Anthony Tommasini offered a paragraph in last Sunday’s New York Times that’s well worth a moment’s pause. Embedded within an article he wrote about the backstory on pianist Leon Fleisher’s recording, Two Hands, the paragraph said:
The success of the CD, which quickly hit the top 10 of Billboard’s classical chart, should offer the reeling classical music business an encouraging lesson: that at a time of financial challenges and uncertain mission, smaller may be better, and that every project should have a clear and meaningful purpose.
Contrast that thought with the 2002 Washington Post editorial by Michael Kaiser of the Kennedy Center. He was mapping out key steps to save the future of the performing arts, and this was number one on that list:
Such organizations must once again be willing to develop and implement large-scale, important projects that are risky and energizing. The arts world used to produce numerous big, daring projects each year: the construction of major arts facilities from Lincoln Center to the Kennedy Center, the production of large-scale dramatic works, such as ‘Nicholas Nickleby,’ the mounting of new Ring Cycles, even by small opera companies….We have been scared into thinking small. And small thinking begets smaller revenue that begets even smaller institutions and reduced public excitement and involvement. No wonder so many arts organizations are announcing record deficits.
So, thinking small and focused is either a sign of genius or cowardice, depending on who you ask. I’d suggest that thinking differently, whether larger or smaller or even sideways, is the most courageous response to challenge or stress.
