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.