Your future (perhaps)

An ode to an avoidable (but oddly frequent) future for many arts organizations

---------------------------------------------

You and your friends are going to start an arts organization.

You will probably do it in response to something, like that crappy big arts organization down the street.  Their works sucks.  Yours will be so much better.

Together you will form a company.  You'll put together a mission statement.  It will include words like "enlighten, challenge and inspire."  The mission statement is a lie.  The real mission statement of the company is:

To showcase us.

This is your fatal flaw.  It will be the thing that causes much pain later if you don't realize this.

You'll start to produce art.  This will be an incredibly good experience.  All the positive emotion will lead to some strange reactions within the group.

Company members will begin to date, sleep together and even make marriage plans with eachother.

This will be highly relevant later on.

You'll start attracting audience.  They will look a lot like the people doing the art, mostly because they are the friends of the people doing the art.  Those friends will bring other friends.  The audience will grow organically, without much thought about marketing and other such nonsense.

This audience will hit a peak and then begin a sharp drop off as the novelty of friends seeing other friends perform begins to wan.  Maybe a few "grey hairs" take their place, but screw that . . . you don't do art for old people.

At about the same time the passion and fire that began the arts organization is beginning to flicker out.

That guy that used to build your sets for free (or at worse a six pack) now he wants money.

Those dancers that worked "for the experience", now they want money.

Plus, remember those company members pondering marriage?  They damn sure want money because babies can't be fed on passion.

Someone will say "we need a REAL Board."  This person may or not know what they mean by that statement, but it sounds logical right?

You'll start having visions of finding some altruistic, wealthy folks who will "support your mission."  By this we mean your stated mission, not your real mission.  No one would support your REAL mission.  Remember your fatal flaw?

Slowly Board members will trickle in.  You'll assume that because they agreed to be on your Board, they understand their role within the organization.  This will prove to be an incorrect assumption.

Your fellow company members will never really discuss how they need to function differently because of the presence of new Board members. 

You'll hire your first full time employee.  You will treat the new employee and the Board as custodians, people in charge of maintaining the status quo, while at the same time directing them to "bring in money" in support of said status quo.

The employee and Board will resist this and suggest some changes.  Trouble will brew.

Back to the art . . . notice how I didn't mention the art for a while?

Well, the art is suffering a bit.

All these changes and new expectations are throwing people off their artistic game.  Plus the long time company members are getting a bit bored.

Conflicts between the money that can be generated and the artistic ambitions will begin to become more frequent.  Instead of seeing these challenges as a natural part of doing business you will take these conflicts personally.

You'll actually convince yourself that your new employees and the Board are determined to "stifle the art."  You'll never really consider how little sense that idea makes.

By now you'll have company members quit, find "real jobs", have that baby we talked about before.  You will not replace these company members because let's face it, that wasn't really the point.  Remember your fatal flaw?

That employee you hired?  She just quit.  You burned her out.

Board members, tired of being seen as lazy, no money raising, bums will be quitting soon as well.

As for the art?  You don't have the money or infrastructure to support doing it on a high level anymore (remember, that set builder wants money now, not the six pack).

People talk about how cool your company USED to be.  But now you guys are just stale and tired.  Hell, they could do better then that . . .

So they decide to start an arts organization.

--------------------------------

I'll repeat what I said at the top, it's a common path but an unavoidable one. 

One of the keys to avoiding that path is by talking . . . a lot.

When you start getting Board members, talk about what that means.

When you start seeking donations, talk about what that means.

Your organization will change a ton from the beginning to the end of it's life cycle, understanding what those changes is vital . . . and constant communication is how that understanding is achieved.

Comments

[Ed]

What I wonder is, if your company is badly begun, is it possible to change, and how does one go about doing that? Or should you just recognize "oops. this is actually a vanity project!" and throw in the towel?

I think it's possible for a company to transform from initial vanity to truly serving its stated mission- or can evolve beyond its initial mission to a different, better mission that truly serves its community. I'll go further and say that *most* ensemble-based arts organizations begin with that initial vanity- if artists are getting the creative fulfillment and opportunities for expression they seek under the current status quo, they don't have much moviation to start their own arts org, do they? When Steppenwolf started and were doing shows with their ensemble members in a basement, what mission did they claim they were serving...and what mission were they *actually* serving? The key is to recognize that the artistic expression of your members is an important goal, but not the *most* important goal.

[Adam]

We agree Ed. I think almost every arts organization that achieves longevity (assuming that is what they want) has gone through this process of being more internally centered to more externally centered.

You mention Steppenwolf and if my history on Da Wolf is accurate they are constantly going through this process of evaluating their relationship to their ensemble and the audience.

This process of constant re-evaluation of where an arts organization is what's important because that's the only way you can realize that you are heading a bit "off track" and then correct it.

[Jack]

Adam, thanks for this post. I've passed the link to every member of my company (The Plagiarists-- www.theplagiarists.org). I like to think that we have actually pretty expertly avoided your "fatal flaw" by having a mission based on a set of aesthetic principals (all our work is in active dialogue with its influences and shamelessly makes use of prior texts) that, yes, "ultimately enlarge the world." (Why does our day job have the clearest, most succinct and powerful mission statement I have ever come across? Why can't anyone else manage to do that?) and by rigorously defining ourselves as NOT an acting ensemble, and supporting company members' work outside the company, so that we don't become anyone's sole artistic outlet. It's worked so far...

Now we just have to build up our Board...

[Adam]

Jack,

We know that succinct is hard and powerful is even harder. Plus our day job has had 50 years to work things out. But I like where you guys at Plagiarists are headed.

[Brian Golden]

One of your best, Adam. This is so relevant. The debacle at ATC has created a lot of great grist for the mill - lessons, and provocations.

[Chris Casquilho]

Although organization, strategy and structure appeal to me generally, I'm still unconvinced that the sloppy "us showcase" model is unnecessary or utterly dysfunctional. It's perfectly OK for companies to come and go this way - probably producing as much worthwhile and interesting work in aggregate as any other model. The expectation that a company run that way will last very long is the problem. Ditch the expectation, and you have a decent chance of producing some great work and having a good time.

[Tony]

I don't necessarily have a problem with companies forming to showcase their work.

I just wish a lot of them would be far more honest about it.

[Adam]

Chris,

We agree that expectation of longevity is really the problem with the "showcase" model. If a group of artists came together and said . . . "we are going to do this for a few years and then get out" then they would probably have a lot more fun.

The question is, whether this showcase organization is (or should be) a nonprofit org.

That leads me to Tony

Tony,

I don't have a problem with a showcase either. I have an issue with people forming 501(c)3 and claiming they serve the "public". Of course if they were honest about it, then I don't know if the nonprofit model would be right for them.

[August]

Adam,

I enjoy your blog, but found the tone, content and implications of this post troubling. Your AD has directed 30 productions at the Court - I would not consider the company a mere 'showcase' for him, anymore than I would a smaller, younger company. I've put some other thoughts in a post here: http://fluxtheatreensemble.blogspot.com/2009/04/on-missions-and-paradoxes.html

[Scott Walters]

I think most university Drama Depts are built on the same shaky premise, and the productions are the vanity shows of the faculty. It is pretty pathetic.