[contextly_auto_sidebar id=”oNW8dK0FCdGFSKqGQqeHclNNxOzhoCM1″]
OKAY, nobody really knows what’s coming. But a pretty good stab comes in a new book by veteran arts manager Michael M. Kaiser (Alvin Ailey, Kennedy Center, etc) , who is both hopeful and brutally honest. His opening section on the building of an arts infrastructure (including an audience) in the postwar U.S. is as clear and succinct and explanation as I’ve ever seen, and his description of what went wrong at the beginning of the 21st is also well focussed.
Here’s how I lead off my review of Curtains? The Future of the Arts in America : 
Crisp, pragmatic and genial, Michael M. Kaiser smiles earnestly from the jacket photo of his new book, the latest in a series on how to adapt to the changing landscape of 21st century culture. A longtime arts manager – he’s helmed the Kennedy Center, the Alvin Ailey Dance Company, and Britain’s Royal Opera House – with a reputation for turning around troubled cultural institutions, this neck-tied gentleman seems likely to regale us with the usual get-with-it-folks pep talk of neoliberal, corporate-model board presidents: Sure, there are “challenges” to today’s arts world, but it’s nothing “efficiency,” “innovation,” “knowing your audience,” “branding,” and other sorts of bootstrapping can’t solve. No less than three of his books have “practical” in their subtitles, and the very name of the new book — Curtains? The Future of the Arts in America – seems to shrug off any serious storm clouds.
I’ve been struck by the mixed feelings arts folk I know seem to have for Kaiser’s work — he’s been likened (not as a compliment) to both Oprah and Richard Florida.
My review, for ArtsFuse, is here.
You write that about half of his book speculates about the state of the arts in 20 years. I wonder how valid that speculation really is.
In 1995, would you have predicted the collapse of print journalism and the recording industry? Would on-demand video/movies, and viewing without any “television” concept involved, have been expected in 1995? Would Facebook as the primary source of news have been foreseen?
expect the unexpected …
I suspect that much of the ambivalence about Michael Kaiser that you’ve noticed among arts professionals comes down to the feeling that, while he is very capable and many of his ideas are good ones, in recent years he had been spending too much time promoting those ideas (and himself along with them) and not enough actually running the institutions he was getting paid a lot of money to run.
That happens with a lot of successful executives once they develop some name recognition, and one can hardly blame the staffers left behind to do the extra work (often for no extra pay) that the executive is no longer doing for feeling some resentment.
I notice that the proponents of “entrepreneurship” in the arts seldom, if never, supply numbers to back up their ideology. The idea has been around for more than 20 years, but it has not produced notable results — and certainly nothing convincing. It is rarely possible to reshape the so-called high arts to fit in the marketplace. Lacking empirical evidence, Kaiser’s lecturing is a lot of hot air.
Mr. Osborne, plenty of numbers in this book.
As evidence for what? That the new emphasis on entrepreneurship is producing measurable results? Or just stats about the problems the arts face which is the theme of the book? Please elaborate.
It would be nice if you actually read the book before you dissed it. Come on — it’s only fair.
My reaction is more to his general philosophy which is well-known, and which I think could be discussed here, especially since it is a larger trend in the arts world. Hence the question if his book actually substantiates the effectiveness of entrepreneurship philosophies in the arts.
And of course, discussing books under review is fair, since it helps potential readers know if the book might have some value to justify the expense and time of reading it.
And Milton, any field that does not look ahead dies. Just as the US braintrust didn’t think intelligently about what would happen post-Cold War, as Boomers retired and left their bills to Gen Xers, so the arts will continue to fade if people just say, “Oh, who knows?”
Well, as I think I say, Kaiser is hardly a pure capitalist… He talks about arts funding, importance of public school arts programs, importance of European subsidy to make US culture roll. etc
Entrepreneurship might be trendy, but it represents an attempt to describe traits and qualities artists and arts administrators will need in a very unpredictable, technologically disrupted future. Right or wrong, it’s a great contribution to the discourse to have a major figure write a book titled “The Future of the Arts.”
Anyway, it’s jus one book and one mans opinion currently the arts world in America is in shambles and while we artists of all genre’s sit and contemplate our chances of making a living in the arts it is fast being gobbled up by huge corporations that want to control all the arts. I doubt we will see any change in the greed culture and little if any opportunity unless their is super dramatic change in the industry like new ways of distribution corporate entities cannot immediately control.
Great cover of Mr.George Balanchines’ first ballet Serenade. The arts in Colorado are in First Position according to the recent National Endowment for the Arts and yet it is hard to believe but I know that
we have worked at it for 40 years and everyone who has come and gone during that time has a hand
and foot in this acclamation. The percentages nation wide are still low so we must all be prudent and
work for arts education and contact your politicos regularly.