Archive for the ‘money’ Category

Austerity Measures

Wednesday, July 28th, 2010

An article on budget cuts, layoffs, and salary cutbacks in Portland, Oregon’s arts scene this past weekend was a sad, if unsurprising, thing to read. This is happening all over, including here in Minnesota, of course, and while those of us here like to talk a good game about how much worse things could be if we weren’t lucky enough to live in a place where so many people care deeply about what we do, the frightening reality is that, based on everything we know from past downturns, the arts will be one of the last sectors to fully recover.

So yeah, we’re cutting, they’re cutting, everyone’s cutting. But hang on. There’s this guy Michael Kaiser – runs the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., became a legend in the arts biz by dragging orchestras and dance companies  back from the brink and making them solvent again – who’s running around the country telling everyone that we’re doing this exactly wrong:

You can’t save your way to health. You don’t get healthy by getting smaller, by doing less… [Also,] focus on today and tomorrow not yesterday. There’s no time for blame. When things are bad many people sit around talking about where it went wrong. That’s not healthy.

Hm, okay. I guess that’s more or less what Joe Dowling was saying last week when he told MPR that it had been a mistake to cut the Guthrie’s rehearsal schedule to save money this past season.  Still, that kind of broad pronouncement is easy to make in a speech, but harder to implement in the real world. If you’re not supposed to cut your way back to fiscal stability, but you have 33% less in your endowment than you did last year (and everyone else is in the same boat,) how can you possibly survive as an organization?

You have to plan your art. Most organizations plan their art too close to event. You need to plan four and five years out. First, you can make art better if you take more time. Second, you can do a better job fundraising. “I listen to the funder, find out what do they like to fund. I have a menu of five years of projects, so I can choose best event for funder.” Finally, “It helps me to educate my audience to want to see something that is not so accessible. I’m excited about projects that are transformational. But this requires some education of the audience. And with time, you can educate in advance. Creativity has been beaten out of so many arts organizations. Planning ambitious work four years out, creating big vision is what’s needed.”

Now, that makes very good sense, and it’s also demonstrably true – Kaiser will be happy to reel off the evidence for you. But that doesn’t mean it’s easy. What he’s talking about is a wholesale shift in how we run our industry, and a much higher level of competence than a lot of arts leaders currently have, quite frankly. (Please note that I’m not talking about a lack of passion, or commitment. But the sad truth is that far too many American arts managers are thrown into the deep end of a very big pool without ever having been taught anything more sophisticated than the dog paddle.)

Another hard truth is that, when arts leaders who are competent and do have new ideas start talking about massive systemic change, a lot of the people who work under them (orchestra musicians, say) get very, very nervous, and even angry. Because change is scary, and to be perfectly honest, it’s very hard without the benefit of hindsight to tell the difference between a leader who’s genuinely trying to do something fantastic and new that will benefit everyone in the long run, and one who’s just in way over his/her head and has started babbling about “unsustainable business models” when what s/he really means is “My job is way too hard, so you’re all going to have take massive salary cuts to make it less hard.” (The orchestra world is littered with the carcasses of ensembles that cut and cut and cut in the name of some sort of ill-defined “transformation,” then discovered too late that they’d cut themselves out of all relevance to their community and ceased to have a reason to exist.)

Throw in the additional wrinkle that most large non-profit arts boards are made up of very wealthy and generous people from the decidedly for-profit world, and you have a recipe for combustion when times get tough. Since for-profit companies exist to make money, and to preserve capital, it can be very difficult for people used to that world to remember that cultural groups exist for entirely different reasons, and that they therefore need different strategies to weather fiscal storms. Likewise, it’s easy for those on the receiving end of a board’s largess to forget that we quite literally wouldn’t have careers without their continuing generosity. It’s a very understandable disconnect, but it does lead to a lot of frustration on all sides.

Chaos is frequently the enemy of progress, and my take on why so many orchestras, in particular, flounder in tough times is that too many of us don’t find a way to pull on the oars together when we need to most. Faced with a crisis, some musicians dig in their heels and insist everything will work itself out, some managers see an excuse to make the massive cuts they’ve been wanting to impose for years, and some board members feel caught in the middle of it all and eventually do what they would do at their for-profit firms – find the route with the least apparent risk and set a course down it.

But if Michael Kaiser and an increasingly audible chorus of others are to be believed, that less risky route might actually keep us with our heads barely above water for far longer than we can afford.

Building For The Future

Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010

This is going to be a delicately written post, for a lot of reasons. Anytime politics and the arts start to get mixed up with each other, there seems to be a better than even chance that someone is going to start shouting at someone else, and the last thing we want is for that to happen here. But I wanted to draw your attention to a major project that the Minnesota Orchestra is preparing to undertake, and offer up some ways you could help us out if you felt like it.

If you follow the Twin Cities’ arts scene closely, you’ve probably read something about a proposed renovation of Orchestra Hall that’s been in the works for years now. You may even remember when the (decidedly preliminary) plan was for this to be a truly gargantuan, $100-million undertaking, and people were excitedly throwing out ambitious ideas from a full-scale restaurant in the lobby to a condo tower on top of the hall.

That, of course, was in the days when the American economy looked unstoppable, and huge cultural construction projects were popping up all over the Twin Cities, and for that matter, across the country. Today, as everyone knows all too well, things are very, very different, and the folks in charge of our organization have known for some time that we would need to significantly scale back our plans for the venue that houses our orchestra, our patrons, and our staff if we wanted the dream of a better Orchestra Hall to come to fruition.

Everyone involved knew immediately that, when we began to talk about what absolutely has to change to make Orchestra Hall a truly functional and welcoming 21st-century venue, we would have to focus primarily on the spaces that we musicians are almost never in. To put a finer point on it: our concert hall seats 2,450 people. Our lobby, on the other hand, can comfortably hold about 800. That’s not a good situation for anyone trying to find a bathroom, buy a drink at intermission, or even just have a nice conversation before or after the show.

Secondly, as much as we all love the interior of our acoustically superior hall, it was built in the early 1970s, and technology has come a long way since then, to put it mildly. We have one of the very best stage crews in the business, but they are frustrated every day by how difficult it is to stage the simplest of events (especially Young People’s Concerts, which tend to involve elaborate staging and amplification) with the sound, light, and audio/video equipment we have available. And speaking of education, the concerts we play for kids have become a hugely important part of our mission as an orchestra, and the renovation plans include the addition of more flexible and welcoming spaces for children to experience live music. As someone who spends a lot of hours playing the award-winning WAMSO Kinder Konzerts for the pre-K set, I can’t wait for the day when we can give those kids a truly first-class place to visit.

Now, over the next few weeks, you’re likely going to be seeing news about our plans start popping up again in the local press, because the legislature is about to open its session, and begin considering what capital projects to include in this year’s bonding bill. For cultural organizations, a bonding request is not something you approach lightly. No one wants to be seen asking the public to foot the cost of a project that doesn’t already have significant measurable public support. And no one needs to be told that money is tight everywhere right now.

Still, with construction costs going nowhere but up, and nearly 2/3 of the cost of our scaled-back renovation already pledged from private individuals and corporate supporters, we’re taking our case to the legislature and Governor Pawlenty this session, in an effort not only to better serve the hundreds of thousands who come through our doors every season, but also to create hundreds of construction jobs at a time when our state desperately needs them. The amount we’re asking for isn’t small, but it is, I believe, responsible, and promises a huge return on investment.

Here’s where you come in. If this is something that interests you, and you’d like to help us out by showing your support for the Orchestra Hall renovation project, we’ve created a special corner of our web site which contains a lot more information, answers to a lot of questions about what we’re planning and why we’re planning it now, and even an e-mail list you can join to get updates on the bonding process. Essentially, this is a way for you to let those who will hold the fate of this project in their hands know that you care about the Minnesota Orchestra and its continued vitality.

Make no mistake: the folks at the legislature and in the governor’s office are going to have to make a lot of very tough decisions in the 2010 session. And when you ask people in government how they make calls like these, they tell you that, first and foremost, they try to find out how their constituents feel, and where their priorities lie.

We know for a fact (in fact, those of us in the orchestra brag about it regularly to our friends who work in other US cities) that the people of Minneapolis-St. Paul are second to none in their passionate support for the arts and for live music in particular. Our audiences are among the most enthusiastic and diverse that you’ll find anywhere, and I love the fact that, on any given night, I can look out into the crowd at Orchestra Hall and see a middle-aged guy in a suit seated next to a college student who looks like he’s going duck hunting. It’s that kind of engagement from all corners of the community that makes Minnesota such an incredible place to live and work. I wouldn’t trade it for anything, and I’m guessing that most of you wouldn’t, either.

So if you’d like to help support our Building For The Future project, please take a moment to click over to the site and sign up to be an advocate for Orchestra Hall. We need all the help we can get, and hopefully, we’ll be able to return the favor several times over in the next few years…

When In Doubt, Shoot The Rich

Monday, January 4th, 2010

There’s nothing like a great big mess of fuzzy populist logic to get my blood boiling on a Monday morning, and thanks to outgoing St. Paul Pioneer Press arts critic extraordinaire, Dominic Papatola, I’ve just been reading an 1800-word rant of cosmically fuzzy and populist proportions by none other than rock star David Byrne, who maintains an impressively extensive blog on his website.

It’s always dangerous to try and summarize an argument that you vehemently disagree with, but since I’m assuming that most of you aren’t actually going to go and read the whole blasted thing, I’ll do my best to be fair up front. Basically Byrne has noted from local LA news reports that the LA Opera is currently in severe fiscal distress, and is seeking (and has since received) some $14 million from the city/county government to keep it from collapsing before the end of the current season. Byrne has also noted that the very same LA Opera is undertaking a truly massive (even by Hollywood standards) production of Wagner’s Ring cycle, at an estimated cost of $32 million. “What makes this situation notable is not the amount of money,” says Byrne, “but the fact that the audience will be so small, and that the state is footing part of the bill.”

Leaving aside the question of how we’re defining “small,” Byrne’s obviously got a point here. It’s wildly awkward, to say the least, to be asking for a massive government bailout at the same time that you’re continuing work on the operatic equivalent of Avatar.

Of course, bailing on a project as big as the Ring when you’ve already committed significant resources to it might not make fiscal sense, either, so my guess is that LA Opera has found itself in a damned-if-they-do, damned-if-they-don’t situation, and is trying to make the best of it. But whatever – Byrne’s not dealing in such minutiae. He has bigger fish to fry.

His next target is museums and other cultural institutions around the US which, inspired by huge projects like the Bilbao Guggenheim, decided that a splashy new building (or piece of a building) designed by one of the four or five “starchitects” whose names are actually known to the wider public would be enough to generate new revenue streams and public devotion for ever and ever, amen. Once again, that’s not exactly what happened, but Byrne again has a serious point to make, and it’s one that’s been made by many who analyze the arts world for a living.

But that’s where Byrne stops dealing in reality, and makes his stunning leap from a defensible idea – that large arts institutions (much like banks, Fortune 500 companies, and families across America) spent much of the last 20 years thinking too much about expansion and consumption and too little about long-term fiscal security – to an absolutely absurd one…

“However this mess ends up, my thoughts are that maybe it’s time to rethink all this museum, opera and symphony funding — and I refer mainly to state funding. A bunch of LA museums just got a bailout from LA real estate king Eli Broad, and that’s great, but I suspect there will be county money involved there somewhere too. I think maybe it’s time to stop, or more reasonably, curtail somewhat, state investment in the past — in a bunch of dead guys (and they are mostly guys, and mostly dead, when we look at opera halls) — and invest in our future. Take that money, that $14 million from the city, for example, let some of those palaces, ring cycles and temples close — forgo some of those $32M operas — and fund music and art in our schools. Support ongoing creativity in the arts, and not the ongoing glorification and rehashing of the work of those dead guys.”

Now, look. I’m all for getting America’s commitment to arts education back up to a civilized level, but this argument has honestly become the last refuge of the damned in the cultural sphere. It boils down to “I don’t personally enjoy or attend the specific performance/museum/concert that recently received money from my city/county/state, and therefore I believe that said money was entirely wasted, and probably should have gone to the schools instead. Won’t someone please think of the children?!” It’s the arts equivalent of me saying to you: Minnesota spends a huge amount of money to give out food stamps that I never use and that are no good to me. Wouldn’t that money be better spent giving poor kids an education so that they won’t grow up to need food stamps?

Moreover, in the rush to decry and demonize government assistance of any kind to any private institution in the wake of the massive bank bailouts of recent years, I’ve noticed that Americans on both ends of the political spectrum have gotten exceedingly good at spotting which of their political/cultural enemies receive some level of public funding. But those same people often seem willfully blind to public funding that goes to causes or organizations that they personally value. People working in the arts or education blast huge state subsidies to build a baseball stadium for a billionaire MLB owner, but conveniently ignore (or defend) the subsidies that helped build the Guthrie Theater. Others toss around words like “socialism” when government wants to provide equal access to health care using public funds, but ignore (or defend) the enormous earmark their city/county/state received to fund a new hospital and create a few hundred jobs.

Back to Byrne, though, because he’s not remotely done throwing around baseless assertions and drawing bizarre conclusions from them…

“The problem of course, as far as private funding goes, is that what billionaire wants to fund school education?”

Um, well, tons of them, actually. Your average hour of public radio contains half a dozen underwriting credits for education-based foundations funded by America’s wealthy. But I’m sorry, I interrupted – you were saying…?

“Where’s the glamour in that? You don’t get your name etched in marble on the outside of a hall for that, or get invited to amazing galas, so what’s the point? That’s why I’m focusing on public and state funding — let the private funders bankroll the opry halls, if that’s where they want to hang out.”

Ah, yes, that old canard. Rich people, you see, don’t actually fund arts and culture because they like it or think it’s important. They fund it to see their name on a building and have a private box where everyone in the hall can gaze upon them in their fur coats and other frippery. In other news, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett recently grew moustaches like the guy on the cover of the Monopoly box, started charging exorbitant rent on Park Place and Marvin Gardens, and used the proceeds to build a secret volcano lair from which to control their impending plan for planetary domina…

…oh. No. Wait. My mistake. That’s what rich guys in cartoons and James Bond movies do. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are too busy funding education and trying to cure AIDS for that volcano stuff.

At it’s core, Byrne’s argument boils down to this: it’s not fair that so much money goes to cultural institutions that celebrate the classics when modern-day artists, musicians, and writers have to struggle for recognition and subsistence-level funding. Moreover, “it’s more important to encourage
creativity than to imply that good work can only be made by professionals — your betters.”

Hard to argue with that. But Byrne doesn’t actually offer any solution to the problem: he just whines about imagined elitism amongst the cognoscenti, and then, like a toddler throwing a tantrum, takes his dissatisfaction with the status quo to its most illogical end: let’s just blow the whole thing up! And coming from a musician who actually produces thought-provoking work on a consistent basis, that’s worse than fuzzy logic. It’s an attempt to start a war that will inevitably claim you as a casualty.

Don’t get me started…

Friday, October 16th, 2009

I’m always surprised what passes for “news”, particularly in our corner of the music industry. For instance, I’ve mentioned in past posts, every now and then we get yet another piece about the “phenomena” of female conductors, few of which draw any new conclusions (if they draw conclusions at all).

So, in view of all the talk of orchestras slashing budgets and struggling on the fiscal front, I guess it’s time to trot out another “conductors are overpaid” article, this one from the Guardian.

To say that pieces like this one – written with little apparent understanding of either the business of music, or, more importantly, the artistic process of music – frustrate me to no end is an understatement.

First off, I don’t deny that there are some conductors who demand exorbitant fees by anyone’s standard (“rockstar fees”, they say, but even rockstars are taking fee reductions in this recession). But I really object to using those very few to judge the majority. One can find people with extreme salaries in all walks of life – athletes with contracts worth well over $20 million come to mind. If you leave the big leagues and look at rank-and-file, however, salaries are nothing to write an article about; the starting salary for a minor league ball player, for instance, is in the $25-35K range. Should we judge athletes’ salaries by the few that make astronomical figures? No. Neither should we for conductors.

Then comes the bit that really rubs me the wrong way:

But how much difference does the average conductor make? What can be said is that music, given players sufficiently accomplished, speaks for itself. Even in the case of the talented few maestri, the skills on offer are subject to an indefinable alchemy of charisma and self-belief. And as is the case with any dictator, what seems paramount is the ability to inspire confidence in their powers.

You do not have to be a musician to wonder if such a nebulous yet omnipotent job description might be dangerous.

To say that “music speaks for itself” defies a bit of logic; one needs only to hear five or six examples of the opening of Beethoven’s 5th Symphony (try it on iTunes, it really is illuminating…) and one begins to understand how any decent conductor puts a distinct imprint on the score at hand. The notes on the page, everything printed in the score, might hypothetically “speak for itself”, but how that translates to an actual sonic world is entirely the responsibility of a conductor.

As for “the ability to inspire confidence in their powers”, let me tell you this; musicians are acutely aware of whether a conductor is full of musical knowledge of simply full of it. An orchestra will have little confidence in an overbearing podium personality if a seriously studied understanding of the score and inherent musicality is not there. Charisma counts for very little (at least from the musicians’ perspective – audiences are more easily fooled) if a conductor doesn’t have the goods to back it up.

The article’s premise seems predicated on the notion that the major job of a conductor is to cut a dictatorial figure on the podium, acting as a symbolic figure that players don’t even pay attention to:

The truth is that almost the last place you look as a musician is towards the conductor. There simply isn’t time. The notes fly past and the brain is in overdrive, busy processing vast amounts of information on the page…

To assume that the conductor is largely responsible for the music is a bit like believing an air-traffic controller should take most of the credit for a Red Arrows display.

Any player or conductor will tell you that it’s impossible to have eyes glued to the podium. That would be both impractical and nonsensical. Furthermore, people who make these kinds of observations assume that what they see and hear in a concert is the be-all and end-all of a conductor’s role. ANY player (and any good conductor) will tell you that the most significant work a conductor does is in rehearsal.

As for the argument that orchestras could play conductor-less; yes, some specialized ensembles do (and they tend to be chamber orchestras), but they take a great deal of extra rehearsal to be able to coordinate and to come to artistic agreements. Apply that working model to a large modern symphony – 80+ players – and just imagine the artistic differences, never mind the practical hurdle of working on ensemble with so many people. With the number of extra services needed to accomplish that, you could hire an “overpaid” conductor several times over, and save everyone hours, to boot.

But that’s just assuming a conductor is merely a glorified metronome. The most important function of a conductor is to give a focus and unified vision to the repertoire being played. And that focus and understanding comes from 1) long hours of study of a score (20 hours per actual hour of music, minimum, to really begin to understand a score) and 2) the ability to communicate the knowledge gained from this study, by both physical gesture and verbal explanation, whether it be the largest of musical ideas to the smallest detail of tuning a tricky wind chord or fixing an inner rhythmic figure.

Perhaps I take umbrage in this article simply because it insults what I do for a living, but the larger issue is that when obviously one-sided rants like this one hit the mainstream media, it casts a negative light on the classical music business as a whole. And we certainly don’t need that right now. If it’s just muckraking and stirring controversy so one can be self-righteously indignant (and it’s easy to get people worked-up about money in an economic downturn), so be it. It’s simply perturbing to come across an article that the average reader with little knowledge of classical music might take as fact, when it is clear that the author has a very specific bone to pick.

And that’s my rant for the day!

Carolina On My Mind

Wednesday, September 16th, 2009

Amid the sea of bad financial news enveloping the arts world, two happy items (both from North Carolina, coincidentally) stood out this week. First of all, it was announced today that our Ms. Hicks has added another orchestra to her business card – she’s starting immediately as the new associate conductor of the Raleigh-Durham-based North Carolina Symphony! (No, that doesn’t mean she’s leaving Minnesota. In fact, you’ll be seeing a lot of her at Orchestra Hall this season.) Presumably, this means lots more frequent flier miles for Sarah, and regular home delivery of fresh Carolina barbecue for me. Everybody wins!

On the other end of the state, the Charlotte Symphony’s mood saw a potentially devastating budget situation turn bright at the last moment, in a stunning demonstration of just how generous and goodhearted people can be in a crisis. The orchestra, which has been fighting a growing deficit problem that began long before last fall’s near-collapse of the financial system, was on the brink all summer, and the CSO’s musicians just agreed to a whopping 20% pay cut last week. (If my math is correct, that means that their base salary will be something like $30,000 this year.) Still, no one knew whether it would be enough to stabilize the badly listing ship, and things turned even darker when the city’s Arts & Sciences Council threatened to reduce the orchestra’s annual stipend from nearly $2m to $150,000.

Then, out of the blue, on the same day that the Council told the orchestra that it could have as much as $900,000 if it met tough fundraising targets, two prominent Charlotte families stepped forward to pledge $1 million each to the CSO! It’s a massive amount for an orchestra Charlotte’s size (and really, it’s massive for anyone – million-dollar donors don’t grow on trees,) and while it won’t solve all the orchestra’s problems, it certainly puts them in a much more positive place heading into what everyone knew would be a very tough season. And at a time like this, that’s about as good as good news gets…

Perspective

Monday, September 14th, 2009

I’ve never been an arts manager, nor have I ever had any desire to be one. I’ve never thought that being CEO (or even general manager) of an orchestra sounded like anywhere near as much fun as playing in one. And while there have been times that I’ve wished I had more of a say in how things were (or weren’t) being done in the upper ranks of the organizations I’ve worked for, I usually find myself quite grateful that someone else has to make almost all of the tough decisions for me.

Times like this, when the economy is sputtering and spitting while trying to decide whether it’s ready to overcome its yearlong tubercular coughing fit, offer up near-daily reminders of how hard the jobs of those running U.S. arts organizations truly are. And lately, as I’ve waded through the reams of news stories of the latest cuts, layoffs, and salary givebacks across the industry, I’ve begun to notice a new trend among those who analyze such data for a living. It’s a wave of stories that could all be headlined, You Must Make Hard Choices (But Wait, Stop! You Can’t Cut That!!!)

Basically, the formula for each of these stories is that a) everyone knows times are tough and painful cuts are necessary for arts organizations to survive, but b) arts organizations are notorious for underspending on Area X at even the best of times, and therefore c) arts groups will be dooming themselves to an even deeper and longer recession if they don’t immediately start spending more on Area X.

Generally, articles that follow this basic formula are written by extremely knowledgeable people with long experience in the field. Michael Kaiser, the president of Washington, D.C.’s Kennedy Center and one of the widely accepted sages of arts management in the U.S., has been trotting around the country warning arts groups not to play it too safe at a time like this, and making the case that what people really want from us in a deep recession is more art, more content, and more daring programming, not less.

And just this past week, a fascinating analysis out of Stanford University suggested that the real problem with our spending priorities in the arts is that, because we’re so focused on the creative side of the ledger, we perennially underfund our own infrastructure (everything from up-to-date computer equipment to the desks and chairs in our offices,) which makes it impossible for the office workers who keep us afloat to do their jobs properly. In a fiscal crisis, such infrastructure funding typically sees the deepest cuts and the longest road back from the brink, mainly because it’s easier to woo donors with a pitch that involves a renovated theater or a new education program than with an office upgrade to Windows Vista.

Despite the fact that both Kaiser and Stanford are almost inarguably correct in their assessments, there’s no shortage of “Yeah, but…” responses available. Some would point out that it’s fairly easy for Michael Kaiser to espouse daring programming ideas from his perch atop one of the richest and most securely funded arts organizations in the world. (The Kennedy Center is a jewel in political Washington’s crown, and as close to untouchable as an arts group gets.) And while the Stanford folks are correct up to a point, most arts managers would say that the cost of putting on a shoddy, underfunded show that the public can see is far higher in the long run than the cost of forcing those behind the scenes to make do for a while with outdated software and tiny, unpleasant office space.

And then there is that uncomfortable bottom line: when you’re in charge of going out and finding money for the arts group you believe so deeply in, you can’t just go and explain all this to each of your potential donors. Because let’s be honest: with the exception of a few truly devoted individuals, your donors don’t want to hear about all the tricky little Catch-22s you’re faced with every time the Dow drops a few hundred points. They’re happy to support you to the best of their personal fiscal ability, and most of them will take at least some interest in the overall health of the organization, but figuring out the most responsible place for each dime you take in? That’s just not their job. It’s… gulp… yours.

Over the last decade or two, musicians have been getting steadily more involved in how the orchestras we play in are managed, with mixed results. I’m in favor of that trend, generally, if only because I think the increased communication that results increases the likelihood that we and our staff and our board members will be forced to at least occasionally consider how the organization looks from somewhere other than where we normally sit.

But like I say, someone has to make the truly tough calls at the end of the day. And while I may not always like the calls that are made, I’m always impressed with those who are bold enough to make them, knowing that their jobs and the jobs of everyone under them could be on the line if they get it wrong. That’s not a job I could ever do, any more than they could do mine. It’s a tough thing to remember sometimes, but an important one for all of us in this leaky boat called The Arts.

Arts Funding & Accountability

Tuesday, July 7th, 2009

As a general rule, the CEOs who run America’s symphony orchestras tend to be regarded by orchestra musicians with a wariness that borders on outright suspicion. This mistrust (though it is often unnecessary and misplaced) is born from decades of hurtful experience at the bargaining table, and from the sad fact that, in an industry which pays its managers a fraction of what they could earn in the for-profit industry, there are far too many people running symphony orchestras who shouldn’t be. (Caveat: I am in no way speaking about the Minnesota Orchestra’s management team.)

That having been said, there are a select few CEOs who seem to have achieved the impossible – running their own organization competently and with a fiscally responsible hand, while simultaneously garnering the deep respect of the industry’s workers (which is to say, the musicians.) At the top of this list is Michael Kaiser, the outspoken leader of Washington, D.C.’s Kennedy Center, which operates the National Symphony Orchestra. For years, Kaiser has espoused ideas that some of his colleagues would consider heretical, while calmly guiding one of the steadiest ships in the industry as an example of how to run a non-profit without constantly skating on the edge of the abyss. He is considered so supportive of the interests of musicians that he was once invited to be the keynote speaker at a national conference of the musicians’ union, a nearly unheard-of honor for an executive.

Kaiser also makes a habit of regularly issuing pronouncements and analysis of the national arts scene, and backs up his opinions with initiatives designed to invite non-profits from around the US to tap into his knowledge and experience. This week, he’s writing in the Huffington Post about the need for a federal arts policy. This is an issue that I’ve always considered a bit of a red herring, and suspected was based largely on the almost obsessive need of certain East Coast types to achieve token recognition from the Powers That Be in Washington, but I’m willing to give Kaiser a chance to change my mind…

“Most people do not know that no fewer than nine government agencies provide support to arts in this nation. That is not a typo… [T]here is literally no coordination between these agencies on their arts spending, nor is there any central governing philosophy or policy… What is needed is a coordinated approach to arts grants to ensure that the arts programming supported by federal funds truly serves our national interest.”

Now, that’s an interesting way to look at it, I think. Saying that arts organizations need to be run “more like businesses” is an old, old saw in the orchestra business, and coming from many executives, it tends to mean “we need to bust the union so we can start laying people off and slashing salaries.” But here is Kaiser, actually identifying a pro-business approach that could benefit the arts: implementing a streamlined system of grantmaking that would have the ability to hold recipients accountable for what they do with federal moneys. And he also thinks we can do it with less bureaucracy, not more. Dare I say, it’s an arts funding approach that a Republican could almost love…