Smithsonian & "The Hill". . .another Culture War brewing?

At this point, I think most of you are aware of the situation that is happening/happened with the removal of a so-called "offensive" video from the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery.   This is from a few days ago, but read this article to see how this firestorm was sparked.

http://washingtonscene.thehill.com/in-the-know/36-news/7223-boehner-and-cantor-call-for-closing-of-smithsonian-exhibit

Quotes to think about when discussing this issue:

• Boehner spokesman Kevin Smith said, "Smithsonian officials should either acknowledge the mistake and correct it, or be prepared to face tough scrutiny beginning in January when the new majority in the House moves [in]." 
• "When a museum receives taxpayer money, the taxpayers have a right to expect that the museum will uphold common standards of decency," said Cantor. "The museum should pull the exhibit and be prepared for serious questions come budget time.”
• In response, a spokeswoman for the Smithsonian noted that federal funding is not used to pay for exhibits, only infrastructure, curating of works, and staff.  The exhibit itself was funded by a group of donors and foundations.

*Note that the last quote shows that many people, and most obviously (very conservative) Congressmen Cantor and Boehner do NOT understand how taxpayer money flows to the museum, and the arts in general.  I should also note that this video has already been taken down, with a mediocre and apologetic response to the public by the Smithsonian.

Also, read some of the responses below the article.  I, for one, like this one:
"Now what was it exactly that the Tea Party was yelling about? Oh, I remember, the loss of our freedoms."

Is "LIVE!" better than live?

We all know about the Met's LIVE! series that streams in opera performances to ballparks, cinemas, and theatres across the country.  Read this article about how the L.A. Philharmonic is jumping on the bandwagon.  http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-la-phil-live-20101109,0,548456.story

"Much like a simulcast of a rock concert or a boxing match, the orchestra's concerts will be heavily produced affairs, shot with multiple cameras and overseen by directors who specialize in live production. Viewers seated before 50-foot screens will see close-ups, medium and long-range shots of Dudamel and the orchestra's musicians, views of Disney Hall and the audience, as well as glimpses of the backstage action. Live interviews, and question and answer sessions will round out the transmission package."

"Transmission package?"  We, meaning Americans, are so used to things being 'packaged' for us, filmed at the very best angles, directed by the very best directors, etc.  It seems like I could get a better seat and more for my money by watching this "LIVE!" instead of buying a seat.  Will these "LIVE!" 'packaged' events ever give actual live experiences a run for their money, or do you they they drive people INTO the theatre, opera, orchestra performance, etc.?

 

Who creates value?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaFbmuEUdwI&feature=player_embedded

Watch the video.  Have a snack or a drink and let its languid pace start you thinking, not just about museums, but about all the arts, especially the ones you want to manage.  Who creates value?  How?  What is the role of the arts manager (perhaps more than you might think?) in creating value and 

in deciding what we want to remember and what we want to forget?

 

--Mike

When in doubt, make a plan

Michael Kaiser, President of the Kennedy Center, recently said this in his Huffington Post article,  The Planner vs. the Entrepreneur:

"I have spent much of the last two years trying to convince arts organizations to plan their art four or five years in advance. I believe that this time frame gives the organization the time it needs to find resources, create excellent art and attract an audience. Virtually every project we mount at the Kennedy Center was planned five years before it is on one of our stages." 

Jennifer Edwards, another contributor to the Huffington Post, posted this rebuttal in her article, In Times of Crisis: Saving Art:

"Planning ahead is important, but if art is truly in crisis we need to step back and see the whole picture before promoting future spectacles. I think it is safe to say we need more leaders thinking about realistic options for artists and arts organizations. I would like to begin conversations about what 'saving the arts' might look like. Let's start by individually and collectively deciding what we are trying to save: the act of making art? The idea of what it means to be an artist? Or the non-profit arts structure we currently have."

Do you think such early planning for programming is realistic for all arts organizations?  If not, which disciplines/types of organizations would have a more difficult time planning four to five years ahead?