Monday, December 7, 2009
Stepping out on a Limb
Inspired by Michael Kaiser, I've been thinking about this for a while now and I'm not sure that the professionalization of Arts Administration is always a good thing.
What?! Don't I work for an organization that is all about helping artists with business skills, helping them run their careers professionally? Yes. Springboard is all about helping artists be better business owners and better managers... for themselves.
I know there are many excellent Arts Administration programs out there and goodness knows I'd be the first to tell you that this job is one that requires some skills. Nothing gets my hackles up faster than someone referring disparagingly to "administrators" as if we were corporate fat cats pulling down the big bucks on the backs of artists. Nothing, perhaps, except when someone refers to artists as flakey, unreliable, navel-gazers. But I worry that capital "A" Arts Administration makes both of those stereotypes worse. My fear is that, as we've put more focus on Arts Administration as a career, we've driven a wedge between Administrator and Artist. It's either or. And we're losing the idea of the artist as leader.
Full disclosure, I have no arts administration or nonprofit management degree and I came to this job wholly unprepared for the challenges of managing a budget, a board and the emotional responsibility of being "in charge". What I did bring to the job was a steadfast passion for the arts, a belief that I could handle being "in charge" and experience as an artist. And I learned the rest. I'm not saying that arts managers don't need to learn those things - I'd be sunk without the excellent training that I had from great organizations, great mentors and great workshops. But there is something to be said for gaining those skills on an "as needed" basis.
I've been doing a lot of informational interviews lately - lots of people out there looking for work and trying to build their network. A couple weeks ago, I had coffee with a woman with substantial work experience and a recent degree in nonprofit management. When I asked her what kind of job she was looking for, she detailed her (many) qualifications and said "I think I'm ready to be an executive director of a mid-size organization or the second in command at a large institution." Thinking that she she misunderstood me, I said, "I mean what lights you up? What's your passion? community arts? arts ed? urban? rural? grassroots? theater? dance?..." And she said, "You know, I'm not really a passion-led leader. I just think I have the right skills for this job, I'd be happy anywhere, as long as it isn't full of a bunch of flakey artists."
Hrm. I wouldn't open with that in a job interview.
It's not so much that I think that we don't need the skills or the education to run successful organizations, it's more a question of order. Passion, commitment and dedication first; finances, networking and fundraising second. Mission first, management second. Art first, administration second.
-laura
Also, could we think of a better name for this? I hate "arts administrator", that sounds like such a boring job...one that involves a lot of paperwork. I use arts manager, but that's not much better, plus its confusing to people who think you're an agent or publicist or something. Someone called me an "arts organizer" once, which I loved. What do you think?
Inspired by Michael Kaiser, I've been thinking about this for a while now and I'm not sure that the professionalization of Arts Administration is always a good thing.
What?! Don't I work for an organization that is all about helping artists with business skills, helping them run their careers professionally? Yes. Springboard is all about helping artists be better business owners and better managers... for themselves.
I know there are many excellent Arts Administration programs out there and goodness knows I'd be the first to tell you that this job is one that requires some skills. Nothing gets my hackles up faster than someone referring disparagingly to "administrators" as if we were corporate fat cats pulling down the big bucks on the backs of artists. Nothing, perhaps, except when someone refers to artists as flakey, unreliable, navel-gazers. But I worry that capital "A" Arts Administration makes both of those stereotypes worse. My fear is that, as we've put more focus on Arts Administration as a career, we've driven a wedge between Administrator and Artist. It's either or. And we're losing the idea of the artist as leader.
Full disclosure, I have no arts administration or nonprofit management degree and I came to this job wholly unprepared for the challenges of managing a budget, a board and the emotional responsibility of being "in charge". What I did bring to the job was a steadfast passion for the arts, a belief that I could handle being "in charge" and experience as an artist. And I learned the rest. I'm not saying that arts managers don't need to learn those things - I'd be sunk without the excellent training that I had from great organizations, great mentors and great workshops. But there is something to be said for gaining those skills on an "as needed" basis.
I've been doing a lot of informational interviews lately - lots of people out there looking for work and trying to build their network. A couple weeks ago, I had coffee with a woman with substantial work experience and a recent degree in nonprofit management. When I asked her what kind of job she was looking for, she detailed her (many) qualifications and said "I think I'm ready to be an executive director of a mid-size organization or the second in command at a large institution." Thinking that she she misunderstood me, I said, "I mean what lights you up? What's your passion? community arts? arts ed? urban? rural? grassroots? theater? dance?..." And she said, "You know, I'm not really a passion-led leader. I just think I have the right skills for this job, I'd be happy anywhere, as long as it isn't full of a bunch of flakey artists."
Hrm. I wouldn't open with that in a job interview.
It's not so much that I think that we don't need the skills or the education to run successful organizations, it's more a question of order. Passion, commitment and dedication first; finances, networking and fundraising second. Mission first, management second. Art first, administration second.
-laura
Also, could we think of a better name for this? I hate "arts administrator", that sounds like such a boring job...one that involves a lot of paperwork. I use arts manager, but that's not much better, plus its confusing to people who think you're an agent or publicist or something. Someone called me an "arts organizer" once, which I loved. What do you think?
# posted by laura @ 2:14 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Great post, Laura.
As an administrator (ick) who started out as an artist myself, I can sing you a few bars about this topic.
As I have worked through my career, it has been my passion for the artwork that has drawn me to learn more and more about the back end of things. I have worked in many small theatre companies that had little competence with the day to day management that enables the art to be seen by hundreds or thousands of people.
By the time I left those places, the companies were better organized and ready to move forward. And I was somewhat further from the act of creation, but better prepared for the next administrative challenge.
We're not just crunching numbers, we're doing all we can to ensure that the work is the best it can be, and be seen by as many people as possible.
I wrote my graduate thesis on using theatre to change the world, and at the time, I thought that meant something different than I do now, but as an "Arts Enabler," I get to facilitate the process of delivering world-changing theatre to its intended target!
We're smart people. We can learn the information and skills we need to read a P&L report, but the passion is irreplaceable.
Ross Willits, SteppingStone Theatre
As an administrator (ick) who started out as an artist myself, I can sing you a few bars about this topic.
As I have worked through my career, it has been my passion for the artwork that has drawn me to learn more and more about the back end of things. I have worked in many small theatre companies that had little competence with the day to day management that enables the art to be seen by hundreds or thousands of people.
By the time I left those places, the companies were better organized and ready to move forward. And I was somewhat further from the act of creation, but better prepared for the next administrative challenge.
We're not just crunching numbers, we're doing all we can to ensure that the work is the best it can be, and be seen by as many people as possible.
I wrote my graduate thesis on using theatre to change the world, and at the time, I thought that meant something different than I do now, but as an "Arts Enabler," I get to facilitate the process of delivering world-changing theatre to its intended target!
We're smart people. We can learn the information and skills we need to read a P&L report, but the passion is irreplaceable.
Ross Willits, SteppingStone Theatre
Terrific post, Laura, and a great response Ross.
As an artist with an MBA and the artistic leader of a company who has consciously broken down the artist/administrator split by creating a company where all function with feet in both worlds, I am struck by what I found most compelling - the need for the presence of passion, the cellular owning of the organization's mission, within the body, mind, and heart of each artist.
It has yielded a remarkably resilient, sustainable arts presence in the most unusual setting.
All artists and arts enablers need to "drink the Kool Aid" of their own artistic mission. All people, prospective hirers, funders, general audience can sense this automatically.
As an artist with an MBA and the artistic leader of a company who has consciously broken down the artist/administrator split by creating a company where all function with feet in both worlds, I am struck by what I found most compelling - the need for the presence of passion, the cellular owning of the organization's mission, within the body, mind, and heart of each artist.
It has yielded a remarkably resilient, sustainable arts presence in the most unusual setting.
All artists and arts enablers need to "drink the Kool Aid" of their own artistic mission. All people, prospective hirers, funders, general audience can sense this automatically.
Thanks, Ross and Hal, for your great comments.
Hal, I love this phrase, "the cellular owning of the organization's mission..." That's exactly what I was trying to get at. I've always described it as a "depth of understanding about the mission" and in my experience people either have it or they don't - it's not really teachable.
Here's my question to both of you - Do you think it's possible to have that depth of understanding/cellular owning/passion for the work if you've never been an artist yourself?
Hal, I love this phrase, "the cellular owning of the organization's mission..." That's exactly what I was trying to get at. I've always described it as a "depth of understanding about the mission" and in my experience people either have it or they don't - it's not really teachable.
Here's my question to both of you - Do you think it's possible to have that depth of understanding/cellular owning/passion for the work if you've never been an artist yourself?
"Do you think it's possible to have that depth of understanding/cellular owning/passion for the work if you've never been an artist yourself?"
Interesting question. It depends on what you mean by "Being an artist." I believe that a person can have the "cellular owning" of the artist's passion, mission and drive, without the special talent, eye, ear, or feet to be a creator him/herself.
For instance, I studied the art of acting for many years. I got deep inside the process, and I loved it. The problem was that no one outside of my own head loved my acting work. I felt it deeply, I understood what it took to do it right and beautifully, but I didn't have the skill to translate that externally.
I would never call myself an artist based on my acting chops, but I still have a cellular understanding of it.
Interesting question. It depends on what you mean by "Being an artist." I believe that a person can have the "cellular owning" of the artist's passion, mission and drive, without the special talent, eye, ear, or feet to be a creator him/herself.
For instance, I studied the art of acting for many years. I got deep inside the process, and I loved it. The problem was that no one outside of my own head loved my acting work. I felt it deeply, I understood what it took to do it right and beautifully, but I didn't have the skill to translate that externally.
I would never call myself an artist based on my acting chops, but I still have a cellular understanding of it.
Good point, Ross. But I would say that you're an artist for having had the experience...whether or not you considered it successful. Artistic quality is so subjective.
I'm not ready to say that it's impossible to be a great leader in the arts without being an artist too. But I will say, when I think of the leaders I admire most, they are all/were artists first.
Also, you're a musician, too, right?
I'm not ready to say that it's impossible to be a great leader in the arts without being an artist too. But I will say, when I think of the leaders I admire most, they are all/were artists first.
Also, you're a musician, too, right?
I think we are driving a fine line on this topic. I just graduated with my arts admin degree after being an actor in college and switching to stage management for a number of years. I knew I had a business sense and had thought about a degree. The decision to persue the degree came after watching small arts organizations (many run by my friends) struggle and sometimes fail due to their lack of business and nonprofit knowledge, I decided to go back to school to get the skills necessary to understand the many different aspects of running an arts organization. And in turn help improve the business knowledge of these passionate organization's that just need some help and knowledge.
It was the best decision in my life. I learned so much in a relatively short amount of time. Also, my experience in the industry BEFORE attending the program helped me figure out where to funnel my passion for the arts on the admin side.
HOWEVER, I did attend a program (like many other in the country) that had students that never worked as an artist before and some that never even had a job before they went to grad school. THIS was a challenge for me as a classmate and is a challenge for them as they try to find positions in the arts. I believe this is a problem with the programs out there. I think it is important to educate artists on how the nonprofit arts is run. Why keep reinventing the wheel? These programs exist for a good purpose, however at times the problem is who they let into the programs.
To be in the nonprofit arts world, you have to have passion for the mission. Otherwise it is just a job.
It was the best decision in my life. I learned so much in a relatively short amount of time. Also, my experience in the industry BEFORE attending the program helped me figure out where to funnel my passion for the arts on the admin side.
HOWEVER, I did attend a program (like many other in the country) that had students that never worked as an artist before and some that never even had a job before they went to grad school. THIS was a challenge for me as a classmate and is a challenge for them as they try to find positions in the arts. I believe this is a problem with the programs out there. I think it is important to educate artists on how the nonprofit arts is run. Why keep reinventing the wheel? These programs exist for a good purpose, however at times the problem is who they let into the programs.
To be in the nonprofit arts world, you have to have passion for the mission. Otherwise it is just a job.
# posted by 
: December 14, 2009 2:02 PM
: December 14, 2009 2:02 PM
no one grows up wanting to be an arts administrator- pahhh leeeeeeeze. we fall into it by chance or force and soon realize its roi is quite substantial if we do the work - we never create art for the money as a priority- it is because of our passion but yes, far too many business minds are entering the arts and often fail to realize we do this work because we care about the work created and our passion for the art drives us to create.
Thanks for your comments, everyone!
If you haven't seen it, Alan Berks at MNPlaylist wrote a good response over there:
http://www.minnesotaplaylist.com/blogs/arts-administrators-question-their-assumptions
If you haven't seen it, Alan Berks at MNPlaylist wrote a good response over there:
http://www.minnesotaplaylist.com/blogs/arts-administrators-question-their-assumptions
I'm a theater kid currently enrolled in a graduate arts management program, and I just want to throw in my two cents -
First off, there is not a single person in my program who doesn't have an arts background. Frankly, I don't know why anyone without a passion for the arts would *want* to spend the time, money, and brain cells to get a masters degree in such a low-paying field. In addition, as part of the program we all hafta do arts internships (yes, even those of us with years of experience) to make sure we're not just walking textbooks.
Now granted, there are the inexperienced folks who got their BFA and then came straight to grad school w/o actually working in the field, and it does require patience to work with them...but all grad programs have a variety of experience levels among the student body. And what with their BFAs, they're still artists too.
Is the degree worth it? In terms of the job hunt, I'll soon find out. I hope I can find a position in an organization whose mission I am truly committed to. But in terms of skills developed -- it's invaluable. I was going broke trying to run my little theater company with my friends, because while we all had the passion, none of us knew a budget from a hole in our bank accounts. I paid numerous "small fees" to attend workshops, but they were always too short, too basic, and too focused on marketing stuff to me.
A year and a half (and a buttload of loans) later, I finally feel like I have the skills I wasn't getting "on the job" so I can take my passion and turn it into something sustainable. Its not the right path for everyone, but I do sometimes wish it was a little less vilified by my fellow arts managers.
First off, there is not a single person in my program who doesn't have an arts background. Frankly, I don't know why anyone without a passion for the arts would *want* to spend the time, money, and brain cells to get a masters degree in such a low-paying field. In addition, as part of the program we all hafta do arts internships (yes, even those of us with years of experience) to make sure we're not just walking textbooks.
Now granted, there are the inexperienced folks who got their BFA and then came straight to grad school w/o actually working in the field, and it does require patience to work with them...but all grad programs have a variety of experience levels among the student body. And what with their BFAs, they're still artists too.
Is the degree worth it? In terms of the job hunt, I'll soon find out. I hope I can find a position in an organization whose mission I am truly committed to. But in terms of skills developed -- it's invaluable. I was going broke trying to run my little theater company with my friends, because while we all had the passion, none of us knew a budget from a hole in our bank accounts. I paid numerous "small fees" to attend workshops, but they were always too short, too basic, and too focused on marketing stuff to me.
A year and a half (and a buttload of loans) later, I finally feel like I have the skills I wasn't getting "on the job" so I can take my passion and turn it into something sustainable. Its not the right path for everyone, but I do sometimes wish it was a little less vilified by my fellow arts managers.
# posted by : December 14, 2009 6:09 PM
: December 14, 2009 6:09 PM
I am dancer who works with a nonprofit dance company (that I don't dance with) and I have worked with a variety of folks over the years at our org and those from other orgs who do and don't have an artistic background themselves. I agree that the passion really is important, though it doesn't have to be specifically for the art you "administer". Just being an artist of some kind usually makes the conversation between artist and "administrator" at least take place in the same language. We have a fund manager who has never danced, but she writes creatively as a hobby, and has adapted well to speaking about dance.
I think the size of the organization might have a lot to do with the amount of separation there is from the "administration" and the art/artist. I can see why Michael Kaiser would have run into administrators without passion for the art they were enabling because he has worked with some very large institutions. My worst experience with this was a woman I met with about a joint marketing initiative. She was at a large institution and when I asked if she worked there because she did some kind of art herself, she seemed almost proud to be "corporate," with no arts background. She could care less about our initiative, it was just something else her superiors had added to her work load so she had to help. And she acted very surprised when our collateral was actually professional-looking. I guess she assumed that because we were a small org, we would be entirely amateurish.
But as to the need for training in "arts administration," I think all knowledge is good, and it is definitely useful for the work and helpful for the org you end up working for. But from a practical standpoint, spending the money for the degree most likely won't get you any more pay in a very underfunded field. And here is where the passion comes in again. Most people who enable art aren't in it for the money. Or at least not entirely. It is probably more stable to work in the "administration" than the creation of art in many cases. But the job you can get with a non-arts org will be pretty much guaranteed to pay better. But most of us who work in the field need that connection to the art, even if we aren't making it ourselves, to feel fulfilled.
I think the size of the organization might have a lot to do with the amount of separation there is from the "administration" and the art/artist. I can see why Michael Kaiser would have run into administrators without passion for the art they were enabling because he has worked with some very large institutions. My worst experience with this was a woman I met with about a joint marketing initiative. She was at a large institution and when I asked if she worked there because she did some kind of art herself, she seemed almost proud to be "corporate," with no arts background. She could care less about our initiative, it was just something else her superiors had added to her work load so she had to help. And she acted very surprised when our collateral was actually professional-looking. I guess she assumed that because we were a small org, we would be entirely amateurish.
But as to the need for training in "arts administration," I think all knowledge is good, and it is definitely useful for the work and helpful for the org you end up working for. But from a practical standpoint, spending the money for the degree most likely won't get you any more pay in a very underfunded field. And here is where the passion comes in again. Most people who enable art aren't in it for the money. Or at least not entirely. It is probably more stable to work in the "administration" than the creation of art in many cases. But the job you can get with a non-arts org will be pretty much guaranteed to pay better. But most of us who work in the field need that connection to the art, even if we aren't making it ourselves, to feel fulfilled.
I think it's narrow-minded to even entertain the idea that only artists can truly be great arts administrators. After all, the post is inspired by Michael Kaiser, who has zero arts background, but came to appreciate work through his exposure to it. I'm in a similar situation. Sure, I consider myself creative and I sang in my high school choir, but by no measure do I consider myself an artist. I do, however, think I am a talented arts administrator, with a deep appreciation for the work my theater presents and a passion that the arts education we do is important.
I think any great organization requires both artistic and analytical minds (sometimes they're both in one), and there are many non-artists in my organization who are still passionate evangelists for our work. I am a former Journalism major who works closely with a former actress, and I think we both bring different qualities to our fundraising work. She will come up with a really creative new way to present our information that I never would have thought of, but if I wasn't there to clean up the wording, grammar, consistency and layout, it would be a very poor reflection of the organization as a whole.
My point is that, especially since Arts Administration is becoming a more popular professional field, it's just as important not to discount people no artistic background but an appreciation for the arts as it is not to assume all artists are "flaky." Everyone can bring something to the table.
I think any great organization requires both artistic and analytical minds (sometimes they're both in one), and there are many non-artists in my organization who are still passionate evangelists for our work. I am a former Journalism major who works closely with a former actress, and I think we both bring different qualities to our fundraising work. She will come up with a really creative new way to present our information that I never would have thought of, but if I wasn't there to clean up the wording, grammar, consistency and layout, it would be a very poor reflection of the organization as a whole.
My point is that, especially since Arts Administration is becoming a more popular professional field, it's just as important not to discount people no artistic background but an appreciation for the arts as it is not to assume all artists are "flaky." Everyone can bring something to the table.
I've been pondering how this new group of graduates will change the field in the next several years. I think those of us who came before this boom are part of a different generation where this kind of education wasn't available to us when we started out. Most of us learned on the job...or learned because we had to.
I went to lots of seminars in subjects I needed to know more about...I had to learn IT, fundraising, finance, ect. in order to get things done.
But I also came into those educational settings with a specific purpose or hope of application in mind. So I could glean what was truly applicable and what was not in my situation.
What I get worried about is if the courses cease to become practical and become more theoretical or even dated.
One great example of that is Joanne Scheff came out with a follow up to her book Standing Room Only. Not only is this book outdated, but by the time I got my hands on her follow up, that book was dated too. This is where I now turn to blogs and other web articles to learn the latest and greatest in trends.
Academia usually relies a lot on published books, etc. This is what worries me. The up side is that a lot of people coming out of these programs won't be starting from complete scratch...they'll have a base to work from. The big question becomes whether the money was worth it.
I went to lots of seminars in subjects I needed to know more about...I had to learn IT, fundraising, finance, ect. in order to get things done.
But I also came into those educational settings with a specific purpose or hope of application in mind. So I could glean what was truly applicable and what was not in my situation.
What I get worried about is if the courses cease to become practical and become more theoretical or even dated.
One great example of that is Joanne Scheff came out with a follow up to her book Standing Room Only. Not only is this book outdated, but by the time I got my hands on her follow up, that book was dated too. This is where I now turn to blogs and other web articles to learn the latest and greatest in trends.
Academia usually relies a lot on published books, etc. This is what worries me. The up side is that a lot of people coming out of these programs won't be starting from complete scratch...they'll have a base to work from. The big question becomes whether the money was worth it.
Thanks for the blog, Laura. I found it very thought provoking.
I, too, started out as an artist before moving on to administration, and I share your concerns about what is happening out there. I recently moved on from a position with a small arts organization for the very reasons under discussion – in short, because a sour economy was turning a healthy concern with the bottom line into an unhealthy obsession that was rapidly eroding creative programming in favor of only the safe and bankable.
I went to the Ordway last August to see Kaiser in person. The audience were all given the opportunity to pose written questions, and Kaiser commented at one point on the number of questions he was receiving about boards (my question included). It’s been my experience that, rather than double their efforts to celebrate the mission in a tough economy, board members seem to be all too ready to cut loose the mission in favor of a purely bottom line approach when things get a bit tough. I’m sure the feeling is that it’s a necessary part of the fiscal oversight expectation that’s incumbent upon all board members, but pure bottom line seems to be all too easy a default position.
So let me add another level to your question. As you said, depth of understanding about the mission is not teachable (I found that to be the case, to my immense frustration). On the understanding that not all board members are artists any more than some administrators are, can you teach that passionate understanding to a banker? Or a lawyer?
I, too, started out as an artist before moving on to administration, and I share your concerns about what is happening out there. I recently moved on from a position with a small arts organization for the very reasons under discussion – in short, because a sour economy was turning a healthy concern with the bottom line into an unhealthy obsession that was rapidly eroding creative programming in favor of only the safe and bankable.
I went to the Ordway last August to see Kaiser in person. The audience were all given the opportunity to pose written questions, and Kaiser commented at one point on the number of questions he was receiving about boards (my question included). It’s been my experience that, rather than double their efforts to celebrate the mission in a tough economy, board members seem to be all too ready to cut loose the mission in favor of a purely bottom line approach when things get a bit tough. I’m sure the feeling is that it’s a necessary part of the fiscal oversight expectation that’s incumbent upon all board members, but pure bottom line seems to be all too easy a default position.
So let me add another level to your question. As you said, depth of understanding about the mission is not teachable (I found that to be the case, to my immense frustration). On the understanding that not all board members are artists any more than some administrators are, can you teach that passionate understanding to a banker? Or a lawyer?
# posted by : December 15, 2009 3:02 PM
: December 15, 2009 3:02 PM
I also think it is narrow-minded to entertain the idea that only artists can truly be great arts administrators.
I do not have a "background" in art, but I have been a successful arts administrator for several years. In fact, I work in Development and too often I see failed actors take administrative jobs just to cozy up to the artistic director and land a role on the stage. When this plan either works or fails, the actor ditches the admin staff high and dry as if they can't wait to get out of there.
There has always been a lack of understanding between artists and administrators but I never realized how much until I started seeing these anti arts-administrator articles. Do artists think administrators created budgets for the sole purpose of annoying them? Because let me tell you - they annoy us too, but we all have to work within them. If we don't, the theater goes bankrupt and we all lose our jobs, arts and administrators both.
We're all in this together. Either we work together or we fail together. At least that is how I have always seen it.
Post a Comment
I do not have a "background" in art, but I have been a successful arts administrator for several years. In fact, I work in Development and too often I see failed actors take administrative jobs just to cozy up to the artistic director and land a role on the stage. When this plan either works or fails, the actor ditches the admin staff high and dry as if they can't wait to get out of there.
There has always been a lack of understanding between artists and administrators but I never realized how much until I started seeing these anti arts-administrator articles. Do artists think administrators created budgets for the sole purpose of annoying them? Because let me tell you - they annoy us too, but we all have to work within them. If we don't, the theater goes bankrupt and we all lose our jobs, arts and administrators both.
We're all in this together. Either we work together or we fail together. At least that is how I have always seen it.
# posted by : December 15, 2009 3:19 PM
: December 15, 2009 3:19 PM << Home
