodity. Forty years after the fact, Bernstein's "Young Peoples' Concerts," which gave 6th graders credit by assuming that they could grasp sonata form, remain a benchmark for musical education. Now we are reduced to the obviousness of "Snakes on a Plane." Yes, there IS a difference between Shaw and Sondheim, and it is our marketing job, as the first step in audience education, to explain that. The debate should not be Luddite vs. Philistine (oops, another historical reference requiring both education and experience...). The uninformed/unexposed belong in focus groups, not on the marketing staff. Are new perspectives on retail marketing and consumer behavior necessary? Absolutely, but they can come from our "privy counsel." I repeat my original question about the need for arts knowledge as a job requirement: "If not us, who?"

I would agree heartily with Dave. As someone who entered the arts through formal theater training and graduated from the Bolz Center, I still believe retail marketers can provide a useful perspective. For example - with a growing number of patrons drawn away by the advent of home theater technology, who better to realize the live arts' competitive advantages against televisions and stereos than someone who has marketed televisions and stereos?

In addition, staff members with limited exposure to the nuances of the art form (Shaw vs. Sondheim, for example) will relate better to *audiences* with limited exposure to the art form. Having an in-house market entrant will arm your marketing team to overcome typical barriers for first-time ticket buyers.

I could go on and on. But I won't.

I'll just say this - I caution against holding too narrow a standard for new staff members' artistic knowledge. Even with my formal arts marketing training, I encountered a great deal of skepticism and resistance when entering the orchestral arena because my theater background wasn't sufficient expertise in the eyes of many of the artistic staff and musicians.

Moving past the internal prejudice wasted a LOT of time and energy on both sides.

I simply have to comment that this is a singularly arrogant attitude. What qualifies them? Generally, it's extensive training in the science and art of consumer marketing (and let's not forget, no matter how distasteful some in the field may find it, that our subscribers and ticket buyers are consumers, who often view what they are buying their tickets for as a consumer product). This idea that the arts are somehow so murky and complicated that only the select few can really understand its nuances is at best limiting and at worst highly elitist. I for one welcome those from other areas and disciplines because they bring new ideas and perspectives, things that arts management in general--and frankly, arts marketing specifically--desperately need.

The "qualifications" section of your job description for this position reads "Working knowledge of arts and cultural management or higher education preferred."

In my particular slice of this field, performing arts marketing, a noticeable portion of such listings are similar, usually something along the lines of "knowledge of classical music (or whatever the art form) helpful, but not required."

If we who run these organizations do not know the art form, its history, its social context, what makes Buxtehude different from Bartok, or Shaw different from Sondheim, how can we possibly communicate why anyone else might possible care to attend? If not us, who?

Must those of us who have dedicated our lives -- not just our careers -- to the arts, see good jobs go to career-changers who think their jobs as regional sales managers for Butterball Turkeys (a real example!) qualify them to market a professional symphony orchestra? How is it that marketing a generic consumer product with a nine-month shelf life gives someone an understanding of what motivates prospective audiences to commit to subscription-style membership in an organization selling a future intangible product with 100% spoilage every night?

Set your sights higher, Andrew!