I'm writing today after a weekend attending the World Piano Pedagogy Conference. It's was fun to get away from Madison for a few days. Amazing how it always feels like a vacation, even when one ends up in a highly-charged and intense educational experience. But maybe it's really because October in Phoenix feels better than July in Madison. In any case, I have to say that many of the sessions were incredibly enlightening (especially those offered by Phillip Kawin and Yoheved Kaplinsky). The intensive schedule (as they always are) got me thinking (during one of my caffeine pick-me-ups) about the relationship between administration and participant. What struck me as I was leaving one of the sessions was how so closely these events, although educational and often non-profit, resemble the consumerist transactions (or trade-offs) we are making every day. Unfortunately, both sides often don't see this quality, which can lead to organizational dysfunction.
For example, at one international conference I was recently attending, I heard an administator, in their welcoming address, admonished those who had chosen to refrain from coming that year. As if they should be ashamed for their choice not to fork over hundreds of dollars (not including airfare and hotel) for a conference that MAY not have been earth-shattering.
Nevermind the fact that such a statement has no affect whatsoever on those who are NOT in attendance, such an attitude reflects the all-to-prevalent idea that WE, those whose support makes these events possible, should feel obligated to support them. I would argue that precisely the opposite should be the case. It is the responsibility of those hosting an event to make them attractive enough to keep the "audience" coming back for more. This is no different than the standard we hold films, theatre, and yes, music concerts to, so why should it be different for an event that often includes LARGE monetary and capitol investments (travel, hotel, transportation, food, etc). It should occur to those running festivals and conferences that maybe everything isn't perfect, and pre-emptive research should be focused in improving program offerings in accordance with the needs of those who pay big bucks to attend.
And let's be real here, any event that costs close to a $1000 to attend can't pretend that it ISN'T a commercial event - whether we like to admit this or not, when money is involved we all make decisions based on opportunity cost, not to mention value-adding calculations, just as we would with any large-ish commercial transaction.
The REAL question, then, is: why do artists sometimes feverishly hold on to the notion that we (the public) owe them something? Maybe it grows out of a dependency on arts' patronage that has both allowed the creation of unprofitable creativity to survive and promoted a divide between the empresarios and producers of art. Or maybe it's the die-hard habit of channeling organizational frustration at the "customer" ("Why DON'T they like what we're doing, anyways? They must not get it!"). The classic argument that many (even within in the arts' professions) just don't "get" High Art. Either way, it's time artists woke up and realized that the "customer", whether right or not, should be the focus of every artistic endeavor that requires patronage for survival. Similarly, we as participants must do a better job at communicating honestly and constructively our thoughts about how to improve these extremely expensive programs. As has been proven in the advertising world, this must stem from an open-minded view of creativity and it can change the world.
Speaking of which, one of the highlights of my trip was checking out the college-town of Tempe. It resembles Madison, albeit a drier, less pedestrian, and hotter version of it. Their 'State St.', AKA Mills Ave., had a wonderful little movie theater featuring the new documentary "Art&Copy", about creativity in the advertising industry. This is a must-see for anyone in an artistic profession; a truly convincing tale about the power, and necessity, of creativity. It offers valuable lessons on valuation decisions, and what makes something "sell".
As the subjects of this film profess, instead of complaining about a diminishing pool of attendees, why not do some research about WHY your constituency is turning their back on you. Maybe it's the cost. Maybe it's a bad experience last year. Maybe it's the advertising strategy. Maybe it's some subtle aspect of the event you never thought of (free coffee can go a LOOOONG way). In any case, too often suitable feedback mechanisms aren't in place at conferences and festivals. It can be tough for administration to make adjustments without knowing how the experience could be made more fulfilling.
At least it's a place to start. For now, though, I'm back to reality and the all-to-present reminder that winter is just around the corner. So, as the trees change to shades of autumn and we prepare to dig out our boots and jackets, and as the Capitol Farmers' Market moves indoors in the coming weeks, don't feel guilty if you decide not to attend an expensive and somehow unattractive out-of-town event. But DO try to let them know what would make you more willing to attend next year. And, whatever you do, remember to read my blog.
Posts
