Barcelona: 1 conference, 2 museums putting it to the test

Last week I was in Barcelona for the conference Glocal Audiences in Culture: Global Cities, Local Audiences, an Audiences Europe Network initiative. There were both museums and performing arts institutions in the programme, two worlds that rarely come together to discuss issues they have in common.

Quiet often, in these conferences we get to know projects which seem to be the answer to all our wishes and worries, but whose presentation remains rather superficial. We end up not knowing how they were developed and how (and if) they have been evaluated. This conference was no exception, but, even though, there were some moments and discussions of particular interest. The programme included one introductory session and five panels, which I´ll try to brielfy summarize.

Introductory session: Tourism vs. local audiences
We were presented with the results of a visitor survey which indicates that the big majority of the spanish do not visit museums in their country, but don´t fail to do so when travelling abroad; that more than half of visitors to Barcelona museums are foreigners, while 27% reside in this city. Visitors´ perception of museums is that they mean “learning”, “curiosity”, “peace”, “admiration”, “discovery”. Non-visitors´ or occasional visitors´ perception is that they mean “boredom”, “effort”, “incomprehension”, “discovery”. Speakers mentioned the need to create a feeling of belonging among local communities, to establish emotional links, to create spaces of encounter. One must admit that this is nothing new. I was thus left thinking if it makes sense to continue investing in this sort of one-off surveys which aim to study the relationship between audiences and museums in general, instead of working with the objective to change some of these indicators. On the other hand, in the case of museums which have the means to carry out continuous surveys (we were presented here with the Louvre case), which allow them to evaluate their work over time, registering modifications and new trends, one may find, no doubt, relevant indicators of change.

Panel 1: Big museums for local audiences

The need to concentrate on the individual and adapt the offer to everyone´s needs was once again mentioned here. Is it really possible that museums like the Prado and the Louvre, which receive millions of visitors every year, are able to fullfil this objective? This is what we dind´t find out in this panel. The mere presentation of initiatives is not enough for us to understand if the objective was met. In the meantime, there were mentioned here some points that deserve to be considered: the importance of collecting, using and sharing data; of seeking new partnerships, also among smaller museums, located in the area of the 'big ones'; of stepping outside the museum boundaries and going to meet the people; finally, of considering as a performance indicator not only the number of visitors, but also whether the museum has managed to meet (or not) visitor expectations.

Panel 2: Pricing strategies in time of crisis

Here´s a panel that didn´t meet expectations. Speakers presented their discount policies – the usual ones, those which have always existed – without a special consideration, as it was expected, regarding the challenges presented by the actual economic crisis. Challenges which, in my view, mainly concern those who normally visit cultural spaces (more or less frequently) and who might now have a more limited capacity to purchase tickets. What can we do in order to provide access to those who wish to visit and guarantee a revenue for our institutions? In what concerns free entries and the illusion that they bring, just by themselves, people who don´t have the habit of visiting, there seem to exist consensus (at least, nobody expressed his/her disagreement): this is really an illusion.

Panel 3: From user to client

Some truly relevant questions were raised in this panel concerning the need to put the individual in the centre of our strategic plans, to develop new audiences (I have stopped using this expression, but this is what was said) through relationship marketing, to create proximity and a personalized service, to take advantage of Customer Relationship Management tools (in Portugal, I believe that only CCB has been using them). There was also some discussion regarding the importance of maintaining a balance between what people want and programming needs (which reminded me of the very interesting Lead or Follow debate, which took place in January and the reading of which I recommend).

Panel 4:Tourist cities for local audiences

This was, in my opinion, the most interesting panel, where we truly shared and discussed worries and thoughts regarding the tension created in cities of all sizes between the local community and tourists. There is a real need to be relevant for different audiences, which requires very specific strategies in order to nurture and maintain a relationship with local people (from special programming to offering free coffee). The most interesting case for me was Hermitage Amsterdam, which ‘insists’ on positioning itself as an international destination, when tourists don´t see it this way and the local community, with which it has already established a very strong relationship, particularly appreciates the fact that this museum doesn´t draw the hoards of tourists one finds in other museums in this city.

Panel 5: Cultural institutions take the street

And it was this last panel that kept a pleasant surprise for us. An inspiring project of great impact: The Grand Tour was a National Gallery initiative, in partnership with Hewlett Packard (HP), which spread in the city centre, sometimes in the most unexpected places, chosen with a great sense of humour, high quality copies (prints) of the gallery´s most famous paintings. The objectives were: to raise awareness regarding the museum; to inform the public that some of the most known paintings could be found in the gallery; to let them know that entry was free; to make people talk about art. Next to each copy, there was a label with some basic information about the piece and a phone number for those who wanted to know more. Information was also available on the microsite and cold be downloaded. The museum considers that mission was accomplished: the number of visitors increased significantly, and many were coming holding the map that was created for this initiative looking for the original works. In many cases, the photos speak for themselves, in the meantime, there was also a book about this experience and people´s reactions to it.

Photo taken from the blog The Crossed Cow

Photo taken from the blog The Crossed Cow

Photo taken from the blog The Crossed Cow

I took advantage of my two days in Barcelona to visit two of my favourite museums. Arriving at the Maritime Museum, I found out that the permanent exhibition was closed due to works. I didn´t remember having seen a warning on the website (available only in catalan and spanish), but I checked when I got back to my hotel: there was no warning. Thus, I visited a temporary exhibition on the Titanic. Before I entered, I looked for the cloakroom to leave my heavy bag, but there wasn´t one. Entering the exhibition, I was given an audioguide (this one, yes, in more than two languages), which obliged visitors to follow a specific path, without being able to choose which objects or sections they might want to learn more about. When cases were small, too many visitors accumulated in front of them, making it impossible to see the objects we were hearing about. I turned the audioguide off and read just a few labels. Along the different sections of the exhibition, more than once I wondered if the objects in front of me were originals or copies (a museum has the obligation to mark the difference). I approached three members of staff to ask for information about this, all very nice, but none of them spoke english.

Museu Marítim de Barcelona, Titanic exhibition  (Photo: mv)

The following day it was the turn of the Museum of the History of Catalunia, in my opinion, one of the best history museums. I was glad to see english labels this time. In the past, I couldn´t understand how at the history museum of a people who wished to proclaim their difference and autonomy that same history was not told to foreign tourists, at least in english. On the other hand, the french friend who came with me to that visit, a history teacher at the French School of Barcelona for four years now, had never heard of this museum, he was visiting for the first time (and loved it). Wouldn´t one expect that among this museum´s priority target audiences would be history teachers of the city and region?

Museu d´Història de Catalunia  (Photo: mv)

These are, yes, two of my favourite museums in this city, because they know how to tell a good story. Nevertheless, they both put the reflections and conclusions of the conference to the test and reminded me that, in many cases and even in what concerns issues that seem to be obvious or simple, theory and practice remain quite distant. Why is that?

Still on this blog

Why things aren´t happening?

The stories we tell ourselves

Afyonkarahisar, Turkey

When I was 11 years old and our car broke down during a visit to Constantinople, I was very surprised that a number of people came to assist us and they neither gave up nor did they attack us when they found out we were Greeks (we were supposed to be hating each other). At the age of 12, I was shocked to hear in a foreign documentary that Alexander the Great was an imperialist and a people´s murderer (everybody was supposed to admire and acknowledge his greatness). At 19, again in Turkey, in Smyrna, I felt puzzled when an old fisherman started crying when he found out we were Greeks and said he was from Crete (wasn´t he supposed to speak greek then?). During that same trip, arriving at Afyonkarahisar, I felt disturbed when I saw in the central square a statue representing a battle between a Turk and a Greek, the latter being on the ground (the Greeks were supposed to be always on their feet). At 23, while visiting a history museum in the town of Halifax (UK), I felt outraged when I saw photos of fighters of the Cypriot resistance against British rule where they were being identified as “terrorists” (they were supposed to be honoured by everyone as heroes).

Ministry of Culture: Which culture? Whose culture?

“The protection of human rights, in a cultural society, requires the observance of cultural rights, these being universally accepted rights. There are no human rights, much less democracy, without cultural justice, without cultural diversity and pluralism and, much less, without guaranteeing the right to exist, the right to visibility, the right to difference and cultural dignity.” Flávia Piovesan in Building democracy: cultural practice, social rights and citizenship (text in portuguese)

Bandstand in Alentejo, Portugal (photo taken from the blog À espera de Godot)


An 11-year-old boy told me the other day that only when he is on holiday in Algarve he can go to the cinema, because in Évora, where he lives, there is no cinema. My first reaction was desbelief; then shock; then shame; in the end, anger. Évora, a district capital, a university town, has not got cinema in 2012.

 

This made me think again of António Gomes de Pinho´s interview in the TV programme Câmara Clara (26.02.2012), where he said that maintaining a Ministry of Cultural that had been losing its political weight, was an exagerated expense, an autophagic consumption; this is why António Gomes de Pinho had been defending the extinction of the Ministry, the reduction in services and the investment of the resources available in the creators, who are the ones who make culture.

 

Despite agreeing with the first part of this argument, I cannot agree with the solution proposed. The existence of a Ministry of Culture is not justified, in the first place, for supporting creators and its extinction does not affect (in the sense of benefiting or harming), in the first place, creation. A Ministry of Culture exists so that the young boy from Évora (and many more boys and girls, men and women, all over the country) can watch cinema; can go to the theatre; can attend concerts; can visit a museum; can have a library. It also exists to protect and safeguard, for all of us, our cultural heritage and to create the necessary conditions so that some people can develop their creativity and share it, with all of us, thus contributing for what is going to be the heritage of future generations. It exists to guarantee that the sector is ‘populated’ by professionals who are adequately prepared, on a technical point of view, to carry out their duties. It also exists in order to contribute in the development of citizens who are attentive, critical, sensitive, tolerant, intervening. A Ministry of Culture exists, in the first place, in order to guarantee the citizens access to it, being this a human right that every State is obliged to defend.

 

Despite all this, the dialectic of the majority of the professionals in the cultural sector is far from defending this fundamental right. Ignoring society (forgetting about it?), it seems to me that our argumentation focuses mainly on the revendication of State financial support and our voice is normally (and more and more sporadically) heard after the announcement of cuts or extinctions or, at times, of certain nominations. We are quite an egocentric sector (although there are some bright exceptions – starting from the education services of many museums around the country) and we are not particularly worried about the fact that, when we revendicate, we revendicate alone, for ourselves, without the involvement or support of a big part of our society (or even a small part, for that matter). When faced with this fact, we prefer to think that society lacks an interest in ‘culture’. Which culture? Whose culture?

 

Thus, it was a pleasant surprise to hear theatre director Jorge Silva Melo (SIC channel, 17.03.2012) commenting on the 100% cut in annual and one-off grants for the performing arts. Silva Melo gave a whole new orientation to all this, focusing his worries on the spectator: “(...) I, as a spectator, will not be able anymore to discover young talents. (...) The grants do not support the artists, they support the spectators. Because if I want to see a play by theatre company Truta, and if they don´t get a grant, I´ll have to pay approximately 100 Euro per ticket and I haven´t got that money. But I have the right to see what young creators are doing, what´s preoccupying them, what they are thinking about. It is this kind of support that has been taken from me, as a spectator. (…)”.

 

Although Silva Melo was commenting on a very specific issue – one of the many a Ministry of Culture should worry about (let´s continue discussing at that ‘level’, of a Ministry, despite our reality being ‘minor’) -, his words are an example of how we should be building our argument: without forgetting or allowing to forget for a moment at whose service the State is; at whose service a Ministry of Culture is; for whom public museum exist; or who creators and artists who are being supported aim to communicate with and share their thoughts; among many other things.

 

On the other hand, both culture professionals and culture authorities must realize as soon as possible that it is urgent to open the dialogue up, to involve the community, to aim for a greater representativity of the country´s various cultural realities – when we support, when we programme, when we plan, when we promote -, to aim for pluralism and respect for the anxieties, worries, needs and tastes of many citizens (both creators and audiences) and not only for those of a minority. Because the majority of the citizens are not lacking an interest in culture in general; they might, yes, be lacking an interest in ‘ours’.

Still on this blog

Article 27

Ministry of Culture: can we keep the debate going for a second week?

More readings

Lluís Bonet & Fabio Donato, The financial crisis and its impact of the current models of governance and managemet of the cultural sector in Europe



Leaders are needed

“It's too easy to blame the organization and the system and the bottom line for decisions that a person would never be willing to take responsibility for. Whenever you can, work with people who take it personally.” Seth Godin in his blog

Wangari Maathai (Photo taken from The Green Belt Movement website)

It was with great curiosity that I started reading the other day the article Good bosses are the same today as they were in 1992, because I often think about what makes a good leader (regardless of scale). The author, Robert Sutton, states that many things may be changing, may need to be reinvented, but not the definition of a great leader (or boss or manager or director). And I am quoting: “(…) we humans still yearn to follow others who are competent enough to bring in resources, teach us new skills, and generate attention and prestige from key outsiders (...) We also want fair leaders who protect us, and who make us feel cared for and respected, who inject humanity. (...) As over fifty years of research shows, treating employees with respect, encouraging them to participate and to make suggestions, and listening to them are as important as ever. The same is true about setting a clear direction, making decisions, and taking charge.”

In these words I find many of the issues I think about when reading the biographies of those I consider great leaders, when thinking of people who have been my bosses, when evaluating myself as a team leader or when analysing, more recently, the cases of organizations which have been through great trouble and the attitudes and options taken by the people who lead them. A leader has got qualities that allow him/her to trace a path and follow it, and at the same time to inspire, gather and lead many other people, who are essential for materializing his/her vision and accomplishing the mission. And I often think that, along this route – which may be difficult, complicated, disheartening, exhausting and even solitary – one of the things that distinguish a leader is that fact that he/she knows how to say "no", when it would be much easier and comfortable to say "yes".

And this brings me to the case of the Penumbra Theatre, which recently a friend brought to my attention. Open since 1975 in the town of St. Paul (Minnesota, USA), its mission is to promote respect and tolerance by creating dialogue around issues of race and racism. The theatre is known for taking risks, stretching boundaries and introducing new voices to american theatre. Nevertheless, the Penumbra Theatre went through a particularly difficult moment in the early 2000s. A state capital bond, which allowed them to invest in the construction of a new theatre, was after all vetoed, leaving them with a considerable debt. The consequences were those one would expect: demotivated and frustrated administrative staff, board members who didn´t believe in the theatre´s mission anymore, donors who started questioning the theatre´s capacity for financial management and the possibility of closure almost becoming a reality. A restructuring committee was created and, with the aim to start by restructuring donors´ trust, it hired an experienced and tenacious manager, Chris Widdess, who identified three key areas: recommitting to the mission; building long-term relationships both internally and externally; and creating a long-term plan. It´s worth reading here everything about this case-study, but what particularly drew my attention was Widdess´s statement that saying "no" was fundamental in the restructuring process. I do believe it was fundamental and that it actually happened because both Widdess and Lou Bellamy, the Penumbra Theatre´s founder and artistic director, have a clear idea regarding the theatre´s mission and the future they wish to trace for it. It was this mission, this vision, they aimed to share both with donors and the audience. And they did whatever was necessary to defend it, including saying "no". By 2007 the Penumbra Theatre was back on track.

I also thought about the ‘knowing-how-to-say-no’ issue when I saw a programme on portuguese state TV regarding cultural funding, with António Gomes de Pinho (former President of the Serralves Foundation board) and Pedro Gadanho (recently appointed curator at the MOMA). The programme had prepared a special report on the american funding model and the journalist responsible stated that every year the Metropolitan Opera presents the same popular works to keep its donors happy (had this statement been based on information coming from credible sources?). In the same programme, public funding for the arts was referred more than once as an essential guarantee for preserving one´s autonomy when programming. Pedro Gadanho was quick to explain that he doesn´t feel any kind of pressure on behalf of donors when carrying out his duties and that he acts with absolute autonomy. Nevertheless, I would say that this is not an issue mainly related to the dilemma “public or private funding?”. Both a politician and a donor might feel they have a right to dictate options in exchange for their support. And some do. But then, from that point onwards, everything depends on the the person on the other side: on his/her sense of mission and responsibility; on his/her determination to defend them and act accordingly; on his/her exemption; on his/her capacity to say "no". Everything depends on whether there is a leader on the other side or not.

Vision, sense of mission, perseverence, sense of responsibility; an attitude that inspires and motivates others, turning them into allies and companions; a life dedicated to a cause; making a difference. When what we see around us is mainly those ‘yes people’ - those who are more than willing to forget everything about mission and responsibility, who easily blame the system and the status quo, in order to justify their only wish, which is to keep their posts and preserve their small or big power -, I think again of a lady whose autobiography I read last August. Wangari Maathai was the founder of The Green Belt Movement in Kenya. She fought for the environment and she fought for democracy in her country. She knew how to say "no". And she also knew how to say "I´ll do the best I can". She died in Semptember 2011.

Still on this blog
Building trust

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

I think of Luis Soriano

Image taken from http://www.dailyglean.salebooks.com/

Last week my son told me that Jesus only allows ladies to have children when they are married and when they and their husbands love each other very much. Information given at school. It seemed a bit too early to present him with other versions regarding the second part, but I didn´t hesitate regarding the first. After all, his best friend is the daughter of a single mum. I then remembered that this single mum, when her daughter entered the kindergarten, was careful enough to explain the situation to the teacher and to clarify that her daughter had never met her father. What did the teacher do on Father´s Day? She asked the children to sit in a circle and talk about their dads. Probably, this is what she had done in previous years. She repeated the ‘activity’ without the least adaptation to her class´s new reality, to her class´s diversity. A few days ago, a friend told me also about a couple of lesbians who had great trouble in convincing the school to allow the mother´s partner, the mother´s wife, to pick up the children.

All this made me think of how slow the school is in reacting and adapting to new realities. A slowness which is sometimes difficult to understand, considering that homosexual couples are still a novelty, but single mothers (or single fathers) not really. The school´s reaction to the changes that take place around it, the adaptation, would mean a greater inclusion of people (in this case children and teenagers), a greater connection and relevance to their lives, greater tolerance and openness towards the richness diversity brings to everyone´s life.

And this is exactly what one would wish for cultural institutions too. Or rather – to avoid talking about ‘institutions’, a word that makes us think of something devoid of people, lacking a soul, for which no-one is responsible - for the people who think, manage and work in cultural institutions. Yes, I am referring to all of us, “cultural snobs” or “new mandarins” (to quote John Holden once again), who continue doing everything the way we´ve always done it, alien to the changes, incapable or not willing to identify, understand and integrate them. Which quite often condemns us to irrelevance.

An article recently published in The Telegraph presented the results of a survey Visit Birmingham carried out with 2000 children aged between 5 and 12, which indicated that: 4 in 10 children have never seen the inside of an art gallery; 17 % haven't visited a museum with their parents; 25% haven't been to the theatre; 6 in 10 have never heard or been to a classical music concert; 1 in 10 kids hasn't left their hometown to visit other cultural sites in the UK. The newspaper referred to a “culture starved generation”. The results of the survey were also published in the Arts Journal and the first comment was the following: “Perhaps 20 years ago, I was a ‘visiting artist’ in an upstate New York middle school. I asked the students how much disposable income they had to spend on ‘culture’ and what they spent it on. The answers fascinated me: these 13-year-olds thought nothing of dropping $50 on a ticket to a rock concert, or buying CDs. (...) I think that in 2012 the situation would be even more extreme. All the disposable income would go to supporting their smartphones, which make them cultural ‘producers’ as well as consumers”.

I found both the presentation of the survey results and the above comment worrying. Because they confirm the persistence of those old issues regarding access to culture, ‘high’ and ‘low’ culture. Because they confirm our slowness (or resistance) in reacting and adapting our thinking and practice to new realities.

Should the survey results had been read in the opposite way (let´s do the exercise and see, for example, that 6 in 10 children have entered an art gallery; 83% have visited a museum with their parents; 75% have been to the theatre; etc., etc.), I believe we would have concluded that this is not exactly a “culture starved generation”. But there are still other issues here. Are children, young people and adults considered to be cultured only when they visit museums and art galleries; only when they go to the theatre; only when they attend a classical music concert? So, what should one think about those people who, for various reasons (lack of time or money, lack of cultural institutions in their place of residence, having young children, etc.) watch theatre only on TV or DVD, listen to music (classical and other) only on CDs, know certain works of art only through books? When the encounter with culture does not occur within the walls of an ‘official’ institution, is it less valid? And what should one think of those people who nowadays watch opera and theatre transmitted live to cinemas? Of those who enjoy sharing the experience of a live performance through twitter and facebook? Of those who attend live concerts through the internet? Of those who see in detail works of art exhibited in various museums around the world through the Google Art Project? And there are still some more issues: a person who knows a lot about classical music is more cultured than someone who knows nothing, but knows a lot about the contemporary pop musical scene? And vice versa? The work of a musician or a filmmaker distributed through the You Tube has less quality than that which is exhibited in large cultural institutions, is their art less valid? And if a person admits not to like visiting museums or a specific form of art, is this a less cultured person?

Creator, producer, curator, programme director, distributor, spectator: nothing is what it used to be even just a few year ago. The way culture and the arts (in all their diversity) are being created, distributed and enjoyed, as well as the spaces where this takes place, is today as diverse as the people involved in them. A recent article by Susan Jones in the Guardian, Pitching up: Where is the place for art?, was a stimulating and refreshing contribution to the development of the thinking regarding the role of cultural institutions and people´s involvement in culture and the arts. At the end of this post, a number of articles show how new technologies have also contributed to these changes.

Culture, in its most diverse manifestations, is important in the life of most people. It opens windows to the world, it liberates the mind, it helps interrogate and look for answers, it entertains, it brings relief. It introduces us to the ‘other’, it is able to bring closer people who come from different backgrounds, who even speak different languages, it is something that can be shared. 

The times we live in and those that are approaching are difficult, critical times. They are times that are able to kill hope, to finish with many people´s world, the way they knew it, the way they liked it and wanted to preserve it. They are times of great changes, times that feed the fear of what is different, that turn diversity into a threat. In times like this, it is even more urgent and relevant to be paying attention to the changes, to create conditions for a greater cultural development and involvement of the people themselves, to invest more in “culture per capita” – an expression of the greek thinker Christos Yannaras -, to defend diversity. I am thus thinking a lot of the responsibilities this reality brings for culture professionals. I am thinking more and more of the children and young people whose families haven´t got the possibility to give them access to that extremely rich world that surrounds them, to those extremely diverse cultures. And I am thinking more and more of the decisive role the school, a teacher, can play in the lives of those people, the future adults. I think of Luis Soriano.

Still on this blog
Changes: are we paying enough attention?
La crise oblige? (ii) Programming challenges

More readings
Beyond live: Digital innovation in the performing arts
Arts Council England and BBC launch online arts channel
The free MOMA iPad app (video)
Introducing the new MOMA iPhone app (video)
Theatre for twits
More theatres reserve seats for tweeters
Drip-fed up: why don't theatres get Twitter?
Text your encore at the Mann
Broadway Actors Use Twitter to Connect with Friends, Fans, Industry

Building trust

Image taken from the article Sixty museums in search of a purpose in The Art Newspaper

Last summer, in one of the sessions of the fellowship at the Kennedy Center, we did a very interesting exercise. We participated in a sort of brainstorming regarding certain projects the DeVos Institut for Arts Management should get involved in. The criterion was not the interest of the projects themselves. They all were. But not all of them fit in the Institute´s mission, which is to train, support and empower arts managers and their boards locally, nationally and internationally. Just that. Clear, concise and complete, as all mission statements should be.

A concrete mission statement is the basis of every stategic plan. In the manual Strategic planning in the arts. A practical guide, written by Michael Kaiser, the author identifies six elements that should be considered when defining an institution´s mission. I consider three of them to be basic, applicable to all cases: the product/service; the audience; the geographic scope. Kaiser also mentions repertory and education, but I don´t think they are applicable to all cultural institutions and, anyway, they are part of the broader product/service definition. He also refers to quality, in the sense of the level of performance desired, but I believe that this issue is mainly related to our capacity (and obligation) to be realistic when defining our mission´s three basic elements.

It was very interesting to read András Szántó´s article Sixty museums in search of a purpose, where he analyses the mission statements of 60 american art museums. Apart from a semiological analysis, he raises questions like: “Should a mission describe what a museum is doing, or what it should be doing? Is it about tangible goals to which institutions are held accountable, or platonic ideals to which they merely aspire? Should a museum’s mission offer an inventory of assets and activities, or will it work best as a crystallisation of core principles? How will it reflect a museum’s take on cultural progress, audience demographics, funding sources and technological opportunity?”.

Going back to what I said before, a mission statement must be clear, concise and complete. Coherent, as well. It may not allow for different interpretations; it must be easily remembered (and ‘recited’) by all employees as well as external ‘customers’ (audiences, partners, sponsors); it must refer to all the areas in which the institution develops its activity; and it must be coherent, because it must make sense and be realistic. Thus, I would say that the mission should not be limited to what is actually being done, but it should also refer to what an institution realistically aspires to, in the short or medium term. And it shouldn´t be an exhaustive list of the concrete actions to be developed in order to reach the announced objectives (this should be part of the strategic plan). I had previously touched on this subject, in the post Vision, mission, strategy, where I was suggesting the reading of the mission statements of the Gulbenkian Foundation programme “Descobrir” and of the Casa da Música Education Service. They are still two of my favourite, mainly because of the choice of words and the vision they both transmit. Nevertheless, if we asked the people who are working to make them come true, would they be able to repeat them?

Writing a mission statement is not an easy task, should we want (and we must want) it to meet the above mentioned requirements. Fulfilling it is equally, or even more, difficult. There is a need for discipline, persistence. But, is there another way of tracing a clear path, following it (without unnecessary and/or harmful deviations) and evaluating our success? Following our mission is also a guarantee for an efficient and effective management of human and financial resources. And finally, an advantage in the creation of a distinct identity in the market; in other words, the definition and fulfillment of the mission are a branding instrument.

In this sense, I stronlgy recommend the article The cure for the not-for-profit crisis. The authors maintain that the decrease in the value of donations for not-for-profit sectors (such as the social and the cultural), registered in 2010, did not affect all institutions the same way. They talk of a “crisis of coherence”, of the lack of a strategy that connects the mission of some (many) institutions to their ability to deliver a specific service. Those who suffered the most from the decrease in donations were actually those that were more versatile in terms of mission and objectives (often in order to please possible sponsors). On the other hand, those which demonstrated that they had and followed a clear mission, which orientated their whole activity, which allowed them to demonstrate coherence and rigor, have not felt the same impact. A clear mission, coherence and rigor build trust. And, quite probably, the wish to ‘be part of’. Is this a surprise?