New Year's Resolutions, Part 2

My last post was devoted to corporate identity, and the ramifications of misidentifiying the responsibilities of corporations as "individual entities." It was also a bit of a rant. I want to take some time now to look at the positive side of that issue. This post also brings the discussion back to the world of art-makers, to their interactions with society and it's agents.

We must remember that all those who engage in creative enterprises face the question of how to determine a metric for valuation that honors both our individual skills and measurable potential impact on society. In fact, the question of valuation is one of the most challenging topics for any industry, and particularly with regard to how we can quantify the non-quantitative. How can we count into the equation the intangible measurements of success, those that lie beyond the bottom-lines of profit maximation and cost reduction?

This is an issue which touches all artists. I recently attended a piano teachers' conference where one panel was addressing the question of valuation, and one member advocated the dramatic raising of teacher fees for those who undervalue their potential earning power. "Stop charging $10 per hour," the speaker admonished, "because it is you who prevent the rest us from maintaining an adequate living. You are devaluing our field."

In many ways this panelist was correct: all-too-often piano teachers seeking to make casual, supplementary income don't bother to address how their earning power could increase. They also often fail to address the aggregate effect of setting the fee ceiling so low. In an ideal world, we could all collectively set our fees up to, say $100 per hour, if we included all the qualititative implications of our teaching. The increase in academic performance that corollates with music study, the predilection towards mathematical success, and the other positive behavioral patterns associated with students who pursue long-term piano study could, hypothetically, be used to support such a tuition hike. And we would all have to do so in tandem, AS a collective.

But what of the places where the current pricing norm is $20 per hour? Who could waltz into that town with the request that patrons pay five times the normal rate for the same service? Obviously, one would have to promise that he or she could offer many times the value to justify that kind of increase. How? For 3 hour-long lessons instead of the typical 30 minute offerings? I don't think so. We'd have to find ways of calculating all those non-quantifiable attributes our teaching offers. We'd have to show how our teaching does more than teach - how it empowers, how it engages, how it stimulates, how it frees. This is the true obstacle for most of us, as it requires a whole new perspective on our achievements. It also calls us to look forward to see the potential future accomplishments of our students.

Of course, there are some corporate models in other industries where "unquantifiable" assets have not only been accounted for, they have been leveraged to create more value for those who cultivate them. Apple, for example, is not (technically) an innovator. It didn't create the first MP3 player, the first SmartPhone, or the first desktop computer. But it DID find ways of making these technologies more accessible, more attractive, and trendy. In the process the engineers at Apple - like other companies, such as Google and Virgin Entertainment - have found ways of revealing the potentially "qualifiable" assets that these technologies possess. You want the iPod because it's fun to use, because using the iPod isn't just functional, it's entertaining, and because it brightens your day. That is why Apple's grip on that market is so powerful, and why it is continually the trend-setting brand in mobile technology. The just-enveiled Mac Tablet (or iPad) is the latest example of their impact.

Now we must find ways of 1) measuring our impact on society through our art-making, and then 2) developing a metric for valuation that fairly compensates us for our work. I don't know many pianists who would rather sell shoes than play or teach, it's just that most don't imagine that a new horizon exists for sustainable earning power AS professional musicians. This must be done on an individual basis, of course, due both to the varied micro-economic settings of artists and their personal levels of training and social attributes.

So here's resolution number two: this year, I promise to task myself on the question of how we can achieve a better benchmark for artistic work, and help others recognize a new and improved vision for their future as professional artists.

New Year's Resolutions, Part 1

I only just got back to Madison on Monday, and it's already been a busy week. With Brown's victory in Mass., Border's teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, and the NYTimes.com to start charging uses in 2011 (heard that one before, maybe they won't stick to it this time, either)...I've had plenty of material from which to brew some ideas. The problem has been to get my brain to work.

Political views aside, probably the most staggering news for me has been the Supreme Court's rejection of previously established corporate spending limits (NYTimes.com). This has the potential for re-shaping the way campaigns are run, fought, and won...but more importantly for this discussion is how that decision provokes the notion that corporations should be granted the same privileges of the First Amendment (without restriction) promised to individuals.

Here's the problem, as I see it: while we are taught to treat corporations as individual "entities," separate of their owners, this systemic (and legislative) doctrine was introduced primarily due to the powerful advantage corporations have attained over time. That is, when corporations were first formed, they were typically small enterprises (and to some extent, most still are, I suppose) created to synergize the assets and capital of individuals. Greater power yields greater reward. And, in terms of business, this led developed (and developing) countries to the greatest aggregate wealth ever achieved in the history of the world. Bravo, corporations.

The problem arrives when these "individual entities" begin to sway that massive power towards policy. This is no surprise; with greater wealth comes greater responsibility, and many such organizations now have much to lose when particular legislation comes to bear. And this is in no way a political statement, as both Conservatives and Liberals alike have fallen into the shadow of corporate agendas. Governments are also prone to such abuses; thus the current American system, which, although sometimes inefficient, does at least exhibit the speed-bumps necessary to slow cartel-building (although I guess anything's possible).

But as of this week, according to the Supreme Court, we are supposed to suddenly accept that corporations (whether comprised of 2 people or 20,000) have the same pattern and degree of influence as individuals. And this is simply not the case. Corporations exist for one reason, to maximize profit. This is not true for human beings, as (for most of us) our financial aspirations are tempered with emotions, needs, and social consciousness. If anything, even the best corporations exhibit a serious lag on that curve because they must grapple with more costs, more overhead, more people, more ideas, more discord - than one individual could possibly mount.

Similarly, individuals need to coalesce to create enough leverage to change policy, while corporations (especially the largest ones) today have more than enough power to provoke and sustain significant policy change. When corporations band together to back one candidate with $50,000,000, who is to say, realistically, that another candidate who stands against that policy (and thus must rely on smaller individual donations) has a fair chance in any election. And with the Supreme Court's backing, who can blame them? After all, those corporations may have hundreds of millions at stake! Most importantly, if and when that first candidate gets elected, we no longer have any legitimate reason to protest when they put a personal agenda - driven by corporate goals rather than public interest - into action.

And this is a great mistake. Quote from the great Peter Drucker,

"Business management must always, in every decision and action, put economic performances first. It can justify its existence and its authority only by the economic results it produces...It has failed if it does not improve, or at least maintain, the wealth-producing capacity of the economic resources entrusted to it. And this, whatever the economic or political structure of ideology of a society, means responsibility for profitability."(1)

Let us never lose sight of that. And so, as my first New Year's Resolution of 2010, I promise NOT to view corporations in the same light as individuals, no matter what the Supreme Court says.

--
(1) Drucker, Peter. (1974). "The Dimensions of Management." From Management, Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices. New York: Harper Publishing, p. 40.

Happy New Year + Late Jan. Arts Roundup

Just arrived back in Madison after a hectic Holiday break, including the FANTASTIC Inaugural CMS Summit on Music Entrepreneurship! More on that later....for now, I have a list of a few hot events in and around Madison that I don't want you to miss!!

--

Emerson String Quartet
Friday, 1/22 8:00pm
Location: Wisconsin Union Theater

Don't miss one of America's greatest string quartets, back in Madison by popular demand!

Check out: http://uniontheater.wisc.edu/season/emerson2.html

--

Wisconsin Story Project Presents: Cancer Stories Fundraiser
Saturday, 1/23 7:30pm
Location: Project Lodge

The Wisconsin Story Project will present it's first theatrical project, entitled Cancer Stories, in May 2010 at Overture Center (http://www.wisconsinstory.org/csp.html). Now they need our support! This promises to be a lot of fun and for a very worthy cause. So please try to be there!

--

Screening: "Beautiful Losers"
Thursday, 1/28 7:30pm
Location: Memorial Union Play Circle

Here's the word from Alex Wolf, of the Wisconsin Union Film Committee: "In the early 1990's a loose-knit group of likeminded outsiders found common ground at a little NYC storefront gallery. Rooted in the DIY (do-it-yourself) subcultures of skateboarding, surf, punk, hip hop & graffiti, they made art that reflected the lifestyles they led. Starring a selection of artists who are considered leaders within this culture, "Beautiful Losers" focuses on the telling of personal stories. It speaks to themes of what happens when the outside becomes "in" as it explores the creative ethos connecting these artists and today's youth."

Sounds like fun!

Check out the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyRAHKTy6hI

--

Arts Enterprise Presents - Sustainable Creativity Part III: Financial Management for Aspiring Professionals
Monday, 2/01 6:00pm
Location: Room TBA Humanities Bldg (Check TITU)

Could let this one slip through! This interactive workshop will feature UW Credit Union representatives as they help students deal with issues related to planning for life beyond the institution. This FREE event is a CAN'T MISS opportunity for entrepreneurs and soon-to-be self-employed artists to get a head start on setting up a system for sustainable financial success. Topics to be explored include:

•Saving and budgeting plans
•Planning for retirement now
•Understanding your student loan debt
•Using and building credit wisely

Don't miss this exciting, FREE event. We'll provide light refreshments, as well as our trademark door prize raffle. So you have nothing to lose, and hopefully something to gain!

Check out: http://www.artsenterprise.wisc.edu/student.html

--

That's it for now! Looking forward to a great 2010, and many more fun events...