Managing museums: a portuguese case

"Panels of St. Vincent" at NMAA (image taken from the National Museum of Ancient Art Facebook page)

The claim of a new legal status, of a special status, by the National Museum of Ancient Art (NMAA) in Lisbon has resulted in a very healthy debate among museum professionals in Portugal, especially (and unfortunately) after the announcement of the Minister of Culture that this status will actually be given to the museum. Independent of our criticism, positive or negative, of this case and this process, there is no doubt that we owe this very necessary debate to the NMAA, its director, António Filipe Pimentel, and to the entire museum staff*.

So what?

“So what?”. A frequent question/reaction concerning our field, whether verbally expressed or secretly thought. It’s a legitimate question and one we are rarely available to discuss.

Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn, "Retrato de Marten Soolmans" e "Retrato de Oopjen Coppit" (imagem retirada do jornal Telerama)

When I had first read the news about the joint acquisition by the Louvre and Rijksmuseum of Rembrandt’s Portrait of Marten Soolmans and Portrait of Oopjen Coppit, for €160 million, I didn’t exactly think “So what?”, but rather “Why?”. Why these two paintings? Why all that money? Once I tried to understand a bit better the importance of the paintings (whatever importance that might be, within the context of art history or any other), I was most often confronted with the adjective “rare”. The portraits are “rare”, being exhibited in public was extremely “rare, etc. etc. This brought up even more questions: Rare how? Why should they be seen more often? Why did these two public museums make such a huge (financial and collaborative) effort to acquire them?

The Italian slap

Eike Schmidt, new director of the Uffizzi (image taken from The Art Newspaper, Photo: Zuma Press/Alamy)

“A slap on the face of Italian archaeologists and art historians.” According to an article by Margarita Pournara in the Greek newspaper I Kathimerini, this was the statement of Vittorio Sgarbi, former Italian Minister of Culture, regarding the appointment of seven foreign professionals as directors of Italian museums.

Since the appointment was announced on 18 August, the issue was widely discussed in the media. 

Guest post: "Where there is a will, there will be a well", by Sunil Vishnu (Índia)

Sunil Vishnu is the young man who went after his dream: to make theatre. Together with a friend from university he founded EVAM in 2003 in the city of Chennai, India. As an independent arts organization, EVAM is facing a number of challenges in order to survive, to grow and to maintain the quality of its work. What does this mean exactly for a theatre company in India, where governement funding is extremely low, arts philanthropy almost inexistent and there´s a general lack of interest in the arts? Well, Sunil was surprised to find out that there was a ‘well’ of interest, care and money right there for EVAM. He shares this experience and his learnings with us. mv

The EVAM team

As I started writing this piece and looked for a title I thought this inspired by original proverb line would be perfect because, for me, it describes the state of art makers today in the world. The proverb talks about the human will – the only thing which keeps an artist going, despite all the challenges he faces - and the ‘well’ – the means which enable him to create art and share it with the audience, that is funding and resources. Over the years, the will has remained the same, but the wells have eventually dried up. The latest solution is not to dig deeper in the well or find new ones, but to go to every other person in the village who has water and ask them to share it with you, in return for sharing the ownership of the dream with him. This is what the world calls crowdfunding and it’s in this context that I write this article.

So how do the independent artists and arts organizations survive and grow? Let’s look at my organization, EVAM. EVAM is a thriving arts organization with the mission of making a positive impact in the lives of people using the medium of theatre through live performances, managing artistic events and art education. As we turn 10 this year and have successfully evaded the threat of being closed down, I look at the various sources of funding we have had over the years. We started by investing our own money (2 Lakhs – 3000 USD) back in 2003. Six months later, we got our first sponsor (a private bank HSBC) and thought of adopting the advertising-driven model, where brands would look at EVAM as a means to reach out to their potential customers. Ticketing revenue and sponsorship sustained us until 2004. That year we decided to perform shows for other organizations at a given fee and also co-launched the Hindu MetroPlus Theatre Fest, the managing of live art events/fests becoming the next revenue generator. By 2009 we were into education, doing workshops and adding another source of income. All this without approaching the government - their support for the arts being weak, anyway. This was an option. Call it ego, self-esteem or fool hardiness, we wanted to make it on our own terms, never compromising the artistic output.

Then, we realized.our dreams were getting bigger, but the well was becoming dry. We  looked for different wells, but other fellow artists doing the same. It was around that time that I started my arts management fellowship at the Kennedy Center in Washington. The first big learning was arts philanthropy. India didn’t have a culture or appetite for it. There is a general apathy towards the arts and the educational system itself dubs the arts among the least preferred subjects. Nevertheless, I knew we had a ‘family’ of audiences and important people in the society who would want to contribute financially and to be part of our organization’s journey, not as a full-time investor or sponsor, but more like a ‘special appearance’ actor in a film.

That’s when the learning from the fellowship (dream big - concentrate on great art - share the dream with your family - make them part of it) came to the forefront: my family members could not sponsor a show of mine, but they could give some money as individuals for a specific project if they believed in it. It was at that time, in 2012, that an NGO called Nalandaway launched a new online crowdfunding portal, Orange Street, which offered artists a platform to put up projects related to a cause and seek funding. Initially, I was sceptical about it. Why would an audience member, who currently spends  1000 Rupees (16 USD) a year to watch my plays, give me money to create something if they could give directly to the cause? But we went ahead and made a video explaining what we were doing and why we were seeking funds. Our project was the creation of a play, Shekinah Jacob’s The long way home, which we would perform across India, spreading awareness about child trafficking.

We needed 5 lakhs (8000 USD) to do the project. Within hours from putting it up on the platform, someone invested  5000 Rupees (80 USD) and we were awestruck. Within one day we got 7500 Rupees (120 USD) from people we didn´t even know! At the same time, we started an internal campaign: we started calling, sending e-mails or texting all our stakeholders, people we knew, audience members; we also put an ad on Facebook, Twitter and our website. Slowly and steadily contributions increased, this was actually possible!

But the time came when we had made every possible contact and the well seemed to be drying once again. My staff was busy creating this show and doing many other things and had no more time to run this campaign. The momentum dipped and we thought “OK, maybe this is all we can do”. 

That’s when a music band,  Jersey Rhythms, called us from New Jersey and said: “Hey, we want to contribute, we´ll do a charity show for you!”.  We were stupefied! A group from Jersey who we didn’t know us, was actually following our campaign in India and wanted to contribute! Suddenly, my organization realized that this movement was bigger than just the 9 of us in this office. We picked up once again and made sure this fundraising campaign became part of our daily rigour: we had a bell in the office ringing every time a new donation would come in. In the following 2 months Jersey Rhythms raised more than 75000 Rupees (1200 USD). The long way home was created and performed across India, managing to raise awareness regarding the cause it aimed to support.

We had found a new source of energy, enthusiasm and funds. Our family (namely the audience, partnering organizations, individuals who care for us, sponsors, etc.) was willing to invest in our projects in their own small way, if we were open to sharing our dream with them. A year later, in 2013 and once again through crowdfunding, we were able to send 150 underprivileged children to a summer arts camp. Our aim for 2014 is to launch a crowdfunded film and play which will be purely ‘art for art’s sake and not art for a cause’. This will be a true trust of the theory that maybe crowdfunding is the first big step in the direction of arts philanthropy in India.

In the meanwhile, here are a few of my learnings on this journey:

If you want to create projects based on crowdfunding

a) Create a genuine project – put it on a genuine site, don’t phaff! (people can see right through a fake project);

b) Create a strong ASK – what’s the project, who does it impact and how, why are you doing it and where are funds going to be utilized, and hence why should anyone donate for the project;

c) Always have a limited time frame for the fundraising – depending on the size of the amount to be raised (3 months to 1 year); also, be specific about what you´re asking (egg. “Please invest 500 Ruppess for the project by 15^th Jan 2013”);

d) Don’t make this the only source of funding for your project;

e) Use the equity of the platform (the site) to generate more awareness;

f) Note down the names of people who invest and follow up with them, thanking them. Make them part of the project in the way they prefer to (could be as simple as sending e-mail updates to as much as coming and doing backstage for free!);

g) Don’t be ashamed to ask for money – you are asking people to share your dream, it´s an investment they are making; actually they are as good as co-producers of the project;

h) People have a need to feel ‘connected’ and ‘counted’ – make sure you give the people both through this relationship;

i) Create a communications plan and rope in various key game-changers who can endorse your project; celebrities are welcome…;

j) Internally, keep your team motivated, give them incentives to run; reward them, acknowledge them – it’s quite a thankless job otherwise!

People will contribute when:

a) They love you as a person and want to be part of your journey;

b) They love your organization and its mission;

c) They believe in the impact your project will create on people;

d) They can’t do what you do – hence they want to live your life vicariously!

As I said earlier, where there is a will, there is a well.  Go and keep digging wells, but don’t forget the rivers and streams and ponds and seas which are the people around us. Invite your family to be part of your journey, you will be surprised with the love and trust they will shower on you!

Sunil Vishnu K is co-founder, CEO and artistic director of  EVAM, an award-winning theatre entrepreneurship. Founded in 2003 by Sunil and Karthik Kumar, EVAM is today a 10-year-young thriving arts business which performs plays, manages live art events and works in arts education. Sunil receveid the Performing Arts Entrepreneur Award from the British Council in 2010 and completed the Summer Arts Management Fellowship at Devos Institute of Arts Management at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in 2013.

A midcrisis night´s dream?

I like the word ‘campaign’, it transmits to me the feeling of an ongoing effort to promote a cause. I don´t like that much the word ‘manifesto’, I tend to associate it to a momentary action, using big abstract words and doing little after. So, I got very curious the other day when I read a subtitle in a Guardian article explaining that “What Next? campaign aims to promote public investment in the arts by making culture a ‘manifesto issue’” (nothing unusual in this, of course, it´s just my prejudice regarding the two words...).

So the article talked about a movement slowly being created by leaders of arts organisations since 2011. They´ve been meeting every Wednesday (just in London, though) and at the time the article was published, they were getting ready for their first large-scale public event. Their main goals: to get every MP involved in the work of their local arts organisations; to draw in the campaign local councillors, businessmen, school and college directors; to harness the voices of audiences, visitors, members. In the words of Alistair Spalding, artistic director of Sadler's Wells theatre, the long-term aim of What Next? is to "actually get the public to understand the value of culture, so that it becomes a manifesto issue… One of the primary aims, which the arts hasn't yet achieved, is to get the public on our side."

I saw a plan here. One that took time to build, but people (arts leaders) worked on it consistently and with a purpose. I am very interested to see how they are now going to go about meeting their goals, one of which particularly cought my attention: “to harness the voices of audiences, visitors, members”. At a time when the British government is once again aiming to pursue culture´s instrumental values (has any government ever given more money to culture because of its – proven - economic benefits?), the What Next? campaign wants to get people on their side, to harness their voices. But, there´s one issue for me here: What are the people expected to talk about? What is the value of culture the campaigners want to ‘get the public to understand’?

John Holden, in his essay Cultural value and the crisis of legitimacy, puts the essence of all this in just a few words: “The answer to the question ‘why fund culture?’ should be ‘because the public wants it’”. Are we ever going to reach this point? Maybe, if cultural professionals started listening (instead of trying to make people understand) and then got involved in a real debate, concentrating on issues that are important for both sides and speaking a language everyone understands. Most people do appreciate a form of cultural expression and they know why it is important in their lives, they know why they value it, they know why they couldn´t live without it. They also know what makes them feel uncomfortable, what is the kind of attitude that makes them feel excluded or unwelcome, what is not for them, for one reason or another.  So, let´s ask them, instead of trying to impose our views, make them understand or tell them what we think is good for them. Let´s listen and then share with them our views on why and how we think our offer meets their needs. Let´s identify our common ground, work together, campaign for something that we all value.

This makes me, inevitably, think of Portugal. In the last two or three years the cultural sector saw the emergence of a couple of so-called movements, more than one manifestos - the usual big and abstract words -, but no ‘aftermath’. There was no careful building of a campaign, no specific goals were either announced or pursued, no consistent and permanent action undertaken. What we share in public is our frustration or fury for losing public funds; our amazement at the fact that people are not coming to see our top quality performance (“don´t they get it?”); our conviction that they don´t care about culture (or rather the ’right’ culture). Is this a way of making friends...? Is this the way of establishing common ground?

Composer António Pinho Vargas wrote on Facebook one of this days (the post was re-published here) that he never uses the word ‘sustainability’ and he is obliged to hear and read it almost every day. I like to read him and I don´t disagree with the general point of his post. I don´t share his feelings and thoughts, though, regarding the word ‘sustainability’, probably because I don´t understand it the way he does: that everything has to pay for itself. And he was questioning: “Can culture be suatainable?”.

This is not what sustainability means when it comes to the cultural sector. Culture alone will never pay for itself, because it´s not a product that becomes more profitable with time (we need the same number of musicians as in the 19^th century to perform Mahler´s symphonies; a concert hall has a specific number of seats and doesn´t grow in order to sell more tickets; etc., etc.). Costs of production and performance keep growing in the cultural sector, while we need to keep the price of tickets at affordable levels. So, our efforts to be sustainable mean that we need to try and fill the always growing gap between expenditure and income (and to depend on one income source is not a good idea, it never was).

This effort has got everything to do with people, the relationship we establish and nurture with society. Sustainability is not about money in the first place; it´s about people. In order to be able to say one day that culture must be funded “because the public wants it”, we still need to work a lot on this relationship. First we need to listen and better understand what people value in their diverse cultural participations.  Following this, our attitude, choices, priorities, the way we speak should unequivocally transmit our wish and will to include them. Our mission should be clear to all, our plans transparent, our choices understandable. And we should be accountable for our actions. This relationship should be about sharing, not imposing. This relationship can only exist because of something we all value.

Still on this blog:

Ministry of Culture: Which culture? Whose culture?

We are for people. Or... are we?

So, what´s the plan?
On public value

 

Guest post: "A question of value", by Rebecca Lamoin (Australia)

More readings:
John Holden, Capturing cultural value
John Holden, Culture and Class

Guest post: "Orchestras in trouble: a think-piece", by Simon Fairclough (UK)

It´s a great pleasure to hear Simon Fairclough talking passionately both about classical music and his job. Simon is an intelligent and committed young professional who wants to make sure that more and more people are able to discover and enjoy the pleasures of classical music. In this post, his analyses the troubles orchestras all over the world are facing nowadays and points out causes and possible ways forward. Among them, the need to find new ways to engage with audiences. mv

Bach´s St. Matthew Passion re-imagined for younger audiences with the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment and  a virtual choir. (Photo: Vocal Futures)

Guest post: "Festivals, the new face of Zimbabwe", by Nicholas Moyo

It´s always a great pleasure having a conversation with Nicholas Moyo. Not only because of his sense of humour, but mainly because of his wisdom and experience, his calm and balanced way of analyzing the realities around him, his belief in a better future. In this post he writes about the proliferation of arts festivals in Zimbabwe and the efforts of the National Arts Council to create some guidelines in order to ensure that all arts festivals are held in accordance with the country’s aspirations as far as the development of the creative industries is concerned. mv

Intwasa Arts Festival (Photo taken from www.intwasa.org) 

The establishment of Arts Festivals in Zimbabwe has been in the past decade the in-thing for the exhibition of arts and culture products in the Southern African country. As much as people can agree on what a festival is, in Zimbabwe an arts-related festival is projected as a platform for the celebration of the arts, where artistes and cultural practitioners come together for a specific period to showcase their products in a carnivalesque and celebratory mood.

The above definition holds because festivals are, in general, a time for celebration and enjoyment. It is an event usually and ordinarily staged by communities focusing on some unique aspects of that group of people. As far as the arts and culture sector is concerned, each festival is moulded around a particular group of people. These then make the nucleus of the market or audiences thereof.

Current scenario

There are just about twenty five festivals in Zimbabwe: six international, eight national, six provincial and five district festivals. Most of these festivals started in the last decade, when the generality of the political landscape was on a meltdown, especially the economy.

Within the said period, Zimbabwe witnessed a proliferation of arts festivals, being hosted country-wide. Admittedly, some of the these were established to deal with issues related to human rights. Others were hosted by fly-by-night festival organisers out to fleece funds from the ‘easy to appease’ donors. This scenario resulted in the National Arts Council of Zimbabwe starting a consultation with the sector, crafting some general guidelines for all arts festivals to be held in the country. The guidelines were meant to ensure that all arts festivals are held in tandem with the country’s aspirations as far as the development of the creative industries is concerned.

Harare International Festival of the Arts (Photo taken from www.hifa.co.zw)

Successes

Festivals are in general a massive platform created for the establishment of a transaction between audiences and the organisers through the trading of art. Firstly, all festivals have been recording a steady increase of audiences every year. There is a growing market and a new relationship between this market and the creative sector. Audiences are beginning to exchange their time and monetary resources for good art.

Secondly, art creators have found it important and necessary to create new and exciting ‘good art’, while producers, directors and artists have begun to up the game because of the competitive nature of the creative industry. Festival organisers are contracting new productions mostly from reputable producers, as these tend to attract more people to specific productions.

Harare International Festival of the Arts (Photo taken from www.hifa.co.zw)

Challenges

The creative industries have had a fair share of market challenges. Top of the list is failure to attract meaningful partnerships that will either render financial support to the festival or underwrite even in kind some of its components. Some festival organisers are not well skilled to scout and sign-in partners, leading to failure to lock-in regular dates on the calendar. Thus, one tends to see festivals having to cancel dates they could only go ahead with only if they could get a last-minute funder.

Sponsors, especially from the corporate sector, have not been forthcoming generally for the support of the arts. Festivals are not an exception. Some, like the Harare International Festival for the Arts (HIFA), have created business synergies with the Corporates. One is tempted to say that the economic challenges Zimbabwe is facing as a nation have a bearing on the money circulating for the purpose of entertainment. The disposable income of Zimbabwe’s workforce is below the poverty line, and, therefore, this on its own has a global effect on people´s buying or spending patterns.

Intwasa Arts Festival (Photo taken from www.intwasa.org)

In conclusion, festivals in Zimbabwe are a necessary good in the development of the creative industries in the country. With the different thrust by different festivals, it is evident that these are carefully designed to target particular consumers for specific artistic products. However, the festivals need to be re-engineered as business enterprises for the creative products. The growth of festivals in Zimbabwe will also ensure that the arts are undoubtedly seen as a contributor to the GDP of the Southern African country Zimbabwe.

Nicholas Moyo is currently the Deputy Director at the National Arts Council of Zimbabwe. He has substantial experience in arts management - as a director, producer and administrator. He has also participated in various arts training programs and short courses, including script writing, arts management, leadership, directing, and fundraising. He has expertise in leadership, team building and management, program management, project planning and management, financial management, strategic planning and review. He founded the fast growing and second largest multi-disciplinary festival in Zimbabwe, Intwasa Arts Festival koBulawayo, and currently sits on the Board of Trustees. He is also a Board Member of Tusanani Cover Trust, a welfare support organization for underprivileged children. Nicholas Moyo was one of the consultants for the first arts and culture festival of Zambia, the AMAKA Arts Festival, which took place from 8 to 14 of October.

Crise oblige? (iii) Management challenges



Photo © ORF (taken from http://www.kleinezeitung.at/)

What a great management lesson was the open letter of the music director of Liceu of Barcelona, Michael Boder, in response to the announcement of the administration that, due to financial difficulties, the theatre would close for two periods of one month each, between March and July (read here). And it was not just a management lesson. Boder showed a great sense of mission and responsibility, essential qualities for anyone who heads an institution and decides its course.

“Why do we exist?”, the music director asked Liceu´s general manager, immediately providing him with some answers: we exist to play, play more and not less; because, in moments like these, music carries a very important message; because music can move our inner selves; because, in times of crisis, a cultural institution can and should send a social message; because we are at the service of social cohesion; because culture brings comfort and gives ideas (read the open letter here).

But Boder raised some more issues in his open letter, related to the need to reevaluate the theatre´s inflated administration, the collective agreement and chorus and orchestra working hours, which he consideres insufficient. He didn´t hesitate to put on the table the theatre´s fixed costs in order to guarantee the continuity of the programming. Because he knows, just like the administration should know, that without programming an institution disappears from the 'map', that is from the heads and hearts of its audience; it loses its credibility and the prestige it took uears to build; it is sentenced to internal decline and demotivation; and it seriously damages its image, when the message it sends to society, especially in times of crisis and considerable sacrifices, is that the priority are the salaries and benefits of the employees (even if they have been ‘sentenced’ to inertia), and not the cultural offer, which is the main reason why it exists (in the meantime, the administration of the Liceu has revoked its decision for closure – read here).

In the last two years, the financial situation of many orchestras around the world was news. One of the most famous cases was that of the Philadelphia Orchestra, an orchestra with a reputation at an international level, which filed for bankruptcy almost a year ago. Nevertheless, the case I would like to concentrate on here is that of the Detroit Symphony Orchestra. Detroit is a city that gaine prosperity thanks to the automobile industry, which supported, among other things, a number of cultural institutions, including the orchestra. In the last years, a number of economic and social factors have dramatically changed the environment the orchestra is operating in: the decline of the automobile industry, the collapse of the stock market, the fact that the population decreased by almost 50% in a decade, but also aging audiences, a decrease in tickets sales, the debt still to be repayed for a recent auditorium extension. The administration went ahed with cuts, including a 23% cut in the salaries of the musicians (accepted after a strike that lasted for months and kept the orchestra silent for most part of the season). Nevertheless, cuts are not a guarantee for sustainability. Socio-demographic changes are a much greater challenge for this orchestra (and for cultural institutions in general) and its sustainability depends a lot on the way it will react and adapt to them. Operating now in an 80% afro-american city (there are only 4 black musicians in the orchestra), where the average income has drastically decreased, where there has been no musical education in schools for years, it is urgent to try and involve new, diversified audiences, representative of the population that now lives in Detroit and other neighbouring cities. One of the initiatives of the orchestra is playing in community centres, churches and synagogues, points of encounter with its new target audiences (read here).

The problems cultural institutions are facing nowadays in various parts of the world are not just financial. They are varied and they are connected. They relate to management, programming, education, communications. The world in which we are operating is different, constantly changing and developing.

With the aim to approach some issues related to management this time, I would quote once again Michael Kaiser, who says that, in the first place, we are facing a revenue problem (and not a problem of expenses, although that´s where we always start from). And the word ‘revenue’ specifically refers to: state and municipal investment; sponsorship money (corporate, foundations, individuals); revenue from rentals and other services; ticket sales (when applicable). In Portugal and other countries, after years of (almost absolute) dependence on the money the State was willing or able to invest, there is an urgent need to start looking for alternative revenue sources. And although the obvious option seem to be companies and foundations, we cannot fool ourselves. This is not a relationship that lasts for ever. These organizations invest their money because they want to see their name associated to a specific project; because this makes sense within their strategic plan. In the meantime, strategic plans change, they are orientated according to specific objectives and priorities, which don´t remain unaltered. Thus, the third revenue source becomes decisive for a sustainable future: the people, the individuals who relate to us and want to support us with donations, buying tickets and subscriptions or memberships. This relationship, yes, if valued and cherished, may last for ever. Even after death… One of the most touching stories I have heard recently is that of a man who left all his money to an orchestra - having set aside just the money for his funeral –, because he was homebound for years and one of his greatest (and few) pleasures in life was listening to the orchestra´s live transmissions on the radio (for legal reasons, due to the donor´s express wish, it is not possible to give specific information about this donation).

However, we do have cost problems as well. When we are forced to cut (due to a crisis, for instance), we are always capable of identifying those cases in which our financial resources are not managed in the most efficient way and we try to optimize them. This also involves managing human resources efficiently. In general, we are not prepared, or willing, to consider the waste of money not only on inflated teams, but mainly when the existing teams are not reaching their true potential. Michael Boder did not hesitate to admit that the number of working hours of the orchestra and the chorus were insufficient. In the case of many orchestras around the world (see links at the end of the post), musicians and other employees were involved in the process of ‘repositioning’, they did not consider their salaries and benefits to be ‘sacred’, they did not place them ahead of the need to continue playing, because they didn´t want to lose their place in the life of their audience. At the same time, I believe that employees are more willing to consider this kind of negotiations and to accept sacrifices when they feel that there is an honest and genuine wish, a determination on behalf of the administrations to find solutions that will allow organizations not only to survive for a little longer, but to create the conditions for a healthy and sustainable future for all.

In times like these, in cases like these, there is a greater need for cultural institutions to be managed by people who have adequate academic preparation and /or professional experience and training), professionals who will be able to drive the boat with competence, knowledge, discipline and with due sensibility towards the field´s especificities. Because it is possible to have financially healthy cultural institutions, they exist (read Michael Kaiser´s article here). Maybe once we manage to overcome the rhetoric regarding the “commodification of culture” (in which normally a cultural manager is the equivalent of a supermarket manager and his specialized work is seen as a terrible threat to access to culture for all), we might be more open to try and understand how and why others have made it.

We are used to saying that times are not easy. Have they ever been? Times now are ‘simply’ more difficult. To move out from our comfort zone, to overcome the sterile language of the manifestos which only complain but propose nothing, to look at the reality around us and confront it (in a responsible, realistic, knowledgeable and professional way) is a pemanent need. Perhaps more urgent at certain times. But permanent. As Russell Willis Taylor, CEO of National Arts Strategies, said in a speech that is worth listening to until the end, “There are no crises, only tough decisions”.

Still on this blog
La crise oblige? (I) Some questions
La crise oblige? (II) Programming challenges
Building a family: lesson from the social sector
On family: second week at the Kennedy Center
Changes: are we paying enough attention?


More readings
Philadelphia Orchestra players OK tentative contract with deep cuts
CSO posts a deficit for last year
Keeping the Lights On: Sacramento Opera Seeks to Remain Viable
Birmingham Symphony Orchestra pay cut

Crise oblige? (i) Some questions

In times of crisis, financial or other, many people find in the arts, and culture in general, a shelter. A book, a film, a theatre play, a song, dance, painting, writing open windows, show us the way, help us find a sense, bring beauty, serenity, inspiration, enthusiasm, motivation. In countries like Argentina or Greece, theatre attendace rose significantly during the times of crisis. Not only because people looked for that ‘shelter’, but also because theatres and theatre companies were able to address that new reality ‘repositioning’ themselves, adapting to their socio-economic environment. Yorgos Loukos, artistic director of the Athens Festival, when interviewed by The New York Times last summer together with the directors of other festivals, referred to the sale of an extra 35.000 tikets (a 24% rise compared to the year before; the performance of Richard III with Kevin Spacey sold out at the Epidaurus theatre, with a 10.000 seat capacity) and to the greek governement´s commitment to support the festival again in 2012. Other festivals also registered high attendances last summer, but their directors are conscious of the impact the financial crisis will have on culture and the need to face it.

A year ago, after the first announcement of cuts, many of us were saying that the crisis could (and should) be an opportunity. Twelve months have passed and we are probably at the same point: reacting to the cuts, asking (as we must) the State for more and better, but not duscussing, at the same time, alternatives to a model which, just as it is, it hasn´t been functioning for a long time. The hope expressed by some people responsible for portuguese cultural institutions that the cuts will affect ‘just’ the programming, makes us think: what kind of relatiosnhip can these institutions maintain with the audiences, with society, should they abdicate, in the first place, from their main activity, from their true mission, from their raison-d´-être? And what are the alternatives?

In these difficult, confusing times, that bring about a certain desorientation, that force us to adapt in order to survive, it´s good to go back and read Michael Kaiser. His structured and clear thinking reminds us of what is essential to remain healthy and relevant.

Michael Kaiser has been responsible for the ‘rescue’ of a number of dying cultural institutions, about to close their doors due to financial trouble. In his book The art of the turnaround: Creating and maintaining healthy arts organizations (which I read for the first time three years ago as if it was a novel) he shares his vast experience and presents five case studies: Kansas City Ballet, Alvin Ailey Dance Theatre Foundation, American Ballet Theater, Royal Opera House e The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Michael Kaiser´s experience does not only relate to the american and british realities. He has worked as consultor in many countries around the world. From his book, I would highlight here three important lessons:

- The problem with most arts organizations is revenue and not costs. Actually, arts organizations have learnt how to do a lot with little. Organizations that focus simply on reducing costs will continue to get smaller and smaller and will never create the economic engine that is required for long-term stability and growth (p.6).

- When one cuts artistic initiative and marketing, one cuts the very reason people supply revenue to the arts organizations – buying tickets and supporting them financially. Audience members and donors are attracted to exciting work. When art and marketing are sacrificed to balance budgets, the organization virtually always suffers a loss in revenue (p.xi).

- Many arts executives have suggested it would be foolhardy to plan further into the future since the future seems so uncertain. And yet, if one does not plan far into the future, it is virtually impossible to develop the large, exciting projects that will reinvigorate the audience and donors (p.7).

How can Michael Kaiser´s lessons help us face our specific reality? I believe that some of the questions we should be considering are the following:

- Just like it happened in other countries, many people will continue attending cultural activities, live performances in particular. Actually, as Argentina and Greece have shown, the willingness may even grow and ‘infect’ more people. Nevertheless, due to the lack of money, they will be even more careful when choosing where to invest. And in cities like Lisbon, they have a lot to choose from. How is the current crisis going to affect programming? Considering the needs and interests of people implies limiting, conditioning the quality of the programming? Would it make sense to share this respinsibility, of programming, with people who represent actual target audiences and who have the knowledge that is necessary in order to contribute? Would we be risking becoming populists, compromising our mission?

- Michael Kaiser believes that the main problem in most arts organizations is revenue and not cost. Especially, I would say, in countries like Portugal, where public cultural organizations are not particularly worried about it (neither about income from ticket sales nor about fundraising from individual donors, for which there is no tradition). Will the cuts force us to consider different management and funding models? Can we do it without compromising (financial) access to our offer? What should we demand from the State?

- We do want to plan in advance. But how, when we don´t know how much money we are going to have? When, even after we have committed to the production of certain projects, we are surprised with cuts? Where to cut and how to cut? Should we sacrifice the programming in the first place? Could employees themeselves have a role in the development of a trategic plan for the future?

These questions, which are not new, came up once again when I heard the news about the cuts and the increase of VAT for live performances (from 6% to 23%). I am thinking about them and they are raising even more questions. Mission, funding, programming, management are issues which interconnect. There are urgent aspects, which need to be handled in the short term; but there are also structural aspects, that refer to a more distant future (but which is still going to be our future) and should start being considered right away.

This 'coming back' post, written a few weeks ago, is especially dedicated to AL, CF, CR, HH, MP, MS, MT, NS, SA. With my most sincere thanks.

Building a family: lessons from the social sector

In the last years, we´ve witnessed the solidarity generated at an international level when disaster strikes a country, even a distant one, affecting the lives of thousands of people. I could mention the tsunami in Indochina, the earthquake in Haiti, the floods in Pakistan and, more recently, the humanitarian crisis in the Horn of Africa. People with more or less money, sensitive to human pain, try to contribute, within their possibilities, in order to help relieve that pain, but, also, in order to feel good themselves, in order to feel human, useful, solidary. In the last weeks, I´ve been following closely the efforts of the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) in raising public awareness as well as funds for the Horn of Africa. And I´ve been thinking that the cultural sector has got a lot to learn with the social.

In the last years I have supported the WFP on a number of occasions. A few days after my last donation I received this email. It wasn´t just a ‘thank you’ email. It was something more. The WFP informed me on the impact of my contribution; it brought me news; it shared personal stories; it explained what the next steps would be. All this in a very personal, informal, clear way, that obviously aimed to give the receiver proof of the WFP´s effort and efficiency, as well as of the importance of the donor himself in the process.

At the same time, the WFP was communicating with the public through its website, as well as through regular posts on Facebook. They shared news, good and bad; they showed photos and videos from the affected areas; they reminded people of how they could help (not only by donating money); and, in the end of July and for one week, they had a correspondent in Dadaab, the largest refugee camp in Kenya, doing reports and interviews, as well as answering people´s questions posted on Facebook (watch here the video from day 1 and follow the rest on You Tube). It was also at that time that Josette Sheeran, the head of WFP, gave a powerful and deeply inspiring TED Talk, Ending hunger now, which was seen by thousands of people.

During that campaign, which is unfortunately not over, the WFP:

- constantly reminded everyone, through all the means and channels available, of its mission (The WFP fights hunger worldwide, saving lives during emergencies while building a better future for next generation. WFP is funded solely by voluntary donations).

- it shared its vision, objectives, next steps;

- it was telling stories from the field of action;

- it was giving proof of its work and interventions;

- it used a direct, colloquial, comprehensible language;

- it made available on all digital platforms the ‘Donate’ button (one of the campaign´s big objectives), facilitating the process as much as possible;

- it never forgot to say ‘thank you’ and… ask for more.

Photos from the series "A family arriving in Dadaab", taken from the WFP website.

Culture, for a number of reasons, does not appeal to people´s hearts and minds the same way human pain or the lack of essential goods do (such as food, a house or even education). But it is essential. “Why?”, many people might ask. Well, that´s exactly the question.

- How many cultural institutions in Portugal have missions that are something a bit more exciting than “X is a cultural institution of a european scope at the service of the national community” or “Y is managed by a private and public utility Foundation, aiming to promote culture”?

- How many cultural institutions use their channels to permanently assert and share their mission with the public? Or their vision?

- How many cultural institutions publicly commit to specific objectives and give feedback on the process of achieving them?

- How many cultural institutions tell stories on their day-to-day activities, the people working in them and the people they are committed to serve, demystifying what´s going on inside their walls and showing their impact?

- How many cultural institutions have a human face?

- How many cultural institutions speak a comprehensible language?

The person who managed to summarise all these questions with great insight and sense of humour was Adam Thurman, founder of Mission Paradox and Communications Director of Court Theatre in Chicago, in his talk Power and the Arts, which I had the opportunity to watch last week. Actually, an inspiring talk on the power of communication in the way we relate to other people, our ‘audiences’. In the way we create our ‘family’ and make it grow.

It was also last week that Casa Conveniente took an initiative that is unique, as far as I know, in Portugal (but I believe that this is the way forward for our cultural institutions): it launched on Facebook the campaign Be a sponsor of Casa Conveniente for €12. The friends of Casa Conveniente responded promptly and, as one would expect, very positively. They will support the project with this modest amount (or even more) and they will spread the word. Because they believe in the project; because it´s something that moves them; because they want it to continue providing them with unique, unforgettable moments; and because they want to be part. I believe that Casa Conveniente´s next step should be to communicate with those who don´t know them: to share their vision; to show what they´ve been doing; and to show their impact. And for that, I think it would be a good idea, among other things, to ‘use’ also their friends, more or less famous, registering and sharing their thoughts and feelings about the project. People (and not institutions) sharing what moves them with other people. And thus the family grows.

Still on this blog

Vision, mission, strategy

Faces

On family

More readings

Stories raise funds

The made for good model of successful cause marketing

Brushing up on the practice of gratitude

On planning - Third week at the Kennedy Center



Michael Kaiser (Photo: Raphael Khisa)

Michael Kaiser, President of the Kennedy Center, is not afraid of dreaming high. Because he knows how to plan his dreams. Michael Kaiser dreams five years in advance. He thinks of the things he would like to see the Kennedy Center presenting and, together with his team, he gets to work in order to see them materialize.

One of the greatest efforts the Kennedy Center team has to undertake is raising the money that is necessary for the dreams to come true. The State is not a factor to be considered here. Being the Kennedy Center a memorial for President John Kennedy, the federal government covers maintenance and security costs. Money for programming and operational costs must be generated, through fundraising (a responsibility of the Development Department) and earned income from box office and other services provided by the Center (a responsibilty of the Marketing Department). The Kennedy Center´s annual budget is $150.000.000, of which $75.000.000 are raised by Development.

Cultural institutions are not a business like any other. Not only because they are not-for-profit, but mainly because they do not become more ‘productive’ year after year, the way the term is generally understood. Costs are constantly increasing. A specific theatre play is not performed nowdays with less actors than 100 years ago. A symphony cannot be interpreted with less musicians than 200 years ago. The number of people involved stays the same, the costs of production increase. In what concerns earned income, on the other hand, and ticket sales being the main source, the outcome is also rather stable. A room with 500 seats will have the same number of seats tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, next year. We cannot make a room larger in order to have more people in and make more money and, anyway, in our kind of business, ticket prices could never be as high as to allow us to recover our investment in production. Thus, in that sense, culture is not a profitable business. In order for us to continue doing what we are doing, we need to fill the gap between costs and income, that keeps growing. This is why cultural institutions need financial help. Where shall we look for it?

Something that becomes immediately obvious is that it is not very intelligent on the part of a cultural institution to rely only on one source of funding. If, for any reason, that source disappears or weakens, the institution´s future is joepardized. It is necessary and compulsory to look for multiple funding sources, able to guarantee sustainability. The results of the almost exclusive dependence on state funding are felt by many cultural institutions in various countries. Financial support from corporations has also seen better days. Not only because of the economic crisis, but also because the interests and priorities of corporations change and there is no way of guaranteeing a permanent or eternal relastionship. What can, on the other hand, gain a permanent character is the relationship with individuals, more or less wealthy, who embrace our mission, share our vision, want to be part of our family. Without neglecting or undervaluing the support of corporations and foundations, the Kennedy Center invests on the development of its relationship with individuals (see previous post).

As Michael Kaiser explained in a deeply inspiring seminar he gave last week, a plan is not a wishlist. A plan is concrete actions and measures for the dreams to come true. Forward planning has various advantages: it gives enough time to the Kennedy Center to stimulate interest and enthusiasm among people and organizations that might contribute financially; it allows to negotiate better with potential partners, since there exists a large array of ‘dreams’, some of which might be more relevant to them than others; it allows to organize and produce everything having enough time and keeping calm. Staff at the Kennedy Center are always very busy, but they are not desperate or disorientated.

Apart from the seminar with the Kennedy Center staff, we also had the opportunity to hear two very inspiring ladies: Sandra Gibson, former CEO of the Association of Performing Arts Presenters who spoke about the challenges the cultural sector faces today (independent of country, although it´s obvious that some countries are paying more attention than others); and Julie Simpson, Executive Director of Urban Gateways, a reference in what cocerns arts education in the USA.

The projects presented by the fellows last week came from four continents and were quite diverse:

Hungarian Heritage House (Hungary)

Orquestra Sinfonica de Guayaquil (Ecuador)

AFCA – Académie Francophone Cairote des Arts (Egypt)

Archa Theatre (Czech Republic)

Kwani Trust (Kenya)

Eifman Ballet (Russia)

Pogon – Zagreb Center for Independant Culture and Youth (Croatia)

Evam (India)

Siddhartha Art Gallery (Nepal)

ARS DOR Association (Moldava)

National Ballet of China (China)

Prague Quadrennial of Performing Design and Space (Czech Republic)

Word becomes flesh, by The Living Word Project (Photo: mv)

On Friday night the fellows had the opportunity to be at a very special place in the washingtonian cultural scene. Dance Place was founded 30 years ago and, apart from presenting shows every weekend, it also offers dance classes and various educational programmes. We attended Word becomes flesh, a performance that was part of the Hip-Hop Theatre Festival of Washington, which celebrated its 10th anniversary. The Kennedy Center is one of the festival´s partners.

2nd Annual DC African Festival (Photo: mv)

The ‘extracurricular’ weekend programme included the second edition of the Annual DC African Festival, organized by the Mayor´s Office for African Affairs aiming this year to celebrate africa´s cultural and economic contributions to the District of Columbia; the Corcoran Art Gallery, which is now presenting the exhibition Washington Colour and Light – bringing together artists of the Washington Colour School -, as well as the exhibition Renunciation by photographer Mads Gamdrup, whose works explore the desert as a “space of unexpected promise”; Freer and Sackler Art Galleries of Asian Art, where we can now see the exhibition Family Matters, which presents 16 portraits of members of the Qing Dinasty; and returning to the National Museum of African Art to see once again the extraordinary video on senegalese artist Ousmane Sow.

And thus we have entered the fourth and final week of the fellowship for this year. On Wednesday, July 20, the Kennedy Center and the DeVos Institute of Arts Management are organizing a debate with all the fellows and 13 executive directors of cultural institutions from New York on the subject The International Context: The Changing Role of Governments in Arts Funding and Advances in Audience Outreach and Development. I´ve heard it has 'sold out'.

Special thanks: Faisal Kiwewa