BEHIND THE SPOTLIGHT

I was following a Twitter discussion (experienced ‘tweeters’ please feel free to let me know the correct term for this) about the role of young arts administrators.  Greg Sandow tweeted “a study found that younger people don’t like working for established arts org because their ideas aren’t listened to.” This is hardly news, but it opens up a very important question as pertains to programming and the overall activities of established arts organizations. If most Artistic Directors or General Directors at established arts organizations are  “older people” (as opposed to the “younger people” Sandow is discussing), are they the best people to shape programming and to facilitate constructive organizational change? If the “older people” are not really in touch with the constituency they hope to serve (note, I am stressing new constituents, not existing audience members), how well are they really serving their organizations?

Take a look beyond the walls of our “traditional” arts organizations.  As John Seabrook points out in his book Nobrow (a very interesting read, albeit a bit disjointed) at MTV, the three top executives feel that they are too old to trust their own instincts. In order to do their jobs successfully, they have to rely on a combination of market research, intuition, and YOUNG INTERNS more than personal experience.  Doug Herzog, the former head of Comedy Central who went on to lead Fox’s programming division, says that he explicitly refuses to rely solely on his own taste to make programming decisions. If one looks at any organization that is really in touch with the audience it is trying to reach, more often than not, the leaders of those companies realize that their own personal taste and experience are not nearly as valuable as their ability to assimilate information on societal trends and consumer preferences from a variety of other sources.  Yet in traditional/established arts organizations, those who make programming decisions are very often strong personalities that may be in touch with their current core audience, but are not always in touch with the groups they wish they could bring in the doors.  And let’s face it, if those of us who are directly responsible for running arts organizations are not actively trying to diversify our audiences, we are not doing our job. 

At MTV, interns - who make up the core of the target demographic - have the possibility of moving quickly through the ranks. “As an employee emerged from the demo, he or she could become an associate producer[...] and then, while the feeling of being in the demo was still fresh, a full-fledged producer[...] Just at the age when people in other companies were starting to get loaded down with real responsibilities, people at MTV felt the pressure to leave, so that others who were closer to the demo could be brought up to take their places.”(Seabrook 81-82)  Interns at large arts organizations are typically are a source of free or low cost labor that are rarely entrusted with any artistic or programming related responsibilities.  When they do start to move into entry-level jobs, especially in the areas of artistic administration, they usually remain subordinate for many years to older, more experienced supervisors who continue to control the development and design of the company’s artistic product. 

Unfortunately, it is the fact that these supervisors are older and more experienced (or more specifically, experienced functioning according to long-established, accepted norms and espousing a specific taste) that prevents the artistic departments of many companies from being in touch with the constituencies they could be serving.  In addition, the separation between marketing departments and artistic departments remains strong, continuing to fortify the misguided notion that marketing is simply supposed to advertise and sell the programs that artistic department designs and implements.  Without ongoing, responsive, two-way communication between these departments, preferably with the respected input of individuals who are strongly aligned with the target markets, how can arts organizations hope to effectively reach new audiences who are already not a part of the companies’ immediate families?  Imagine what could happen if programming initiatives were guided by a group of talented, diverse young adults in their twenties?  The results might pleasantly surprise audiences and administrators alike.

Greg Sandow also tweeted “Create new organizations! And many younger classical music people are doing that. Change is coming from the bottom up.”  Of course, I completely agree. At American Lyric Theater, the culture encourages and embraces input from the youngest people in our family.  But that is built into our mission, and is part of the reason I founded ALT in the first place. The big organizations still play a huge role in the public perception of the performing arts. They also get the biggest slice of limited funding dollars.  Is it not their responsibility to become more proactive in diversifying their audiences? How do we get arts executives at these companies to let go of their control to younger colleagues.  If they wait until these young colleagues have had the time to prove themselves, as is often the argument, they are going to miss the boat!  Ideas anyone…?