The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation’s Ben Cameron had yet more productive, provocative, and insightful things to say about the present and future of the nonprofit arts in his keynote to the Southern Arts Federation in September [just posted in audio (mp3) and transcript (pdf) form, on the Federation’s web site].
The bulk of the speech engages the challenge of relevancy and responsiveness of cultural organizations to a world that so desperately needs their content (although often in a different way than we’ve traditionally delivered it). But I found a particular perspective extraordinarily relevant to my current work with younger arts professionals and with seasoned leaders who are panicking about leadership succession. Ben described what his foundation had learned on the subject from a recent set of public conversations with the field:
We heard concern about an impending generational transfer of leadership, as a generation of founders retire or depart. And while much of the concern was around where we might find their successors — especially given different expectations from young people around higher compensation, shorter hours, in essence less patience for the sacrificed lives of dignity and the financial masochism that were the givens for so many in my own generation — this conversation brought to my ears, at least, a new strand: the unwillingness of emerging leaders to be mere custodians of organizations they inherit.
“There are plenty of us eager to give ourselves to the arts.” they said, “But unless we are given the same authority to reinvent and reshape organizations as you yourselves were given, we are not interested.” — a point of view that raises far more questions about an organization’s capacity for change than about the identity of an heir apparent.
Yet another indication that the future of our industry is only partly in the practices of our past.
Thanks to Anne Katz of Arts Wisconsin for the link!
I think that a younger generation might be open to hiring different artists as well. As an agent I always find it difficult for buyers to open up to other talent. I specialize in Jazz, Latin Jazz, Salsa, but every single buyer normally goes for the same acts ie. Paquito D’Rivera, Poncho Sanchez, Eddie Palmieri. My artists are just as good, and they too are award winners.
Again, I think that the younger generations might be open to something different, just as good, and for the most part at a better price.
I interned at Ben Cameron’s old gig, Theatre Communications Group, back in the early 90s when its founder, Peter Zeigler, still ran it. Moreover, I interned under Barbara Janowitz, then the head of Government & Management programs (later she moved to the for-profit trade association the League of American Theatres & Producers). She was very much a part of the arts management scene that came of age in the late 70s and early 80s, while Zeigler was one of the last demigods responsible for creating stuff like the NEA and regional theatre (he personally co-founded the Guthrie Theatre in Minneapolis). But the world Zeigler helped create in the two decades following WWII (which Janowitz’s generation subsequently inherited) is the world I saw dissolving with the culture wars starting with the Mapplethorpe/NEA affair.
I personally find it very telling that Ben Cameron didn’t even serve half as long as Zeigler did as head of TCG. Rather than stay with a service organization that has precious little cash of its own, Cameron when where the money was. As such, he is indeed one of the “younger generation” he speaks of (but did not associate himself with in that quote). The idea of “public service,” particularly in the arts, appears to be now replaced with the “on-demand” web-based marketplace of consumer culture. The Gingrich-led congress is only partly to blame for this; Clintonian “new Democrats” were equally eager to allow “the market” to sort out cultural affairs. So, the real question is: should public service careers be subject to market demand? Is arts management a public service or merely another part of the post-industrial consumerist “service economy?”
To address the most recent comments, one might remember that Ben Cameron was with Target and Dayton Hudson before he went to TCG and subsequently the Duke Foundation. So he’s spent some time on both “sides of the fence,” paid his share of dues and I’m all for someone with that breadth of background forming cultural philanthropic policy.
I personally don’t buy an argument that pits public service vs. “on demand” consumer culture based arts managers/professionals. It’s time we taught the next generation of leaders to expect what they deserve and that includes respect for their knowledge, expertise and savvy (as long as they have it!) in a world that demands and values those characteristics. I’m ready for evolution to swallow up some of the financial masochism that branded arts management pioneers (myself included!).
Check out this recent Emerging Leader blogging in response to your post…
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=175673771
“It’s hard to find discussion of this in the mainstream so thanks so much for the forward, Sara. Agree with Mr. Cameron? His speech for me raises interesting questions about “the nature of authority” — which, incidentally, is nicely discussed in a recent article in the Capitol Hill Arts Center newsletter (also an active Creative Conversation participant):
There is an old truism that states: “authority is derived from potentially unrewarded responsibility.” Everyone starting in the business wants the upside of control: calling the shots, the VIP parties, the key artistic decisions. The (potential) catch is that those moments of authority are gained from previous moments of (perhaps painful) responsibilities–bills, union negotiations, sweeping up trash, medical emergencies. The key concepts here are basic: risk and reward. These two should go hand-in-hand: if you take the risk, you get the reward.
I bring this article in as an example of an alternative to Mr. Cameron’s portrayal of the next generation demanding to be given authority to reinvent. If you buy Capitol Hill’s “old truism,” then, though established leaders can — and should — certainly make it easier through attitudes, openness, mentoring… ultimately, it’s up to an individual to identify and take on that potentially unrewarded responsibility AKA identify new opportunities, reinvent and reshape without permission… and from whatever position. Controversial? I don’t know. I wonder if the definition of leadership is in fact that lonely territory of not-quite-approval-yet. By definition, you’re out in front? I appreciate that Cameron shifts quickly out of the us-vs-them portrayal and into the question of an organization’s capacity for change – a question that, to be adequately addressed, obviously demands productive, integrated collaboration across generations – and across difference in general.
I prefer this over the “pass the torch” model, which implies a benefactor who grants authority. I’d pose that true authority is derived from that initial risk or initiative and is ultimately granted by successfully serving a community. I’d also pose that the next generation doesn’t want to “take over one day” and would rather not define itself in opposition to others. Like, whoops here ya go see ya. The next generation is accustomed to functioning in the face of extreme political complexity and recognizes, on principle, the benefit of building collaboratively on what’s already been accomplished. Does this accurately reflect everyone? Anyone feel silenced by this?”