What is this new model?

If you aren't up to your ears in lectures, publications, conversations and panels about new models, then you've been living under a rock. It seems like I can't go one day without hearing about the "new model," this silver bullet that will save the arts; but what is this "new model"?

I think every single arts professional agrees, that today, more than ever, it is critical for artists and organizations to change. Indeed, this economic climate has provided the perfect back drop for the word CHANGE, after all, it was our current models, both for-profit and non-profit, that got us into this mess. However, for all this talk about change, there is little talk, or at least little clear and concise talk, about how.

I am jazzed to be living in this time of change and different forms of thinking; and although I love reconstructing, questioning and critiquing the current state of affairs, I am growing increasingly frustrated at the lack of solutions. I am not expecting people to say: "here is the solution that will save us all!" but I do think that we are having conversations ad nauseum about what we are doing wrong and not enough conversations about what we are doing right and how to .

Recently, I attended a panel at the Foundation Center called "Investing in Our people: How We Support our Arts and Culture Workers and Strengthen the Field" and although the focus of the panel was not necessarily about new models, the conversation quickly went into social capital and sustainability. I was impressed by the diversity in opinions from the speakers and really interested in their perspective, it was great to hear their passion and to see them engage in heated conversation. Although I enjoyed the panel, I felt exactly what I describe above. Yes, we are at a critical juncture, yes we need to change, , yes traditional for-profit and non-profit models are flawed, yes there are cool hybrid models out there yes, yes, yes....But now what? How do we translate these business hybrid models into models for arts organizations/ventures? What will that entail? How can we move from a predominantly charity based model into a profit generating venture without losing our mission? and most importantly What is the risk? and are we willing or even capable of taking it?

I understand how intrinsically tied we are to our "routines" and how difficult it is to break a cycle and even more so to re-invent an industry; but all this talk about change is making me actually want to see the change. I obviously don't have answers to these important questions, and I don't know if someone out there does...yet, but I do know that however hard, infuriating or "trendy" these conversations are, we need to have them, because without them, we will never find a solution. Perhaps this is a little like AA, step one: acknowledging you have a problem.

Experienced, Emerging and all of us "In Betweeners"

I think I am coining a new term, a term I mostly want to use to describe myself: "in betweener." I guess this means not quite new yet not quite there.

I realized shortly after accepting a promotion and a change in title, from coordinator to manager, that I was no longer entry level; but having been entry level for less than a year I didn't quite feel like a manager. I'm aware that my tittle is somewhat inflated, and that for a long time I transitioned by doing part of my old job and part in my new job, but its hard not to feel trapped by tittles, and its even harder for the ego not to inflate and gloat...manager.

Now, almost a year into my current position, I have reached this state of 'in between" where I have left all my entry level newness behind, but have failed to really achieve management level. Yes, I do think I manage my program well, but when faced with great challenges all I want to do is play the inexperienced card and cry to mom. In addition, when presenting myself to others, I am often deemed either too experienced or too inexperienced and I don't really know where I fit.

Honestly, I wonder if there is a measurement, a clear indication that you are no longer green, but mature. Is it age? Is it experience? Is it that all of the sudden you are there, and you know that you are ripe for the taking? And what is it about the in betweeners? What happened/happens to us? Are we like the banana in the market, not quite ripe enough for you to buy, not on the stem growing maturing, but there waiting, just waiting...

You want to talk to me?

I recently received an email from a colleague at a similar Arts Organization; she wants to meet me over coffee to talk about ways to improve their membership program. I read the email twice, yep it says me, yep she says someone told her to contact me, yep she wants MY expertise.

I am having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that, someone possibly my age or only a few years younger than me, wants to get my expert advice, specially because I don't feel like an expert. I guess I am stuck in the word expertise, which is something difficult for me to associate with since I am new to the field. Really you want to talk to ME?

It is silly for me to feel inadequate and to wrongfully assume that peers can't provide mentorship to one another. In fact, this reminded of a panel I attended at the Emerging Arts Professionals, "Omni-Directional Mentorship: Going Beyond Yoda", which aimed conversation at redefining traditional concepts of mentorship and stressing the importance of of mentoring at every level: senior to junior, junior to senior and peer to peer.

I can do this....

Ok, I am feeling a bit more confident now "I can be a peer to peer mentor." But even the word mentor scares me. I guess part of me worries that the information I can provide is less than perfect; that when asked for solutions, for a path to creating a membership program I will choke. This fear stems in part due to the fact that I am a newbie, but mostlty because I have done all my work on a basis of trial and error. How do you teach that? How do you say - while sounding like a competent professional, there is no clear formula/ recipe I used on my job, I just tossed a bunch of stuff around and came out with this?

I know it seems silly to worry about not being helpful to someone who is asking for a favor and probably doesn't expect much in return; but I believe that thinking about my position in the field (definitely emerging), and my knowledge base is a good thing, and since receiving the email, I've been doing just that. I have been thinking more in depth about what I do and have done, and this has helped me tremendously, not only to prepare for the meeting, but also to, in spite of my age and position, feel good about myself.

I recommend this little internal exercise to everybody, regardless of industry and age. Analyze what you do, ask yourself why you do it, think about things you have done that made you proud, and things you have done that no one else in your position would have done. Asking myself these questions made me feel confident and happy, and I think these are important "pats in the back", celebrations that both emerging and established workers need to move forward.

Is Social Media Creating Community or Destroying it?

About 2 months ago, I found someone on my Facebook "friends" list and I had no idea who they were. Of course, I did what any sensible 20 something would do: I virtually stalked them. I went through all their photos and friends and after almost 10 minutes, I was still scratching my head "who is this?" After much thought, I remembered we once had a French class Junior Year. Wow, I never talked to this person, and now thanks to Facebook, I know almost too much about their life and interests, all without even having one single meaningful conversation with them. This is creepy and sad.

I realized then, that I have a handful of people in my "friend" list whose life I follow tangentially and who only exist to me online. These are not long lost friends who live far and with whom I communicate online because its easier no, these are people who I couldn't care less about, whose lives I follow merely because of curiosity and who I would never meet for coffee, because I have better things to do. Again, this is sad. I could seriously never leave my room, never have a "real" conversation with these people and still somehow magically be tunned to their lives and have them magically tunned into mine (tho if I was locked in a room it wouldn't be much of a life). In this way, in spite of being all alone in a room I would never really feel lonely, because I would have an online community to keep me company; but is that really community?

Now, I am not saying Facebook is the devil, nor am I saying that online relationships are wrong. I love Facebook and all social media for that fact. Love it! Mostly for its capability to keep me close to Friends and loved ones, but is Facebook making me lazy? Is it making me neglect relationships because I can "like" a post in 2 seconds and feel "in touch," comment on a photo instead of making a phone call and chatting instead of going to get coffee?

I guess what social media is doing is redefining the idea of community, but is that a good thing? Are virtual communities and relationships just as satisfying as real ones? Are virtual communities replacing "real" communities?

I think Facebook can replace real communities and real relationships if we let it. The possibility that an online platform can take the place of real life is all in our hands, and for my part, I much rather find out about someone's life through a long a meaningful conversation, and have coffee with a true friend than poke them on Facebook. However, my virtual community is indeed making me lazy, I know that the easy access to my friends is making me forget that I do miss them and that I do want to pick up the phone and talk to them, and that although browsing through their vacation photos make me feel as if I was there, that, will never replace the feeling of them explaining to me what that vacation was like.

I think social media is both creating and destroying community, but the power of sites such as Facebook lay in the hand of the users. I for one will not let Facebook replace my relationships, but will rather use it to enhance them.

After my run in with that mystery "friend" I deleted all those whose relation to me was superficial at best, and I am making coffee and phone dates. I want community in real life, and its up to me to get it.

What is an arts organization?

For over two years, Intersection for the Arts, has been in search of a building- a permanent home. Although I vowed not to talk much about Intersection in my blog, primarily because this isn't an official organization blog, I find it hard to resist this time, specially since all our talks about finding a permanent home led me to think of a pretty important question; a question I was sure I had the answer to: What is an arts organization? is it the space? is it the director? is it the aesthetics? is it the audience or community it serves? Is it all of the above? What is it? what makes an arts organization an arts organization?

Since my moto is "if you don't know it Goggle it," I took on to my favorite search engine for an answer.

Wikipedia says: "A not-for-profit arts organization is usually in the form of a not-for-profit corporation, association or foundation. Such organizations are formed fir the purpose of developing and promoting the work of artists in various visual and performing art forms such as film. sculpture, dance, painting, multimedia, poetry and performance art"

Although I think this definition pretty much hits the nail in the head, I am surprised that it makes no mention of space, place or location. Fair enough I guess, but I then I wonder, why are we so married to the idea of a space? and why do we call theater companies, "companies" instead of organizations, by this definition they should be, right? And what about art groups that are not incorporated, for-profit or fiscal sponsored, are they all of the sudden not arts organizations because they lack a 501(c)3 or the drive to be for profit?

Is the definition then constricting, and does it prevent us from thinking about other things as such? or are those things completely different entirely and we then are forced to find other definitions for them, better definitions. Why do we need to define things? and are we limiting ourselves by having definitions? (ugh, insert much larger philosophical debate here)

I have no answers here. I guess I was pretty certain that I knew what an arts organization is...was...can be, but maybe it is much like all things in life, an ever-changing concept, one that like water fits in the mold in which we put it.

What is an arts organization? Who needs to know?

So I'm chatty, now what?

Yesterday, I attended The StrengthsFinder, a workshop presented in part by Gallup and Future Women Leaders, designed to help you identify the "patterns in your life that lead you to success and teach you how to apply them to maximize what you do best". This workshop was twofold, first you take an assessment test at home and then you go to the workshop to learn about your results. I'm not going to lie, but at first I was hesitant, I mean, how accurate is this test? and is the way I see myself really the way I am?

I took the test and showed up to the workshop with low expectations (how accurate are these things anyways?), but I was pleasantly surprised by my results. Here are my top 5 according to the StrengthsFinder test:

Communications - You like to describe, to host, to speak in public, and to write Ideas are the beginning, you like to bring them to life, to energize them, to make them exciting and vivid. And so you turn events into stories and practice telling them.

Input - You are inquisitive. You collect things - words, facts, books, quotations. The world is exciting because there is a an infinite variety of information. If you read a great deal is not to refine your theories, but rather to add more information to your archives. If you like to travel, it is because each new location offers novel artifacts and facts.

Woo - stands for winning others over. You enjoy the challenge of meeting new people and getting them to like you. You like to learn strangers names, and find an area of common interest so that you can strike up conversation and build rapport.

Restorative - You love to solve problems. Whereas some are dismayed when they encounter yet another breakdown, you can be energized by it. You enjoy the challenge of analyzing the symptoms, identifying what is wrong and finding a solution.

Ideation - you are fascinated by ideas. You are delighted when you discover beneath the surface an elegantly simple concept to explain why things are the way they are.

The workshop taught us that we need to focus on our strengths to maximize our potential, that we have to forget about the idea that improving our weaknesses will makes us stronger, because innately even if we improve, the improvement will not be as high as to make weaknesses turn into strengths. I get it, focus on what you have and stop coveting what you don't have (disclaimer the workshop presenters never used the work weakness).

OK, so this sounds pretty awesome right?And if you know me, my results are pretty dead on. Well yes, I was very happy. But also kinda disappointed. During the workshop we were given sets of activities that helped us share our strengths with other participants, and realize how different yet similar we can be. Again and again, I was reminded that I was in essence a communicator, a chatty social butterfly that loves talking. This is true, but it made me feel so one dimensional, which I guess its something I've kinda always known. Sadly, this shattered my idea that I was complex and full of contradictions. In a weird way I wanted to look at the report and feel like a "Renaissance Woman", I wanted to see it and see a better version on me, I wanted to discover something new and use that to my advantage. Hmm the big we want what we don't have thing...

As I vent, I realize that I am being ungrateful, the workshop was lovely, and I learned a lot about the way we view strengths and weaknesses; the way we perceive each other and how I come across. It also made me feel secure about my career path, I am interested in communications, relationship building, research and creation, and I am working in a position that plays to my strengths. But now what? Should I stop striving to be this "Renaissance Woman"? Should I never consider other career options? What does it mean to be a communicator and how can I better display this without seeming one dimensional? and more over, why am I being so critical of something that is good?

First, I think I need to come to terms with the fact that I am chatty, that I love talking to people, that I do love dialoguing, arguing and debating; that I do check Wikipedia compulsively, that I am the queen of "Googling it", that I get excited when new ideas, technologies and developments come around, and that I have a freaking blog cause I like writing (tho I don't do it enough). I guess I need to be happy being me, cause its ok to be me. To be honest, I'm going to keep trying to be the Renaissance Woman, who says that just because you suck at something you shouldn't try?

I will take what I've learned in this workshop and continue to master my strengths; but I am also going to continue to waste my time trying to improve my weaknesses. I guess that is the Restorative part me, looking at my problems and trying to fix them.

Sustainability in the arts, funny haha...?

Lately, I've been reading some wonderfully hilarious articles about what it means to be employed by the arts. The Top 20 Most Powerless People in the Art World, and the Arts Handlers Olympics, both poke fun at the issue of sustainability in the arts, specially as it relates to young, "emerging" people in the field. I am not going to lie, I laughed so hard reading these, but I kinda also wanted to cry. This is sad.

As someone without a trust-fund, a ton of student loans (thank you year abroad!), who lives in one of the most expensive city in the U.S., and has two other part time weekend jobs, the articles hit a little too close to home.

Every two weeks I am painfully reminded that I am not in this for the money, and although it is refreshing and quite wonderful to meet countless talented people who are so passionate about what they do that they forgo "bigger and better things", hearing them talk about their 3 jobs, lack of 401 (k) and issues with health insurance and stability in general, worries me, specially cause here I am committed to stay in this field (cue my parents saying "why?!!!").

I wonder if we like feeling like martyrs, I guess I shouldn't generalize, but I have noticed that there is a romantic idea about poverty in the arts. The starving artist is not only normal, but cool.

A beloved program director (from one of Intersection's fiscal sponsor projects, don't try to guess there is over 100 of them), who infuriates me to no end, recently wrote in a grant report that his project had found a new sustainability model or "pre-non-profit", that puts all funding to creative risk by making all administrative and staff positions volunteer. Seriously! How is this a sustainable model? "Hey you should work for us for free because we are so cool! How you are going to eat, pay rent or live is of no concern to me!". Ugh! How do you expect to not only attract but retain the necessary talent that will propel your creative endeavors forward if you don't want to pay them! Ok yes, I could possibly see a model where people come together and volunteer their time and make something wonderful. Call me a B!@#$, but what do I get out of it? how is this worth my time? and what guarantees that I will give my best to something when I am tired from figuring out ways to be able to eat?!

I mean don't get me wrong, I volunteer for non-profit organizations often and I got my current gig thanks to an unpaid internship, but assuming that it is ok for your entire staff to be volunteer based, well that is just ridiculous! and the thing that bothers me the most is that, he is not alone in this way of thinking. Seriously! (and please forgive all my "seriouslys", I tend to do this when I get worked up, that and busting into Spanish), seriously! Who came up with the idea that making $25,000.00 or less from a job in the arts, sometimes after graduate work is sustainable? No wonder the arts is plagued with trust-fund babies, no wonder few people of color are leaders in the arts, no wonder government agencies, politicians and some people outside the arts have a hard time taking the field seriously (again!).

I read this great blog at artsjournal.com (I've been doing more reading than writing lately) that talks about art jobs and the fact that when addressing arts funding at a National level, we (artists, arts workers, arts advocates) fail to paint the picture that the arts aren't just a hobby or a form of entertainment, but the livelihood of a lot of people.

In a weird way I guess that having "improper" wages in the arts is assuming that they are a hobby, and I take it personally because it is not a hobby to me. I am by no means saying that arts organizations are "rolling in the dough" or hoarding their money, no way! we get paid what our employers can afford, but something is off. ( I am also not assuming that no one makes a living of the arts, I am actually certain that I could live just fine with what I make, but I love eating out). I guess what I am trying to say....yes, what was my point?....Oh yes, is that I feel like it is disrespectful to assume that only those who are truly committed forgo profit, to say that passion and payment are mutually exclusive, and that making a living from art is ridiculous.

Its sad, I have seen extremely talented people leave the arts, and non-profit for that matter, and not because they were less passionate or committed, but because they got a job that paid more.

My head is now starting to spin, again I feel like I've started with one thing and ended with another. I think that is just how my brain works, and since I have no real solution, all I can say is, that the arts will never stop being in crisis unless we find a way to attract and retain the talent we need to succeed - talent with or without trust-funds.

Art History = Fancy Gossip?

Lately, I've been on a kick to holistically revisit my interest in Art. I am once again making Art and re-reading my old Art History books; I even rented Simon Shama's "The Power of Art", a BBC series that focuses on the work and life of eight renowned artists: Caravaggio, Rembrandt, Bernini, David, Van Gogh, Picasso, Turner, Rothko. My friend Megan and I watched the episode on Bernini in bed last night, and while deep in giggles and amusing commentary (we couldn't help it, the episode focused on Bernini's Santa Teresa, and her "orgasmic ecstasy", I know very mature, but you should've been there, I swear!) Megan said something really interesting "Art History is just fancy gossip, think about it, it is all stories and hearsay". Although my art loving self hates to admit it, Megan is right, Art History and all History for that matter is gossip...hearsay. Now, I am not saying that these are not stories based on fact, but isn't every kind of gossip based on something?

Her comment got me thinking. If past artists are the equivalent of modern rockstars/actors (insert argument on what is considered art? here) then the way we react to their fame is equal. Right? We are fascinated by their "genius", by their craft, by their passion, and it is this somehow super human talent that propels our fascination with their lives. A, how did you get so great? how are you different or similar to me? How can I be like you?

The Lives is the Renaissance Version of US Weekly

Giorgio Vasari followed the great Italian artists of the Reinaissance and documenting every aspect of their lives and work. His resulting book, "The lives", which is considered one of the founding texts of Art History is full of gossip. Bernini slept with X, Giotto was the rival of Y, Raphael hated Z. Gossip!

The word gossip has such negative connotations, that comparing it to something considered intellectual is sacrilegious, but what I argue is that at its core some things are the same, just fancier, that it is human to enjoy gossip, that it is ok to be curious, that we need gossip and that things will evolve to satisfy this need.

Personally I believe people are drawn to people, what draws us initially to a work might be its is beauty, but what holds our interest is the artist, the people. What made Vasari's work so interesting was not only that he wrote about the art and ideas associated with this amazing group of people, but also the way he wrote about them: The story.

I guess history is a pretty much a collection of stories; and story is just a fancier way to say gossip. Now on to part two...Rembrandt

Dynamic Adaptability - A Non-Power Point Conference

I wish I could have live blogged from the Herbs theater on Thursday January 28 during Dynamic Adaptability: A Conference on New Thinking and New Strategies for the Arts, but the thought of live blogging is still daunting for me. I am a slow writer, so here I am days after the fact, trying my best to condense 8 hours of amazing speakers, useful information and new ways of thinking into one blog posting.

When Kary Schulman the Director of Grants for the Arts said this conference should feel like a "spa day", I though she was kidding, I mean conferences are meant to be painful right? But she was right, I feel invigorated and giddy; I' m not sure how long it will last, but I'm going to ride this wave. Schulman set the tone right, she spoke eloquently about the reasons for a conference on new thinking - to form community because we need it. She also made a brilliant point about the fact that the economy has never been good for artists - starving artists anyone?! and talked about what drives artists, which is not monetary compensation, but rather a desire to make community and in large make the world a better place.

Our first speaker, Jonah Lehrer literally stole my heart (so cute! too bad he is married), he was so cute, amazingly smart and insightful. Lehrer is a neurocientist and the author of the best selling books Proust Was a Neurocientist, in which he argues that many 20th and 21st century discoveries of neuroscience are actually re-discoveries of insights that were made earlier by artists like Marcel Proust, Gertude Stein and Cezanne, and How We Decide, in which he argues that there are two parts of the brain involved in decision-making, a rational part and an emotional part and how in spite of the believe that rational decisions are better, both parts are actually needed to make decisions.

Leher who is only 25 y/o (ugh people like him make me feel like a loser!), did a terrific job at engaging the audience and I am sure I was not the only fan. He had the perfect combination between storytelling and neuroscience talk; he cited neurologist Antonio Damasio's study on Elliot, a man who after the removal of a tumor on its frontal lobe was perfectly normal in all regards except for the loss of emotion. Although common belief will make him the best decision maker,the fact was that Elliot struggled even with simple decisions like choosing a black from a blue pen. The study of Elliot's behavior led to the discovery that emotions play a large role in decision making, larger than it was once believed. This might sound silly, but I found it so illuminating! specially because all my life I've strived to be a rational thinker, good to know sometimes your gut is right.

More impact-full and often quoted throughout the conference was "The Marshmallow Experiment", a study about delayed gratification and self discipline, in which a group of 4 years olds were given the option to eat a treat right away or wait for 15 minutes - treat present, for two treats. Although all kids chose to wait in hopes of receiving 2 treats, waiting was actually harder than they had imagined and while some kids were able to wait the full time, some ate the marshmallow right away. Impulse control, this study found, is actually tied to success as it demonstrates he ability to forgo instant pleasure for future benefit. From then on all I can think was...when would I have eaten the Marshmallow?

Leher did not only share gimmick study results, but set a nice tone for a conference in new ideas. It was refreshing!

Next up a less creative but beautifully approached theme...the recession and its relationship to the current state of the Arts. I can't tell you how many art symposiums, conferences and talks focus all their energy in bad news. Yes this is a recession, yes we are poorer than we were before, yes art organizations are dying, and yes attracting and retaining audiences is going to be harder than it ever was before. Now What? Judilee Reed from LINC - leveraging investments in creativity and someone who not only ate the marshmallow withing the first few minutes, but also got all the kids to give them to her (analyze this!) shared the findings of a 2009 study. Tho some where not surprising "artists are more likely to have second jobs" others where really inspiring "artist are hopeful 89% believe they have a special role in strengthening communities". Reed did a superb job in not only relating the grueling and expected facts of the state of the Arts, but also showing the resilient and adaptable qualities of artists.

Following the facts, Cora Mirakami from the Center for Cultural Innovation led a panel with Reed, seasoned choreographer Margaret Jenkins and artist extraordinaire Jaime Cortez. Jenkins provided infinite wisdom talking about the ever present need to move forward in spite of poor circumstances saying "the only way to keep your balance is by moving forward". She is so right, sometimes we forget that time doesn't stop for anyone, and that sometimes all we can and must do is move forward.

Jaime Cortez shared his multi-faceted experience,; he spoke about the need for artists to exploit all of their skills and engage in multiple economies in order to more effectively support their creative endeavors. In short, sustainability requires adaptation.

Another major point brought up during this panel was the current non-profit art structure and the shift that the majority of artist experience: from creative to administrator. This is a logical progression, the individual artist turns into an organization in order to receive more support, which in turn means that the artist spends more time administering work and securing funding than creating work. This discussion stroke a cord in me, I believe that artist must be allowed the space to create and administrators (like me) should provide the structure and backbone to allow for the work to happen. It is unfortunate to see that there are more accidental arts administrators than people actually seeking the field; until more people see arts administration as a profession and not a logical progression in the life of an artist then the arts will face many issues. I believe that in order for this to happen the field of Arts Administration needs to become more fiscally viable, sustainable and realistic wages are the only way we will attract the talent arts organizations need.

After a much deserved lunch break we were re-energized and ready for round two. Diane Sanchez from the East Bay Community Foundation moderated a panel on new models for donor/ supporter mobilization. This discussion included hilariously talented performance artist Phillip Huang, Perry Chen the co- founder of funding platform kickstarter.com and James Rucker the co-founder of ColorOf Change which develops innovative campaign support platforms for people of color. Although I was often confused by Diane's questions, this panel was really informative, specially in showing the impact of small contributions in achieving change. The most fun part of the entire conference and the moment when I thought "I love the arts I wouldn't have it any other way" was when Huang got up in and said "what is up mother******?" all in his bedazzled glory. Huang, was indeed born to perform he had tremendous energy and led us through and impromptu fundraising exercise/ competition along side Michelle Tea - getting a total of around $400.00 from the audience. Moral of the story, ask and you shall receive. Ask while wearing sequence and you shall receive a lot.

The last panel was a look into the future, taking media as an example of a field affected by technology and forced to evolve. This panel was bittersweet, it started with a news clip filmed in 1981 about the future of print media, in this clip newspapers were begging computer users to get their content online, one "computer owner" (yes, this was the term used to describe this man) complained about the slow upload - 3 hours, and reassured newspapers that this method would never tromp actually print. Ugh, it was difficult to watch specially considering the state of journalism. Moderator Jon Funakibi from San Francisco State University kept the conversation positive as did Laura Sydell, the Arts and Technology correspondent for NPR and Hugo Morales founder of Radio Bilingue. The need to evolve in order to survive was even more evident in this panel; indeed bittersweet - I'm donating to NPR!

Dynamic Adaptability delivered what it promised: a day looking into the creative ways artists and entrepreneurs have solved problems. It provided insights into the ever changing nature of the field, it made us laugh, think and re-energize!

Technology and Art

The unveiling of the Ipad, the latest gadget by Apple, got me thinking about technology and its relationship to the Arts. I wish I could say I came to this thought all on my own, seeing as I work in the Arts and have a San Franciscan interest in technology, but actually what brought this issue home, literally, was the fact that the event held at Yerba Buena Center for the Arts - a much bigger "sister" art space, got several complains from bloggers appalled at the unreliability of YBCA's WIFI.

Oh techies, how I love thee! I wish you could spend one day in my "high tech" office using our home router, dealing with the "spaghetti server" and "robocop" computers (1/2 mac, 1/2 PC, all donated or purchased for really cheap). Indeed, small non-profit art spaces are at the cutting edge of technology ;)

I giggle, but mostly I'm thinking about the relationship between technology and art, artists, administrators, art organizations, art enthusiasts, patrons and audiences.

I - like most people in my generation, am a sucker for gadgets, new media and technology (hence why I was glued to my computer screen this morning watching the Ipad announcement!), and I view technology as an ally rather than an enemy; but I hardly ever think about technology and its negative or positive effects on the Arts. I do however think about technology as it relates to my work - programs that might facilitate marketing communications, better and more effective ways to connect with members, donors, patrons, Facebook, Twitter, better email systems...but technology as it shapes the creation of art, the relationships between patrons and artists, the overall "need" for art and the ideas around what art really is, that is something I never think about.

I guess, technology has always had an effect and has been a major influence for artists. Visual artists for example were "threatened" by the birth of the camera, but photography rather than "killing" the role of the artist, spun the birth of a new art form and created new ways for artists to view, and make art. Slowly but surely technology infiltrated the Arts making them better or worse (all up for argument), and most importantly some artists managed to explore the possibilities of technology and “exploit” those possibilities to change the way we viewed art and built an audience.

However, technology and art are not best friends, not everyone has been able to use tech to their advantage. Technology is expensive, and with funding and revenue for the arts at a low point, using the right technology to help bolster the arts, is well... challenging (hence why our network crashes, our wifi isn't reliable and our computers look like a 2001 community college computer lab at best)

Technology, of course not only affects OUR capability to create, promote and produce art, but it also affects the way people who attend art events and purchase art interact with "us". Technology is providing art patrons with never ending sources of entertainment (competing sources), cheaper ways to get reproductions of works and art works, and access to recordings of performances (making it more appealing to stay at home in my pjs watching Swan Lake, then paying $100.00 or more to go to the ballet).

Ugh, my head hurts now, and I feel like I've hit on several points that little old me cannot coherently write about, understand or explain, specially not at 5:30pm with no caffeine in my system (tea just doesn't cut it sometimes). I guess these are things I should be thinking about since they relate to the work I do and the works I support, something to think about perhaps when our server fails....again

Happy New Year!!!

So, here I am, up to my nose in e-mails and snail mails after two weeks of blissful, peaceful, vacation, unable to write about anything more exciting than my winter break and so swamped that I can feel the guilt as I type. Guilt aside, I want to keep up this blog, so here is my first stab at "the holiday appeal", which has been on my mind all morning as I open 2 weeks worth of mail feeling as if Christmas has come again in the new year.

Right before thanksgiving our development department...wait, who am I kidding?! we don't really have one...our staff, got together to try to make sense of our seasonal appeal. I am currently the closest we have to a development person, so the majority of the tasks fell on me, and since we received significantly more funds in spite of our "recession" I dare say I did a good job, and I am confident to share what I've learned:

1. Ask

Clearly this is not news and I know re-stating the fact sounds really stupid, but having received and read tons of art appeal letters, I must say, we don't ask. The ask is muddied underneath tons of "reasons" used to prove why an Arts Organization is worth your contribution, and in general why the arts deserve some $$$. Please don't do that, your constituency is probably made of artists and art lovers, so use your space to ask for money and then make it clear why you ask and what you will use the money for. Don't muddy your ask!

2. Tell them What, When, Why, and What for

We need to make sure we ask our donors for what we need, be specific with amounts, establish a deadline, tell them why your organization should receive a contribution and not others, and remember a donation is much like an investment: quantify to your donors what their money will be used for and, reassure them that you are a good investment and that their money will be used wisely.

3. Ask Again...the Reminder

Some of us forget to donate, so develop a strategy that includes a follow up letter, an e-mail or a Facebook post. Just to note you must navigate the fine line between reminding donors and being "naggy".

4. Tailor your Letter

We love feeling special, so remember that if your letter is individualized, there is more likelihood it will be successful. When donors feel special they will put that same care back to your organization.

5. Be Concise

As artist we LOVE making thing wordy and complicated, avoid it, this is not an art history academic paper and this is not a grant, it is a letter that will must likely be read under 3 minutes.

6. Be grateful

These are difficult times we (were/are) living in, so treat the $10 and the $1,000 donor the same way, what they give is probably equally generous in the scheme of things. being grateful and sweet will take your organization a log way!

7. Have Fun and be creative

We are lucky to be arts organizations, to have a pool of creative and awesome people, so think outside the development box, creativity and fun is expected from us and that makes us terribly lucky. So out with the boring appeal, and in with the witty, funny, colorful, and sweet... singing telegram?... just an idea ;)

I guess it could be ten tips, but the guilt is coming back, and I should go back to my emails...ugh