Proving what we know is true

This post originally appeared on ARTSblog.

As artists and arts advocates, we all know, deep down, that Art Matters. But we continue to grapple with how best to talk about that value, to “justify” (a loaded word) or “prove” that the continued investment in infrastructure, arts education outreach and daily artistic input into the population-at-large is necessary to the creation of a tolerant, educated, empathic and energized society. The great work of Randy Cohen and Americans for the Arts on the economic front, including the creation of the Arts and Economic Prosperity Calculator, have gone a long way towards standardizing the arguments around economic impact of arts and culture, and has essentially gotten us all on the same page. But, and this language is getting to be a cliche, economic impact is only part of the answer – half of the answer at most, really – and getting to the point where we can talk about the intellectual, emotional, social, empathic impacts of the arts in the same specific, data-driven way as we can talk about the economics may open up a brave new world of advocacy for money, time and respect from the government, the funding establishment, the education system and our patrons.

Of course, in some ways, we’re already good at getting at some version of what researcher Alan Brown calls the “intrinsic impact” of art – mostly in the form of testimonials from arts patrons. A well-formed interview can get you incredible stories of the transformational power of art, and such things, when well-packaged, can prove very valuable in the conversation with arts skeptics about the value of artistic work. But interviews are really, truly only part of the answer here, and as part of the National Arts Marketing Project Conference session, Did the Campaign Work?: Integrating Impact Assessment into your Strategies, we (Theatre Bay Area) will be unveiling a year-long research and development effort to create a web-based service for theaters and other arts organizations across the country to quantify the intrinsic impact of their work, generate easy-to-read dashboards, and provide sample survey and interview protocols to generate a new type of conversation using a new vocabulary. Working with research firm WolfBrown and arts service organization partners in Los Angeles, New York City, Washington, DC, Minneapolis and Philadelphia, Theatre Bay Area will generate a year-long set of activities focused around in-depth work with 18 theatre companies (including some of the most influential regional theaters in the country from Arena Stage to the Public Theater) across the course of a season. This work will include a whole battery of efforts from surveying to long-form interviews, video testimonials, web interface development, and a series of community forums in fall 2010 and summer 2011 – all in an effort to spark a change in the way we, as artists, evaluate and value the arts. Because ultimately, no matter how much we believe it in our hearts, we can’t effectively argue for the value of the arts to anyone if we can’t speak about the parts of art that go beyond restaurant tabs, parking fees and tolls – in a language our debate partners understand.

We’re not trying to replace anything, we’re trying to add. In his book No Culture, No Future, Simon Brault notes, “…[A] one-dimensional and instrumental approach that would only justify or value artistic creation solely where it has calculable economic impact would be immensely more devastating for our society than underestimating the cultural sector’s economic contribution.”

The expansion of the argument for the arts, which began to work its way into the social and intrinsic impact spheres in the 1990′s, must now move from half-million-dollar-plus one-off studies to egalitarianized, easily accessible, standardized tools that anyone from the smallest to the largest cultural institution can use to demonstrate and analyze their own value and their great effect on the social fabric. We need as many tools as possible, and must, in Brault’s words, “come to terms with variable logic and negotiate with a multitude of new partners.” To that, I’d only add, “in a language as concrete and standardized as that which we use to talk about economic impact.”

For more in the Intrinsic Impact: Audience Feedback 2.0 study, visit http://www.theatrebayarea.org/intrinsicimpact, or come to our session!

More Questions for Critics

As promised in the previous post about the Critics Panel that was held on Tuesday evening, I’ve sent the remaining audience questions to the critics and compiled their replies here.

"Sam [Hurwitt] made a comment about newspapers being able to reach those who are receptive but not inclined to seek out arts coverage. In the future of new media, how do the panelists think arts journalism--or marketing of theatre companies--can reach those who are receptive but not inclined to seek out arts coverage?"

Robert Hurwitt: Good question. Wish I knew or even had a clue. It's why people like me have trouble envisioning a world without newspapers -- and why I continue to read them and never even think to look at any online coverage unless someone points me to it.

Chloe Veltman: Aggregators like the iTunes podcast store are a great place to browse an extremely diverse range of commentary on everything from dog racing to David Mamet.

Jean Schiffman: Regarding reaching potential audiences through arts journalism, I think it's what we talked about--new media. Facebook, Twitter, etc. Regarding marketing theatre companies in general, let's not forget the best means ever: word of mouth. I go to my local Peet's almost every morning and have gotten to know a fairly large group of other regulars there. Some read the reviews in the Chronicle, some don't, none read reviews elsewhere--but all of them ask me what I've seen lately and what I recommend. And I hold forth. I've taken three of them (separately) to see shows, and many of them now go to theatre based on my recommendations. I wonder if audience members could be given incentives, or greater incentives than they are already getting, for talking up shows they like to their friends and acquaintances?

"Do you have metrics for what part of the paper people are reading?" "If you have a blog, what is your readership in terms of demographics and/or numbers?"

Robert Hurwitt: I don't know how the Chronicle tracks such things except for the obvious, number of hits (and appended comments) on the Gate. The main feedback I've heard for the past 10 years about demographics comes from focus groups.

Chloe Veltman: My blog gets about 1,000 hits a day.

"Are your publications planning to develop their web presence and arts coverage?"

Robert Hurwitt: Yes. The Chronicle has been way out ahead, I'm told, in establishing an online presence with the Gate and it's my impression that a lot of planning and work is going into developing its future. I have no idea what the thinking is in terms of changes to our online arts coverage at this point.

Chloe Veltman: SF Weekly is not planning on developing its arts coverage; not sure about web presence. I'd like to develop my coverage on Arts Journal further but I need to find a sustainable business model first. The other publications I freelance for don't show too many signs of expanding arts coverage.

Jean Schiffman: Web presence yes, arts coverage no.

"What can theatres do to keep arts coverage available?" "What can theatre companies do to help you? If not a letter-writing/email campaign, what might work?"

Robert Hurwitt: All I can say is that the more the editors are made aware that the readers want more arts coverage, the more likely they are to put resources there -- the emphasis is on readers, and potential readers. And, as you may have noticed, almost all papers want and print as many Letters to the Editor as they can get.

Jean Schiffman: I can't think of anything other than encouraging your audiences to write letters to the press in response to reviews (or lack thereof) and getting your press releases to us in a very timely manner, and with all the information therein. Many of my press releases arrive too late, and without all the necessary details.

Chloe Veltman: Encourage foundations about providing philanthropic support to people who write about the arts, e.g., bloggers. For example, artists who serve on the TBA CA$H grant committee might consider providing bloggers and podcasters with support.

"Arts journalism isn't the main focus of news journalism. So what is journalism currently doing in this area? Example: earlier this year I saw a fellowship in this sector."

Chloe Veltman: Some small efforts are being made to at least begin discussions about the field, mainly driven by philanthropy, e.g., National Arts Journalism Summit held on October 2 in LA; Andy Warhol foundation paying $30,000 to each of a number of bloggers in the visual arts (so far no one to my knowledge has stepped up to the plate for theatre journalists or other disciplines). More broadly, journalists are starting their own websites, etc. But oftentimes this is motivated by the fact that they've lost their jobs on newspapers rather than from deep-seated desire to be entrepreneurial.

"What can artists and arts administrators do to encourage the perpetuation of professional criticism?" "Writer credibility: bloggers and artists who also review and comment?"

Robert Hurwitt: Keep us honest. I think it's important to make the distinction: While editors may get their backs up when they think a theater is trying to engineer campaigns to get more coverage for its work, no one in the news business should ever take offense when theaters, directors, actors, designers, playwrights or anybody else writes or emails or phones to point out an error in our coverage. This point probably needs to be made in the Bay Area because there was a powerful editor in the '90s who became so protective of one of her critics that she threatened several companies with reduced coverage when they had the temerity to ask for corrections of errors in his copy. She is no longer in the business, that kind of practice is a violation of good journalism ethics and that is not the practice at any paper I know of.

"How do you decide what to cover?"

Robert Hurwitt: There are no hard-and-fast rules, but in general it boils down to my sense of a show's news value with some input from my editors. On rare occasions, an editor will suggest that I cover something I hadn't been considering a priority; more often, an editor will tell me there won't be room for as many reviews as I have scheduled or ask me to write an article that means I have to sacrifice one or more reviews in order not to work overtime (the paper rarely wants to pay overtime for arts coverage). News value partly depends on the size of the venue, which is one reason why every ACT and Berkeley Rep show and most Best of Broadway offerings will be covered, except when it's a show that's been here often before making yet another return. I prioritize certain theaters based on my sense of their track records and/or local or national profiles. So I try to cover every show at TheatreWorks, Cal Shakes, San Jose Rep, Marin Theatre Co, the Magic, Aurora and those companies, and as many as I can at SF Playhouse, Intersection, Shotgun, Lorraine Hansberry and a number of other companies. When it comes to the many other companies I have to choose between for the few remaining slots in my calendar, I tend to give priority to new work -- partly because 1) I believe that's more newsworthy than another staging of a show that's been seen here before (especially if it's received several stagings and/or is often done); 2) I think the creation of new work is one of the distinguishing features of Bay Area theater; 3) I've probably said all that I have to say about "Cats," "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," "Cabaret," "Stones in His Pockets" or many others; and 4) I believe that any of those shows, and many others, are well-known enough already that they don't need the help of a review to attract attention.

Chloe Veltman: For SF Weekly: With rare exceptions the decision is partly governed by editorial restrictions, i.e., shows that have a run of at least a month and happen in San Francisco (rather than other parts of the Bay). Beyond that, I cover whatever to me looks interesting. Could be an actor/director/designer who's career intrigues me, a production of particular topical significance, an unusual reconstruction of a classic -- in other words, some esthetic ideas that make the play look like it stands out from the pack.

Jean Schiffman: I go through all my press releases well in advance and choose all the shows I want to see. Then I submit that list to my editor and she usually agrees to have me review half or less. I don't know how she makes her decisions. But I go to all of them anyway. I generally choose what I want to see by a variety of guidelines. Certain theatres, both large, mid-sized and tiny, I like very much and want to see everything they do pretty much no matter what. Beyond that, if actors I really like are in a particular show, I'll want to see it. Ditto for directors. I prefer to go to new plays rather than plays I've seen many times--although of course with really great plays I'll go to see many versions of them, especially if they're being done by a theatre whose work I like. Among the new plays, I look for plays by playwrights I like, or emerging playwrights that I've heard about. If I've seen a particular play within the past year or so, I'm unlikely to want to see another version of it.

That’s all for now, but there’s certainly a lot here to discuss, and if the conversation really takes off, I’ll be writing new posts on it.

Meet the Press

Last night Theatre Bay area presented a Critics Panel, generously hosted by Brava Theater Center, and I'd say a good 50-60 people didn't let the day's weather deter them from attending.

The panel included Robert Hurwitt (Chronicle), Karen D'Souza (Mercury News and Bay Area News Group), Chloe Veltman (SF Weekly and lies like truth), Robert Avila (Bay Guardian), Jean Schiffman (Examiner) and Sam Hurwitt (Marin IJ and Theatre Bay Area). Chad Jones, former Oakland Trib critic and Theater Dogs blogger, moderated. I also jumped on the panel at the last moment.

Overall I'd say it was a pretty good panel: the critics were generous in their answers, the audience asked good questions and most of them seemed pleased with the event. Now, I've been with Theatre Bay Area since about 1999, and this panel is at least the third such critics panel we've had in all those years. One panel was instigated by then-Callboard editor Belinda Taylor and associate editor prince Gomolvilas when the merger of the Chronicle and Examiner was imminent and we feared that we would lose either Steven Winn or Robert Hurwitt as a critic, when we really needed to have two critics. At another critics panel a few years later, Joe Brown, then editor of the Datebook, literally brought the head of the Little Man as a sort of metaphorical sacrifice. And who could forget the critics dunk tank soon after, where Joe wore the head of the Little Man in the dunk tank! And where Robert Avila read, in the dunk tank, Artaud's Theatre of Cruelty.

But here's what was different: When we held the first critics panels, advertising was still decent (especially compared to today), subscriptions were steady, and so it seemed possible that we could try to convince arts editors and newspaper publishers to expand coverage. How can we do that today? Papers are collapsing, and the arts section isn't the only section that's getting smaller. All of the sections are getting smaller, all of the news staffs (business and sports included) are being decimated. Is seems completely unrealistic to think that we could ever expand coverage in the short term. Yet, it seems equally impossible to come up with a solution to save papers--how many stories have we seen across the blogosphere from Arts Journal to Slate to the papers themselves, etc., on how to do this?

So, clearly this wasn't going to be a problem we could solve in two hours, nor was that the point of the panel. We plugged the panel as "find out how to get coverage in the face of declining coverage." Well, generally, the answer is the same answer it's always been: pitch stories, meet deadlines for press releases, don't ask the Chron on Wednesday to cover your event on Saturday, be aware of news in the area and what's really newsworthy (having a female director for the first time in your company's history is not newsworthy nowadays--or it could be, but not in the way that you want), have photos.

We only got through a couple of questions from the audience (written on paper and handed to Chad), the first being the usual "how can I get you to come to my show?" that sparked a 15-minute conversation. Then, the harder questions, like "If we don't have newspaper reviews, what have we lost?" (Not, what have theatre companies lost, but what has the public lost?)

I felt badly that we didn't get through more questions, or that we didn't discuss the harder questions more fully, so what I'm thinking is that I can post some of the questions here, or that I can email them to the critics, get some replies and post them here too. Stay tuned.

And special thanks again to Brava Theater Center for its wonderful hospitality!

A Skew: Critics and Users

As an offshoot to my previous post about advocacy and cheerleading--and as an offshoot of some of the comments it generated--I offer a couple of links that I picked up tonight while going through the some 50 blogs I subscribe to via Bloglines:

First, a Washington Post entry about whether or not critics matter, wherein;

Second, there's a link to a Goldstar survey about "entertainment habits".

I haven't yet processed all the info, so won't comment yet, but wanted to share and let y'all start the conversation.

Advocacy or Cheerleading...Or Both?

The July/August issue of American Theatre hit my mailbox today, and I found an intriguing juxtaposition in its Letters section. I skimmed the page and saw Tony Taccone’s name as one of the letter-writers, and I knew right away he was going to take exception to the feature Karen D’Souza wrote about You, Nero, where she basically rehashed negative criticism of the South Coast Rep performance in a feature that in theory was supposed to be about the second production at Berkeley Rep. (For some reason, the May/June issue hasn't been archived online yet, otherwise I would provide a link.) Now, when I read Karen’s article, I thought to myself, Why would she be rehashing all this negativity—and some of it was fairly below the belt—in an article about new work for a magazine like American Theatre? Tony pointed out the same thing in his letter—that “instead of a thoughtful examination of this topic, the story read like a harsh review of the first production”—and he also went on to support his colleagues at South Coast Rep.

Another letter in the issue referenced a previous letter that took the magazine to task for the “negative tenor” of David Freedlander’s article about Danny Hoch and that said that the magazine should not publish articles that generate negativity. This letter-writer, J.T. Rogers, said, “Wrapped in [this] complaint is an idea I’ve heard put forward by many people in many theatres around this country: that this magazine’s role is to serve as a cheerleader for the work we do. Full stop…. My response to this is: Really?”

Naturally, this topic really interests me. While I personally think that Karen D’Souza went way too far in her article—and question American Theatre’s decision to print it as is—I do understand the fine line of cheerleading and relevancy. While theatre does needs advocates, when does advocacy stray into cheerleading and start doing more harm than good? To give a simplistic example: Say a theatre critic always reviews every show she sees favorably. While the theatre community may be thrilled, in the longer term readers may start distrusting the critic because they spent money on shows they thought were awful. So they stop going to the theatre. So, what was the point in cheerleading? (I guess so companies could have good clippings for the funders?) Now, in this example, I’m assuming the critic is praising shows that are undoubtedly awful, not shows that elicit a more subjective response. Like I said, it’s simplistic. It also isn’t entirely relevant to American Theatre or Theatre Bay Area, because we don’t print straight reviews.

This is the gray area. In these two magazines, which advocate for theatre, is even a hint of negativity completely out of place, or does it provide, in J.T.’s words, “a serious response to a serious piece of theatre rather than a hagiographic profile”? Even though most of us can admit that sometimes our work is not up to par for any number of legitimate reasons or that our risks sometimes fail, do we still think that the job of the industry magazines is to completely disregard these facts and cheerlead instead? Or should the industry magazines paint a more multidimensional picture of the production, the person, etc.? I suppose it’s a case-by-case basis, but it seems to me that Karen’s article could have been much more nuanced without losing sight of the complexities of working on a new play that just isn’t, well, working—as well as some of the solutions.