March Arts Roundup

With the fun Jacqueline Schwab event this past Wednesday behind us (check out this multi-faceted artist's website here) I finally realized it's March! And maybe it's because of the balmy weather we've been experiencing here in Madison, but I am getting evermore excited for these upcoming events:

03/07-08 "Making the Music Dance"
8:30pm Morphy Hall (03/07) and Steinway Piano Gallery (03/08)

Pianists and dancers from UW-Madison will present two collaborative performances entitled "Making the Music Dance." The concerts are the culmination of a series of movement workshops, led by graduate piano student Paola Savvidou. You will hear piano performances with live dance improvisation; the overall effect being an aural, visual and kinesthetic interpretation of music by the great masters.

The purpose of the movement workshop and performance project is to develop kinesthetic awareness in pianists, embody the essence of the music, and find creative ways of improving alignment at our instrument, deepening our musical understanding and communication.

Pianists: Sonya Clark, Amanda Horn, Doug Jurs, Jonathan Kuuskoski, Olivia Musat

Dancers: Lissa Erickson, Jamie Landry, Mary Patterson, Carlyn Pitterle, Olivia Templin

Works: Sonata in A-flat major, Hob. XVI: 46, Adagio (Haydn), Island of Joy (Debussy), Sonata in F-sharp major, Op. 78, Adagio Cantabile-Allegro ma non troppo (Beethoven), Nocturne in C minor (Chopin), Sonata No. 2, Andante (Skryabin)

This project is funded by the UW-Madison Arts Institute and the Steinway Piano Gallery of Madison.

For more information contact: Paola Savvidou, savvidou@wisc.edu
--

03/10 Guest Artist Series Part V: Diverse Jazz Live! at Der Rathskeller
"The Professional Portfolio in Action"
8:30 pm @ Der Rathskeller, Memorial Union

This residency is a joint-effort among the Arts Enterprise chapters at University of Michigan, Bowling Green State University, and the University of Missouri-Kansas City. We will host the award-winning jazz ensemble Diverse on their midwest tour (comprised of UMKC students) for a concert and Q&A session (03/11 @ 11am, Room TBA for students. All events are FREE!

This project is supported by the Associated Students of Madison. For more info, email: artsenterprisemadison@gmail.com
--

03/12 and 03/14 The Anhinga PianoSAX Duo Live! in Madison
12:15pm @ First Unitarian Society, 900 University Bay Drive, “Friday Noon Musicale” Series (03/12)
2:00pm: @ Oakwood Village-West Auditorium, 6209 Mineral Point Rd. (03/14)

OK, a bit of shameless self-promotion! My new piano + sax duo will be in Madison for two concerts as part of our inaugural tour through Wisconsin, Texas, and Oklahoma. Both concerts are FREE and will feature works by Claude Debussy, Robert Muzcynski, Frederic Chopin, and Astor Piazzolla, among others.

To learn more, you can go to: www.jonathankuuskoski.com or www.chrisdickhaus.com
--

03/18 Wisconsin Story Project: March Storyshare with Volcano Insurance
7:30pm @ The Project Lodge, 817 E Johnson St.

These are always fun...come out to support the Wisconsin Story Project as they raise funds for their debut show "Cancer Stories" at the Overture Center Playhouse Theatre in May 2010! At this March installment WSP will be sharing the bill with the Surrounded By Reality Jazz series and the jazz guitar trio Volcano Insurance.

The story theme of the night will be "On the Spot." Come share, come listen, come hang out. It's not to be missed!

Check out: http://www.wisconsinstory.org/
--

As always, please add those events you'd like to share that I missed...and hope to see you there!

The Academy Awards: A Measure of Artistry or Relevancy?

I always get excited about the Oscars. As far back as I can remember, I've stayed up late to watch the stars, the hosts, the drama. Maybe it helps that I've been stuck on movies since I before I started walking. In fact, I remember back on our old Packard Bell computer (the Windows 93 version) I once set up a catalog of all the movies I'd seen, categorized by genre, year, and rating (yes, I had opinions back then, too).

Anyways, every year I toil with predictions of who the Oscar-winners will be. Will it be the favorite? The underdog? The spoiler? Usually we can expect some surprises. Mostly these are good, like Juliette Binoche winning for "The English Patient" in 1997. Sometimes, though, like when "Crash" upset "Brokeback Mountain" for Best Picture a few years back, they leave a sour taste in my mouth. It is in these circumstances that I wonder: do the Academy Awards function as the measure of artistic greatness or relevancy?

I list these as mutually exclusive choices because often it seems like they do battle against one another, as if the audience-at-large tends to choose their films based on one major criteria. I watched "Titanic" because of the effects, the sheer scale. It definitely wasn't relevant to me, not even in terms of the overblown love story. On the other hand, I don't know much about the mafia, but it's hard to deny the impact of the "Godfather" parts 1 and 2, and others like "Goodfellas" and "Bonnie and Clyde." These movies had iconic visual styles, and refined narratives that communicated far more than the words on the page (er, screen).

Maybe the best example is "Star Wars," whose inspiring message coupled brilliantly with breakthrough technology to offer one of the most entertaining movie experiences of all time. "Avatar" is the latest Oscar front-runner following in that legacy. If it does win best picture, something most blockbusters have failed to achieve in the past 30 years, most would acknowledge has to do with it's mind-bending technological achievements rather than the depth of the story or acting.

That's not to say great movies can't also resonate with us, even if they are dated and no longer as socially relevant. Orson Welles' "Citizen Kane" - both visually stunning and perhaps the quintessential commentary on power, greed, and the American dream - still echoes as powerfully as it did in 1941. "The Hurt Locker" is another terribly relevant movie, and I dare say it may be great...but will that be enough to overcome the "Avatar" juggernaut. And, even if "Hurt Locker" upsets the race, is that even a fair measure of it's worth? After all, many of the so-called "greatest" directors never won Academy Awards for any of their films. Cases in point: Welles, Stanley Kubrick, and Robert Altman.

We'll have to wait and see what happens on March 7th, but until then I've devised a test of my questions. Here are my picks (of the 'major' categories), based not on viewing and comparing all the eligible films, rather on my compulsive obsession with cinema news, trends, and the current buzz. If I shoot more than 50%, maybe being in the forefront of the media is more important that message, vision, and artistry at the Oscars after all.

Best Picture: Avatar
Best Director: Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker
Best Actor: Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart
Best Actress: Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side
Best Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz, Inglorious Basterds
Best Supporting Actress: Mo'Nique, Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire
Best Screenplay (adapted): Geoffrey Fletcher, Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire
Best Screenplay (original): Mark Boal, The Hurt Locker
Best Achievement in Cinematography: Mauro Fiore, Avatar

Music on the Moon

One of my favorite NPR programs is WBUR's On Point with Tom Ashbrook.

Just yesterday they had a particularly interesting program topic, the dramatic announcement that NASA would soon turn over space travel - low-earth orbit, space station missions, and possible future travel to the moon - to private corporations. This is really a pivotal moment, perhaps on par with the launch of the Mercury astronauts, since it signals a change in momentum for a program that has long been dormant component of our National policy. It's also sparking debate as to whether private corporations are prepared for servicing this extremely high-risk, highly-expensive new market.

At the same time All Things Considered just ran a program on the history of music inspired by the notion of space flight (here is the complete article). So what do you think? Are we going to get space-age music (a new version "Night Flight to Venus" is a sure bet), or Kubrick-style reversion back to classics that evoke the experiential nature (lightness, silent space, chaos) of being in space?

Report: CMS Summit and the Future of Arts Entrepreneurship

It's taken me a while to get back to writing about the experience of attending (and presenting) at the first-ever College Music Society Summit. Partly because of the crazy schedule that awaited me back in Madison, and partly due to the gestation period I normally need after one of these highly-stimulating and tiring events.

In any case, this was (I believe) a watershed moment for the field of Arts Entrepreneurship (if there is one), that produced some valuable lessons about the current status of the arts student.

We need to remember that there are still too many variables, in terms of personal educational ideologies, for any sort of standardization to take place. And this is probably a good thing, as many of the noted scholars, administrators, performers, and composers pointed out: each educational environment (e.g. school, university, college) needs a unique and malleable combination of curricular and co-curricular initiatives. Otherwise, Arts Entrepreneurship risks the loss of its true effectiveness, as a vehicle for problem-solving and developing socially-minded arts ventures/projects. As was noted during the proceedings, we stand at the precipice of falling into yet another silo of bureacracy, and worse yet, irrelevancy.

There were, however, some trends emerging from the chaos of all the intellectual rhetoric:

1) Need exists for student involvement, leadership, and action

It's fairly obvious to students that we need to take responsibility for our talents and abilities, and to channel them towards social good. The importance of this opportunity for students and professionals to get together lay in the possibility for faculty to more fully realize the capabilities of students. That is, it became clear that many students have the capacity and drive to begin building a professional profile while still a student. This realization may open up new channels for student/professional collaboration, and, I hope, more student-initiated arts projects.

2) Divide exists between perceptions students and realities of working artists

The results of the student survey showed, among other things, that a majority of students (70%still hold on to the dream that most will either teach at a college/university or will be paid primarily to perform. This, or course, flies in the face of many graduates' realities. We often don't have the skills to navigate the professional world when we leave our institutions, nor do we realize the scope of possibilities out there for professional artists. We're now in the nascent stages of developing broader frameworks for achieving success in the 'real world' - and I think Arts Enterprise has the opportunity to play a large part in paving those roads!

3) Empowerment is the key to fostering renewed success for 21st century arts careers

One of the highlights was the chance to interact and mingle with so many people who have diverse backgrounds, and individual visions for helping students succeed. We did see a common theme emerge, though, and that was the idea that empowerment is the key ingredient to fostering innovative and sustainable careers. By combining skills with vision, we can transfer ability into action. More importantly, it must be through an individual's own sense of responsibility that he or she will find success in socially-driven and concsious art projects.

On that note, here is one example that illustrates the synergy of all those concepts. I mentioned in my last post that AE Madison was teaming up with UW-MTNA to host fundraising concerts for Haiti relief. Well, I'm happy to report that our first effort was a success! Thanks to the combined efforts of Steinway Piano Gallery, the fantastic publicity generated by our hard-working student groups, and effective logistical planning, we were able to fill the Gallery and raised an inspiring $673 from just 32 seats! Now just $1327 to go to meet our goals; I hope you'll be able to join these students as they work to build momentum to the second (and final) installment of our series. Read more here.

Til next time, enjoy the weekend and carry on, arts entrepreneurs!

Music for Haiti: Action-Based Learning At Its Best

Report: Our first event for 2010 was a smashing success! UWCU was gracious to host an hour-long seminar on "Financial Management for Aspiring Professionals" which proved both informative and engaging. Our seminar covered the essentials of budgeting, saving, and smart spending. Sprinkled with trivia questions about financial planning myths, we were also treated to lots of handy take-aways, including personal budgeting worksheets, and an outline for basic financial planning. And they managed to make this stuff fun! These guys rock, and I urge you to check out all the free seminars they offer.

Now, in lieu of my usual Arts Roundup post, I want to write more specifically about two exciting and urgent upcoming events. The UW Collegiate Chapter of the MTNA (for which I serve as a community advisor) has put together two concerts to raise money for Haiti relief. They're calling it "Music for Haiti," and (through these musical offerings) hope to raise $2,000. 100% of the proceeds will go to Hope for Haiti, one of the top agencies working on the ground to assist those affected by the devastating earthquake.

This was such a timely and thoughtful idea, Arts Enterprise Madison had to find a way to help them out. I can't think of a better example than this of how action-based, experiential learning can be channeled towards social good. UW-MTNA is also a strong ally in building an awareness of the need for artists to recognize their responsibility to society. In other words, how we can all use our art to serve and support those in need. So, AE Madison is sponsoring a reception, and working to build as big an audience as possible through our network in the community. Here are the details, and I hope you'll be able to join us for two evenings of wonderful music to help a very worthy cause:

Thursday, 02/04, Steinway Gallery of Madison, 7:15pm
(6629 Mineral Point Rd.)

Saturday, 02/13, Morphy Hall, UW Humanities Building, 6:30pm

With your help, we can raise $2,000! The concerts will include works by Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Copland, Berg and Chopin.

To read more about the event and UW-MTNA, click here. Hope to see you there!

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.