New Directions

The point of this blog is not about the orchestra or non-profit arts business. Its purpose is to be about conducting.  However, there were three articles that I read this morning that struck me because of their relationship to each other.  One is a comment on another which is a commentary on the situation of the Utah Symphony and how orchestras need to stop being the victim in this economic mess and start being leaders in the recovery.

The other article I found interesting was yesterday’s New York Times piece on Eli Broad’s (rhymes with road) philanthropy which apparently always comes with strings of steel attached.  He is a major player in the arts world of Los Angeles. Broad has no problems with leaving the board and pulling his money out of an organization if he doesn’t agree with the direction or choices being made.

Are the articles related?  Sorta. They are about different cities, different organizations, and focus on different elements of the arts business, but I think it is interesting to read about a conductor’s call-to-arms to get out and make your orchestra matter to a community in these hard times rather than being a drain on it.

Rather that the “riding out the storm approach” that most seem to be taking, there needs to be a  proactive approach with the mission to become one of the anchor organizations that actually helps the economy recover.  This would not only better serve orchestras, but also show that we are leaders in helping to solve the crisis!

And to then read about a major arts supporter’s choice to reduce his support from an education program he had previously supported:

But Mr. Broad is fond of using a specific matrix to judge the success of his giving. Museums should see attendance rise and giving increase by board members. Schools should see test scores go up.

In the case of Strong American Schools he suggested to Chad Kolton, the communications director for the campaign, that one way to judge its impact would be the number of column inches newspapers devoted to the subject.

In the end, Mr. Broad said, the campaign did not have the impact on voters that he’d hoped, so he reduced his pledge to about a third of the original promise.

“If we’re not getting results,” Mr. Broad said during an interview in his offices in the Westwood district, surrounded by modern art on the walls and framed by the spread of Los Angeles behind him, “why should we spend all that money?”

I think there is something here that needs connecting, but I’m not sure how to articulate it yet.

Any thoughts?