Blog

Ok, I know those of you reading the title of this blog are beginning to wonder whether Viswa is getting all political.  (I just referred to myself in the third person!)  But no, I'm not jumping into politics.  I am, however, jumping into the world of how arts organizations (and Artistic Directors/Music Directors) use money.

It's an interesting time in the world.  (This is not an issue that is limited to arts organizations in the US).  Economies are stagnating, and capital markets remain frozen even though governments are infusing banks with cash.  (Though I believe that the UK required that banks lend the money they were infused with – a smart move, methinks).  Granted, I am in no way picking sides on the debate as to whether those banks should have been infused with cash in the first place.  What does this mean to Beethoven, Adams, Brahms, sopranos, violinists, pianists, etc?

In the case that you worry that I might be blowing this out of proportion, please check out the following articles in the NY Times and LA Times respectively:

NY Times: "Bracing for Bad Days…"

LA Times: "Opera Pacific's Future in Doubt"

Well, arts organizations around the world depend on YOU.  Symphony orchestras, opera companies, and theater groups depend on your contributions and your support.  Given that gas prices, food prices, everything prices seem to be increasing and wages are not following, does it become more difficult to send that check in to local public radio or that arts organization that you've been supporting for years?  I'll be honest – it's tougher for me to write that check as well because it seems that everything costs more, and I am forced to wonder how we're going to fundraise in the future.

A recent study by the United States Artists (admittedly a group biased towards artists) shows a study that 96% of Americans believe in the value of arts to their communities and lives.  That's sounds like a wonderful thing!  Until you read that only 27% of Americans believe that artists contribute a lot to the good of society.  Not the best thing for the arts because unless people believe in the artists who create art and are willing to contribute, we're up the proverbial creek without a paddle. 

I don't think it is that people are against artists.  I think they love the end product and understand the role it plays in/for society, but I do think they underestimate what it takes for artists to create that art.  Who can blame them?  We have new board members with Opera Vista right now.  They are all committed to the mission of Opera Vista, and they love the artistic product, but they are constantly amazed at the amount of work and detailed logistics it takes to create that art.  Suddenly, they actually feel like we should get paid MORE for the work we do.

So what does that mean for us?  The economy is slowing and it's tougher to ask people who love the arts and want to support them but are also having to support their kids, shop for food, and put gas in their cars to give us more and more cash.  Foundations are being asked to support a number of worthy projects.  Seems like a no-win situation, doesn't it?

I truly believe that arts organizations can recession-proof themselves, but I think it's going to take some serious thinking outside the box.  It's not an easy thing.  We have such structures in the way we feel that we should maintain our organizations, and change takes time and serious thought.  I also don't believe that there is a one-size fits all solution.  It's going to take some exploration to find the right fit for each organization and each city.

I do think there are some one-size fits all goals.  I think arts organizations need to think hard before ever operating in the red.  It's a danger that every young organization is confronted with:  You want to perform a high level performance, but you don’t want to go in the red.  The other tough axiom seems to be that you can't raise money without showing some track record (friends and family notwithstanding), but you can't have a track record without money.  (Need experience to get a job but can't get a job without experience…)  Opera Vista has set the goal of never operating beyond our means, and we've managed to do so, though the going was often precarious.  I think it's an admirable goal and one that every arts organization needs to explore.  We are asking donors to trust us with their funds, so we should be certain that we use them efficiently. 

So, all this sounds like a job for the executive director, right?  Well, yes and no.  I think it behooves us artistic directors to understand what it takes for each production to happen.  We need to consider the costs.  Now, I know there are going to be those who will say, "if we are so concerned with costs, we may never be able to perform some of the music that isn't a 'huge audience draw.'"  I know some people will automatically think that this means that we should perform only music that fills halls and gets people in the seats.  I guess that's exactly the point I'm trying NOT to make.  That's where the artistic director comes in.  Of course we need to perform contemporary music or music that an audience might find "difficult."  We also need to get people in the seats and build our community's support.  How does one balance the two?

I think this is where an artistic director's creativity comes into play.  With Opera Vista, we decided that the only way to present contemporary opera was to break down walls and involve audiences in the discovery along with the musicians.  We do that through our competition and our outreach events in places where you might not picture opera.  Those ideas may not work elsewhere, but we know they work here.  I think it also means that artistic directors need to understand their audiences.  How do we present them with works?  In some places that may mean speaking to the audience.  Other places it may mean breaking things down in a PowerPoint presentation.  (Channel your inner Al Gore.)

Get creative – it's what's going to recession-proof arts organizations.