A60 @prweigand - Tumblr Blog

In the beginning of this mini series, Oskar Eustis shares the beginning experiences of developing new work as a “contribution to the community as a whole,” a...

In the beginning of this mini series, Oskar Eustis shares the beginning experiences of developing new work as a “contribution to the community as a whole,” as opposed to thinking about turning a profit. Exploring a new voice of the theatre is key to the success of creating something special.

Stay tuned for more in this series as we examine how new work in the theatre reaches an audience through empathy and hope and what the work can ultimately do to fix our democracy (just as it has done in the past).

Oskar Eustis is a director, dramaturg, and Artistic Director of The Public Theater (and Advisory Committee member of the American Theatre Wing). Natasha Katz is a 6 time Tony Award winning Lighting Designer and Vice Chair on the Board of Trustees at the American Theatre Wing.

prweigand

Looking forward to seeing where the rest of this series goes!

tayreneclark-blog

https://www.tandemforculture.org/stories/making-nothing-happen-by-francois-matassaro/

This article about art and civil society is set in Europe and the United Kingdom. However, I feel it is applicable to every country.

The author ,Francois Matarasso, makes the poignant statement “ Citizens, with the supportive organization of civil society, can encounter each other in public spaces through the mediation of art and culture”. ((Matarasso, 2016) He also goes onto discuss how art in all forms can help people not only express themselves but foster a deeper understanding of each other. Furthermore, he describes the work of a few different organizations like Entelechy Arts that bring the elderly and people with disabilities together to build relationships and understanding. They also work on a number of creative projects that help their voices be heard.

Activist and fundraiser Dan Pallotta calls out the double standard that drives our broken relationship to charities. Too many nonprofits, he says, are rewarded for how little they spend -- not for what they get done. Instead of equating frugality with morality, he asks us to start rewarding charities for their big goals and big accomplishments (even if that comes with big expenses). In this bold talk, he says: Let's change the way we think about changing the world.

I will never not share this. Thinking about @jamielevdan as the Arts Marketing class I am the TA for was shown this in class. I LOVE this. And, having recently worked for (and been laid off from) a nonprofit that prided themselves on their “low overhead,” it especially rings true...

#overheadmyth #nonprofits

Recently arts organizations have developed patron service office (PSO) models, where they pay frontline staff above industry standards and ask more from this team.

As someone who has been on that frontline position, I like this idea a lot!

#patron service #box office #arts organizations #arts ticketing #arts ticket office

Some interesting food for thought regarding leadership transitions. How do you decide when and how it is time to make the change? As I was reading this, the line from The Last Jedi echoed through my mind: It’s time to let the old things die. And perhaps that isn’t such a stretch of an analogy... should the transition come from the bottom up, or the top down? Is the Board best suited to pull a Darth Sidious picking a new apprentice (Arise, Lord Vader... NOOOOO!) or wait for a Kylo Ren to come in reshape the chain of command (sorry, spoiler alert?).

The later probably makes for a more dynamic story, but also could be the best way to infuse life in that organization at risk of becoming fossilized. Say what you will about Kylo Ren’s temper tantrums, the guy is passionate. And willing to do whatever it takes to make his vision a reality.

#nonprofit maytheforcebewithyou

Summary: In November, CRC will publish the fourth edition of Martin Morse Wooster’s seminal book on donor intent. How Great Philanthropists Failed & How You Can Succeed at Protecting Your Legacy tells the horror stories of foundations that have violated…

This is, undoubtedly, a long read. Though the entire excerpt is well worth it, the first sections regarding the popularity of term limits and the debate on perpetuity were, to me, fascinating. In all honesty, I had never really considered the notion of setting intentional term limits on a foundation. I had generally assumed that foundations would typically want to continue in perpetuity and that those that were unable to dried up out of a mismanagement of funds.

I also hadn’t really considered the perspective of foundational giving having the potential to be disrespectful of donor intent. Conceptually, however, it makes sense. I immediately thought of The Jim Henson Company and the Jim Henson Foundation as organizations that are often pressured to do “what Jim would want,” even as they have continued beyond the death of their namesake. To their credit, the Jim Henson Foundation has focused on supporting new and innovative puppetry theater and film production. Typically, these productions include a wide range of styles, far beyond the “Muppet,” style he was most known for. This focus on a broad style reflects the experimental nature of much of Henson’s work and interests. Though some of his work is now an established part of american culture, they were, at their creation, wildly experimental and innovative. Towards the latter part of his life, Henson was still interested in discovering new techniques and technologies, as well as shining a light on the broader world of puppetry.

This serves as a contrast to some of the reactions to some recent developments by The Jim Henson Company and some of his other intellectual properties. Purists consider the push towards digital puppetry to be antithetical to Henson’s intents in the establishment of The Creature Shop (because there is no longer a physical object being manipulated). Of course, Disney’s attempts at creating new Muppet productions were downright blasphemous. I would personally say these are still very much in line with what Henson was interested in, but that isn’t the point.

With that in mind, and thinking about term limits for foundations in order to more accurately preserve the legacy, I can’t help but wonder what sort of reaction there would be if that approach were taken in the creative world... What if Kermit or The Muppets were unable to be used 30 years after Henson’s death?

The remaining portion of the chapter does provide a nice companionship to the Lenkowsky article, as it provides more detailed examples for the history of philanthropy in the US.

#philanthropy #nonprofits #and also puppets

Scholar Shelia Moeschen discusses the rise of philanthropy performances, decades before the modern telethon was born. Read more here.

I am posting this particular section of the podcast in reference to an earlier comment about “theater as philanthropy,” but the entire episode is worth the listen and can be found on the same page.

Admittedly, this episode is a few years older than I would normally post, but provides an interesting view on the history of philanthropy.

When I mentioned the idea of theater as philanthropy, the comparison to disruptive philanthropy may have been more accurate. True, the performance in and of itself does not contribute money, but they do represent a contribution of resources--time, energy, and money--towards a particular cause, often with the intent of changing the conversation and/or to draw funds toward an organization.

The “performances,” of the deaf and blind students Moeschen mentions certainly served to change the conversation and funding models around the schools. Telethons, Jerry Lewis’s MDA telethon being one of the most famous examples, similarly aimed to serve as a megaphone to draw awareness to a cause while asking viewers to contribute money. Furthermore, telethons played on the nature of competition by referencing tote boards, counters, or similar displays of money raised on the path to a set goal. The viewers were all competing on the same team--trying to beat the clock counting down to the end of the broadcast. Benefit concerts often serve similar functions.

An important distinction, I think, lies in who is actually producing these events. Though it may be contrary to my earlier points, productions helmed primarily by the organizations they are benefiting obviously fall more into the realm of fundraisers, in terms of the even itself. Celebrities asking for money in front of sad puppies are often just there as spokespeople rather than organizers. Events and performances organized and produced by a separate entity, or even a private individual, could potentially fall closer to the philanthropy side. Of course, that is, if we accept that volunteerism and in kind donations can count as philanthropy rather than charity.

Perhaps, such events could even be a way to circumvent the dreaded overhead myth and fundraising ratio... the organization isn’t spending the money, Big Name Celebrity Organizer is, and maybe even getting a tax benefit for it.

#philanthropy #performance #sad puppies

Five months after its launch, the fund, seeded with money from Gund's sale of Roy Lichtenstein's "Masterpiece," announced its first round of grants, with a surprising focus on literary organizations.

This is an excellent example of disruptive philanthropy, easily fitting at least two of the three primary features . First, there can be no doubt that Gund’s intent in developing the fund was to “change the conversation.” Fund was inspired by books she had read and was driven to make a change “sooner rather than later.” Through funding organizations or artists that are meant to “bear witness,” to the need for criminal justice reform, and those who are impacted by the current system, there is an obvious desire to serve as an “outsize megaphone,” for these issues.

As Scutari points out, this fund is unique, both in terms of the influence from one individual and in terms of the multi-disciplinary approach. I wonder, too, that Gund’s approach of utilizing money from the sale of a work of art as the seed for the fund may also be unique. Based on the details found on the Ford Foundation’s website, the sale of other works of art seems to be a goal for how further revenue can be generated to support the fund (https://www.fordfoundation.org/the-latest/news/art-for-justice-fund-established-with-100-million-gift-from-philanthropist-agnes-gund/).

The argument could be made that this particular initiative doesn’t, on the surface, embrace competition in the ways Horvath and Powell describe. However, by granting to such a broad range of organizations, the Art for Justice Fund is able to allow for and even create the different strategies that would otherwise emerge from competition. I would also argue that this broad approach enables the competition between art forms and types of organizations, rather than just between those within a particular sub-sector. In this case, the broad net also creates an even bigger megaphone.

Byzantine and ambiguous legal processes, unclear regulations, and ad hoc security requirements hinder the work of international NGOs in a country where distrust of foreign funded entities runs deep.

Taking a break from performing arts related articles, to bring bring out a story that seems to have elements of an international espionage thriller...

Ok, maybe that is being a little dramatic. The short version is that for about a decade following September 11, 2001, Pakistan received a massive influx of aid from foreign-funded INGOs. However, in 2010-2011, a series of incidents were revealed in which the CIA or Pentagon contractors were using some of these humanitarian activities as a front for intelligence gathering. This led to a range of ever-increasing regulations, from limiting mobility and travel for existing NGOs to an over-all rejection of registrations for others trying to provide aid. Consequently, many organizations have had to reduce services or cease operations all together.

There are a couple other worthwhile takes on this issue here:

https://dailytimes.com.pk/139828/narrow-escape-ingos/

and here:

https://dailytimes.com.pk/135629/noc-ingos-tool-corruption/

This becomes an example to support the notion of INGOs operating on a continuum of contestation, supplementation, and cooperation. Many of the NGOs impacted by these tightening regulations served to supplement public services, initially, but have taken on more of a contestation role as a response to government policies.

There are further implications as well, when considering the role trust has in garnering support for nonprofits. When the level of trust is broken, the repercussions are often much wider than a single organization’s consequences. Other organizations’ ability to deliver services is often hindered as well, causing the ripples of the impact to continue out towards the health of the civil society.

#nonprofits #INGOs #nonprofit espionage

Rise Up International spreads its wings in the art of resistance

Piggybacking off the thought last week of art as an act of philanthropy, we have film making for international advocacy. This, of course, is a far more common approach--after all, film making and journalism are not always so far apart in their approaches to covering an issue. Certainly, there is a greater opportunity for exposure when a film can easily be sent around the world.

Something I find puzzling, however, is that for an “international,” organization, their website (http://riseupinternational.com/#section-mission) seems to focus as much, if not more, on their domestic/local programs than anything else. There is a brief mention of their “art ambassador,” programs and a quote from someone in the State Department, but no real detail on their international activities. This brings up the question of what these organizations actually do.

By the article’s coverage, one may think that Rise Up International operates in conflict to the government, exposing their shortcomings. However, the quote from the website mentions collaborations with the State Department, so I begin to doubt just how “radical,” they are. More so, I find myself wondering what services they really provide. Are they helping in meaningful ways, that benefit the people they are serving, or are they mainly just serving themselves? Is this a prime example of philanthropy for egoism? Probably. While the brief profile does provide insight into what motivates someone to start an organization such as this, the answer could easily be summarized in “This thing I did once made me feel good, so I wanted to do it more and include more of my friends.”

There is a phrase freelance artists like to use when they are asked to work for free in order to gain exposure: “People die from exposure.” I wonder if nonprofits that seek to “expose” issues should consider that as well and make sure they are taking the best approach.

#nonprofits #arts #activish

A $90,000 grant from the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians will sponsor two San Bernardino Symphony Orchestra concerts in their up-coming 89th season.

“Since ancient times we have expressed ourselves through a culture of giving. Today, San Manuel is able to answer the call of Yawa’ (Serrano word meaning “to act on one’s beliefs”) through partnerships with charitable organizations.”

I thought this served as a potential counter point to the previous article I posted. Here, we have an organization representing a minority group, contributing to support culture, but that does not necessarily represent their culture in a specific way. The mission and vision of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (https://www.sanmanuel-nsn.gov) does mention promoting culture, but the language suggests that they are primarily focused on preserving their native culture. They do mention supporting other groups, however, as a way of supporting the “relationship with the land and all who share it.”

In the context of readings from class, this shows a significant way in which cultural traditions of charity and giving continue beyond explicit attempts to fulfill social justice goals. Their website also states that educational programs for the local community are a high priority for their giving, and supporting these concerts does provide educational opportunities for the students involved.

From the institutional standpoint of the San Bernardino Symphony, this partnership seems to support a consistent portion of their program offerings. Increasing the capacity for educational performances also increases the ability to fulfill their mission of making classical music more accessible to their community.

As discussed in class, building the relationship with donors and determining their goals and interests in giving is an important part of a fundraising attempt. This combination of using support for educational programming to also support public performances is a great example of doing exactly that.

#institutional giving #philanthropy #nonprofits

From three very different urban communities come vivid examples of nonprofit theater groups working to promote understanding and change the conversation about critical social issues.

To my point from class: I present another (or perhaps just more specific) way in which promoting performing arts can be seen as supporting the search for a “fix,” of a societal problem or social justice.

The Bollywood dance festival example seems, to me, a direct connection to the Carson article. Bollywood Dance Scene serves not only as a way for immigrants to stay connected to their culture, but as a way draw exposure to the challenges their community is facing. Furthermore, there is a level of respect shown that is similar to that of a restaurant-style soup kitchen: by putting these stories on stage, the company validates their importance. There is an inherent message of, “this matters; you matter.” I would argue that it even takes the message a step further by providing a level of participatory representation; “This is my story, too.” Based at the organization’s website, it is clear that promoting diversity and inclusion is an important part of their mission. (http://www.bollywooddancescene.org/)

This also brings to mind a certain question: are the arts, or perhaps more accurately the creation of a work of art, in and of itself a philanthropic act? Certainly, the arts can be important to the community, much like a church, by being a hub of activity or a social gathering place. There does not need to be a greater social message behind what is on stage for that to be true. I would argue that, in a way, creating a piece of work that seeks to specifically call attention to an issue or topic is much like a foundation providing a grant to support a specific cause. Those arts organizations are using their resources to support furthering a conversation and working towards a solution. It is a form of institutional philanthropy, again, not entirely dissimilar from the role churches have had in the past.

Maybe that is why people say, “Art is my religion,”

#theatre #philanthropy

Wealthy patrons like to pay for flashy new buildings but not for upkeep.

As someone on the operations team of a museum undergoing a multi-million dollar expansion, this struck a chord with me.

As we began to talk about the “dark side of nonprofits,” in class, this provides some insight on the dark side of philanthropy. In short, the competition for funding leads to expansions and growth that may not actually be sustainable. One could speculate that this is even happening in Indianapolis-- I wonder how much Newfields’ (at the time, still the IMA) transition to charging admission in 2014 was due to increased operating costs due to the 100 Acres expansion? Even the rebranding to Newfields, though not a true expansion, could be viewed as a similar push for the “new and exciting.” At the Children’s Museum, I cannot speak to the sustainability of the Sports Legends Experience (as a lot of operational details are still being finalized) but I can say that the announcement of the park coincided with two large funding drives.

This is, perhaps, the flip sides of both philanthropy for coercive influence, and competitive philanthropy. As Davis notes, the rich philanthropists are increasingly interested in using their money to fund their own institutions. They are motivated by the desire to shape an organization and express their values. Consequently, organizations must compete even more fiercely for those funds--creating flashy opportunities to capture their imagination. But, because the new and shiny thing gets the money, there is rarely a consideration to polish the old, tarnished items. The construction moves forward with the hope it will draw new audiences or increased long-term funding, but declines in museum attendance and cuts to government support makes that less and less likely. From a larger, sector-wide view, this often means that smaller institutions have less and less of a chance to compete for those funds.

As Davis notes:

“That makes it all the more important to see that, whatever its glories, the great American museum boom mirrors all the irrational extremes of the age of inequality.”

#art #philanthropy #sustainability #inequality

In this interview with the Business of Giving, Deborah Rutter, president of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, in Washington, discusses the diversity of performing-art forms it offers and the fact that all of the staff members consider themselves to be fundraisers.

“That is the best way to build friends, and building friends is about raising money as well.”

While a great deal of the content of this interview focuses on the programming at the Kennedy Center, there is an interesting outline to consider how an institution approaches varying motivations for giving. The Center’s approach focuses on the importance of personal connection by providing a wide range of programming that can reach a diverse audience. Furthermore, they embrace their dual identity as both a local and national organization. Of course, from the financial management standpoint, I wonder what having government support for portions of the building maintenance costs does for their “dreaded overhead.” (Charity Navigator rates them very high for spending on programming, but the BBB did list them as a “Transparency Dodger,” last year).

Ultimately, their model is an example of strength through pluralism on an organizational level. As a national arts organization, they embrace the need to represent a wide range of voices and art forms. Directors are hired to plan programming within a specific form or style. This, in a way, provides a level of participatory representation by bringing these diverse voices on stage, giving them a platform, and providing access by offering the performances at a wide range of price points.

As Rutter states, “Audiences today are much more diverse in their interests than they ever were before... It doesn’t mean that we’re pushing anything out. We just have more.”

#philanthropy performing arts diversity

Puerto Rico's arts community operates in a "precarious position, even in the best of times." Now, as it struggles to survive, some prominent arts funders are stepping forward to help.

Foundations and philanthropists working together to better the community in a response to government failure. Ok, maybe the government failure part isn’t stated explicitly and could be debated at this point...

Regardless, this presents a case of foundations working together in similar ways to how other nonprofits may form a coalition for a broader impact. Furthermore, when considering the discussion of whether a foundation should be community focused or donor focused, there are examples of both in this situation. In the case of Miranda’s efforts, there is an obvious donor focus, as this is one of a handful of initiatives he has created to support hurricane relief in Puerto Rico. The other foundations, however, show much more of a community-focused motivation, as they have a history of supporting artists in need.

I also find it interesting (and commendable), when considering Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, that a portion of the grants are able to be focused towards cleanup and distribution of supplies. This also points towards ideas of what varying ways “support,” can be provided to a community. Check out a little more info on it here:

https://www.rauschenbergfoundation.org/newsfeed/warhol-rauschenberg-and-lin-manuel-miranda-announce-joint-hurricane-maria-relief-grant

#grant making #community #nonprofits #arts

The deal had been opposed by many actors.

I think this article shows an interesting angle on labor unions and membership organizations, as well as the notions of trying to appease many stakeholders.

For context, Actor’s Equity is the union representing actors and stage managers in professional theater. In order to become a member, an actor has to work a set number of weeks (it had been 50 until a recent rule change made it 25) in an Equity theater/under equity contract before they can get their “card,”. Dues are often paid by the hiring theaters in the form of withholdings from paychecks, and actors are able to use Equity for health insurance, as well as setting pay rates, etc. For more details, check out this link: http://www.actorsequity.org/membership/howtojoin.asp

Worth noting, once an actor has their Equity card, it is very difficult to work under contract at a smaller, non-equity theater. Exemptions are frequently made for work in particularly small theaters, allowing actors to pursue smaller “passion,” projects, even if there was no pay. This move by Equity, ultimately had undone that option in California (the article covering the initial announcement, which is linked to in the body, is well worth the read, too).

What i find particularly interesting is the resistance actors had to this change. It begs a question of what is the “good,” work of the union? Obviously, the rule change ultimately resulted in more money in actors’ pockets, but I wonder how many productions weren’t able to happen due to budget constraints. I also find it interesting in the context that many of the smaller theaters that were effected likely were nonprofits as well...Are they hurting the industry they are a part of? Or, does the mission to support the cause of the actors trump any concerns about the economics of the sector?

#nonprofits theater represent #greatergood?

Mickey Rowe is the first autistic actor to play the character with autism—and here’s how he does it.

A bonus post, of sorts--towards a different level of participatory representation.

I am seeing the show on Saturday, so I will probably have a lot more to say at that point.

For all of the strengths that theater may have for telling diverse stories, diversity in casting is often a difficult subject. Straight/cisgender actors often play gay or trans characters, non-disabled abled actors play characters with disabilities, sometimes, actors are even cast in roles of a different race (and not in a colorblind casting/increasing diversity sort of way).

Though I am saying this with no empirical evidence, actors with disabilities are, perhaps, the least likely to be cast in a major professional production.In fact, they are likely only going to be seen on stage with an organization that has a mission to give people with disabilities the chance to perform on stage.

Frankly, the argument could be made, too, that part of the problem is a lack of representation in the scripts themselves. While mental health is being addressed as a subject more and more frequently, and there is a slowly growing representation of mental disability along side that, it is still few and far between for many theaters. Typically, the only representation of disability an audience will see on stage comes as a young boy with a crutch, hoisted onto the shoulders of a reformed miser. God bless us, everyone.

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

A60