|
 Risking the Arts Panelists: Sarah East Johnson, Paul Holdengräber, and Bernard Gersten Moderated by Joseph V. Melillo The following white paper is drawn from the remarks of the panelists and moderator for this session, along with the questions and responses from members of the audience. This document is intended to reflect the variety of viewpoints offered during the discussion, and to frame broadly the issues discussed; it should not be taken as a formal statement of opinion by the panelists. Arts institutions often face a complicated balancing act in the selection and presentation of their programs: how to maintain the support of audiences and funders, while at the same time presenting challenging, thought-provoking art. This is particularly true for audience-driven performing arts organizations, which may be dependent upon ticket sales on an artist-to-artist, program-to-program basis—an inherently risky proposition, even from a not-for-profit business perspective. To address such challenges, institutions and their leaders must understand what constitutes risk, how much "challenge" audiences want in their art, and the short- and long-term impact on the organization from their risk-taking decisions. And So, What Is Risk? The answer to that question may seem obvious: isn't all art risky? Well, maybe not. The most common perception of organizational risk occurs when the boundaries of traditional institutions are challenged—when artistic legacies are confronted by new artists, new art, and new audiences. Pushing these boundaries from within may be a critical act, necessary for established institutions to maintain their relevance. The alternative is to launch new organizations, and challenge the traditional institutions and approaches from the outside. There are other facets to risk, as well; in fact, risk may simply be another term for the curiosity that underpins any artistic endeavor. If even the most basic artistic act is experimental, in that one never knows how a single audience member will react, then the arts presenter (and the artist) must be curious: curious to discover and engage with the audience and their reactions. Artists and presenters must also weigh the risk involved in a particular action—perceived and actual—to determine whether harm may result to themselves or their audience. Another aspect of risk might be phrased as trust. Trust between an institution and its audience may or may not be explicit or implied, but in some cases, "challenging" or "risky" art may be seen as such simply because it attacks that trust. Yet for some organizations, and the artists behind them, keeping an audience requires taking risks. Any arts presenter that looks back on its history of programs and thinks "That was easy!" might just be missing the point. The Elusive Idea of "Stable Risk" Even an easy, digestible body of work raises the potential for a conflict between institutional stability and the inherent instability of the process of artistic creation. For new organizations, artists and arts leaders tend to manage and present art according to what they believe; the underlying administrative philosophy is not one of audience demand but of artistic production. However, that does not always lead to stability, since reputations must be established, and audiences and funders alike must be cultivated in order to maintain operations over the long-term. Young organizations may even be susceptible to a form of "sophomore slump": having taken great risks, other basic survival needs must be attended to, forcing a move toward "brand building" or audience development that ultimately focuses on what the audience wants, not the artists themselves. This contrasts with perceptions about the large, established, and more conservative institutions—sometimes so well-established and well-loved that few want to change them. Because of, or in spite of, a history of other programs, risk-taking arts administrators may find a niche within these larger structures. From there, the overall stability of the institution protects new art from risk, while new audiences are cultivated and perceptions about art, and the arts institution, may evolve. If the longevity or reputation of an organization does not necessarily affect its risk-taking abilities, does this require defining an arts "organization" versus an arts "institution," since each carries connotations that may affect both the art and the audience? Perhaps. One defining goal (or challenge) for an organization might be to avoid becoming institutionalized in how it thinks or operates; it can thus distinguish itself from an institution, ensuring a flexibility in its approach. To some, there are characteristics of institutions—particularly the successful juggling of expenses, earned income, and contributed income—that may help ensure longevity, but that also pose greater obstacles to risk-taking. And institutions may also seem more impervious to the personalities of administrators and audiences alike; they may look as though they have an unchanging direction, regardless of who passes through, and convey that sense of authority and trust to their audiences. Ars Gratia . . . Audiences? Arts audiences also bear some responsibility for artistic and institutional risk, forming the other half of an important partnership; audience creativity and artistic and intellectual flexibility are essential. It is too easy to demand only that an artist or organization communicate something to his or her audience while avoiding the danger of pandering to it. The audience must be willing to consider the merits and challenges involved in risk-taking works of art, to distinguish between what they like or don't like, what they understand versus what they find incomprehensible—and commit to supporting it regardless. Audiences need to find ways to be as accepting of the effort involved in a failure as they are appreciative of that which succeeds. Risk-in-art is more than just about economic concerns, a broader issue than who will fund a production that is risk-taking, or whether it might damage an otherwise stable organization. There may be political aspects to risk, when art challenges community standards or belief—or when political art is not presented because of its content. Challenging art may also serve the purpose of entertainment, provoking emotions more than thoughts, or bonding a community together in a joint experience. For the institutions and organizations exploring, considering, or presenting risk-taking art, the ultimate question may be quite straightforward: will taking the risk change the institution? If the answer is no, then the art and the organization presenting it might simply be said not to have succeeded. For citation, please reference: http://berkshireconference.org/content/2005-risking.cfm
|
