798

IMG_0655State owned facilities turned into artist live/work spaces. Pedestrian friendly streets with cafes and shops. Open studios where you can drop in and see sculptors and painters at work.  Street art that is street art and not gang tags.  It sounds like a utopia of creative placemaking, except you had best not mention June 4 or discuss the Dalai Lama publicly, because this cultural district is in Beijing.

IMG_0659My visit to the 798 Arts District was a highlight of my recent trip to China. With cars restricted and its repurposed industrial architecture of red brick and attractively rusted metal, the district felt like an island of respite in a city of taxicabs and gray brick and glass.  Art is everywhere within the district.  Outside of the district, the primary visuals are slogan-driven public sculptures (“Patriotism, Innovation, Inclusiveness, Virtue – the Spirit of Beijing”) and commercial advertising. In the district, there are gallery windows, public sculptures, and carefully placed graffiti.  We didn’t quite make it into the anchor of the district, a large factory built in the 1950s by an East German electronics firm, or several of the other large and more famous spaces, but we were able to stroll among scores of other galleries.  Several displayed the work of North Korean landscape painters (imagine if Thomas Kinkade had painted the Hamgyong Range); the major photography gallery had a show of iconic photos from the early 1970s of peasants chopping granite and building one of China’s many dams; a large sculpture on a side street depicted hundreds of tiny people sucking from the teats of a larger than life-size cow.  Some art was playful, like the stack of red dinosaurs in cages,IMG_0654 or the acrylic paintings of western commercial icons on traditional Chinese silk brocade.  I was struck by the beauty of the work in one of the galleries that exhibited contemporary versions of classical Chinese renderings of peonies and chrysanthemums by an artist whose name I unfortunately neglected to note.  They seemed deeply authentic and, while based on tradition, did not feel derivative, as some of the other work did.  Our translator told us that the paintings were by one of China’s most famous artists. She had never heard of Ai Wei Wei.

As we walked into gallery after gallery, especially where more abstract work was displayed, our translator asked what I thought a piece “meant,” or commented on how “she doesn’t understand what it means.”  I replied that sometimes art doesn’t have one meaning, that there are many meanings, or ambiguous meanings.  In my mind, I connected her search for one meaning with my earlier thoughts about the educational system that culminates in a single test taken by all high school students.  How does one handle ambiguity as an adult when as a child they are taught that questions have one right answer?

As I write this two days after my return, I am left wondering if the 798 district is the island oasis of my first impression, or instead an art ghetto in which the state can contain creative expression within a fixed boundary.

Posted in arts infrastructure, Arts policy, Culture and democracy, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Talking Creativity in China

IMG_0672I was honored to have been invited to Beijing Normal University’s Institute for Higher Education to talk about educating for creativity.  One topic was something I have discussed informally here and more formally in the journal Artivate: framing pedagogies for teaching creative entrepreneurs. My second topic was a bit more problematic for the context: group creativity and diversity.  Although my lecture was well received, it seemed disingenuous to be discussing the advantages of heterogeneous group collaboration for creativity to an audience of mostly (90%) female graduate students of mostly the same ethnic group (Han Chinese), age, and course of study (higher education leadership and policy).  Even more paradoxical was talking about process creativity and improvisation to a group of young people and faculty members who may not have ever had an opportunity to participate in improvisational activities.

Chinese secondary education culminates in a placement exam taken by all Chinese teens.  As my host explained, “this test is very important. The student’s future depends on it.”  Parents in the US (including me) may complain about the “teaching to the test” pedagogy that has pervaded our education system here since No Child Left Behind, but that is nothing compared to the high stakes testing environment in China. When I began my talk on group creativity, I asked the attendees, “How many of you played a musical instrument in an ensemble, orchestra or band? Or participated in a theatrical performance as a child?” Not a single student had had a collaborative arts experience – ever. One faculty member, my host, had performed in traditional opera thirty years prior, but he was the only person in the hall to have done so.  I mentioned this to another visiting professor, Ben Levin, an education policy scholar from University of Toronto, who responded, “I’m not surprised; their entire primary and secondary education is geared toward the test. There is no time for anything else.”  As I summarized some recent cognitive research related to process creativity and improvisation in my lecture, I wondered to myself if the lack of opportunity to participate in process-oriented creative thinking has put the brakes on the cognitive abilities of these young people.   IMG_0677

Posted in Arts education, Higher education, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 4 Comments

Millennial? No, Boomer

A survey from Pew Research came across my twitter feed. It is designed to measure “How Millennial Are You?” Pew’s report is titled “Confident. Connected. Open to Change.” These are, apparently, the defining characteristics of the millennial generation, those who came of age in the new millennium—i.e. people born after 1981.  I am a baby boomer, although born at the very end of the boom. With a father who returned from serving in WWII, married, and had three kids, my family background defines that generation.  Baby Boomers in aggregate score 11 on Pew’s quiz. I scored a 92, without having piercings or tattoos (two of the fourteen questions).  Screen Shot 2013-05-11 at 8.21.27 PMMy score may be anomalous overall, but I am certainly not alone. Being millennial in spirit if not in age, I posted the link on facebook where several of my “friends” responded with their scores.  What many of my facebook friends and I have in common is not only our young boomer age and our millennial quiz score, but theatre.  Those who responded with high scores are playwrights and performers and designers, people who tend to be confident, connected, and open to change.  My totally unscientific conclusion is that to be hip, you don’t have to be born after 1981 or live in Portland – you just have to be a theatre person.

Posted in arts infrastructure, Technology and arts | Tagged , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Get Out of Your Room!

The hottest idea in entrepreneurship education circles for the last year or two has been the “lean launch pad” or “lean canvas” for business model generation as explained in Osterwalder and Pigneur’s book of that name and as evangelized by entrepreneur and business guru Steve Blank.  Blank recently wrote an article on the topic for the Harvard Business Review blog that is worth looking at.  Blank’s contribution is an iterative concept of “customer development.”  I heard Blank speak about this concept recently; my takeaway advice from his talk is, “get out of your room!” [Or, as Blank puts it, "get out of the building!"] Translation: you think you have a great idea, test it in the field with potential customers; listen to them; change your idea; talk to the potential customers again, then launch and then, once launched, continue to get out of your room and listen to the customers.

Listen-Understand-ActWhat can this mean for arts organizations? What can it mean for individual artists? And for teaching arts entrepreneurship? I’ll address the third question first, because I integrated this approach during the semester just ended.  In my Foundations of Arts Entrepreneurship class, students, working either individually or in self-selected groups, develop a concept for a hypothetical arts-based venture. I ask them to develop a needs assessment.  For the first time this semester, I required they “get out of the room,” and actually test their ideas on the people they think are their potential customers.  Those students who identified an audience segment and then surveyed that segment (this is so easy to do with a tool like surveymonkey.com), developed richer, more sophisticated, ideas for their project because they were responding to actual needs and wants from their target audience.  One student is launching his music criticism magazine following the surprising finding (surprising to him, that is), that people actually want to read about the music they listen to.

Individual artists can benefit from this approach as well, but in a somewhat different direction. Artists make the work they make, and may not want to alter that work for market reasons. Instead, they can use the customer development model to pivot the market for their work, rather than the work itself. For example, an artist may think their work is best suited for purchase by elderly golfers, but by getting “out of the room” and surveying – and listening to -  alternative audience segments, may find a whole new audience for their work, one they may not have considered.

The analog to this for the arts organization, as I see it, is to be truly responsive to the community, to make work not solely for the company, but for the community of which it is part, however that is defined.  To do so also requires getting out of the room, be it the board room or the conference room.  Mission driven arts organizations should listen to the people that mission is meant to serve. Who are they? What do they need? What do they want? What do they care most about? As arts organizations struggle to discover more sustainable business models, they might look to this iterative customer development model, which is actually designed to aid in the discovery of appropriate business models.

Artists and arts organizations are sometimes reluctant to look to the world of business for advice, but if you want to have an audience, who can argue with a suggestion to “ask the audience?” Get out of your room.

Posted in Arts entrepreneurship, arts infrastructure, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Sticky Madness

For the concluding session of the recent Pave symposium on Entrepreneurship, the Arts, and Creative Placemaking, we wanted to bring the discussion to a local level, so recruited the Phoenix chapter of Emerging Arts Leaders (EALPHX) to lead an interactive workshop.  The team, consisting of Alex Nelson, Jessica Rajko, Korbi Adams, and Samantha Johnstone, developed a three-part workshop, which culminated in a short movement piece that embodied our conceptions of place, an Alphabet of Culture and Community, and the segment described following.  Having participated in all the preceding sessions, the quartet identified three thematic challenges to creative placemaking efforts in the Phoenix area.  They then asked participants to comment upon Venn1these challenges, write their thoughts on sticky notes (hence “sticky madness”), and sort them by theme.  “The prompt to participants was to contribute their thoughts on how physical place, as well as personal and inter-personal relationships to place might contribute to those challenges or provide insight to those challenges, and then, if they cared to go so far, to share thoughts on how entrepreneurial arts activities could begin to work at solutions to those challenges,” according to Alex Nelson.

The three themes were: 1. Negotiating the politics of dis-belonging (the subject of Roberto Bedoya’s talk), 2. Developing cross-sector collaborations (which Ann Markusen described in her keynote address as necessary for effective placemaking efforts)  and 3. Listening and responding (a theme central to Laura Zabel’s examples from the Irrigate Arts project).  Below are the responses to these prompts, submitted anonymously by a group of about 25 students, artists, scholars, and community members.  This is raw data – check back for analysis in a future post.

1. Negotiating the politics of dis-belonging

  • Phoenix needs a dedicated space/center to converse on an ongoing basis
  • Asking about what matters to them before creating art
  • Ask what kind of invitation would be best received
  • Where do we find the “hives?”
  • Language
  • Infrastructure
  • Human interactions
  • Ask others what “belonging” means to them
  • Bringing “Phoenix” together. We are THE Valley of the Sun
  • Just because you want to know the answer to a question doesn’t mean you will/should get it
  • Preconceived notions/expectations
  • Intersex trans-gender restrooms? Don’t ask don’t pee?
  • How can my white privilege be transformed into a powerful voice for racial justice?
  • What do we (artists) mean by change? Perception? Policy? Place?
  • What is separating us?
  • How do you determine belonging?
  • In a transient society, do we belong?
  • What is Phoenix’s shared culture?
  • How can different cultural backgrounds within Phoenix be negotiated and connected to find a sense of belonging?
  • A sense of certain groups being more displaced than others
  • Check assumptions
  • Continuous reflection
  • Why do some strive, intentionally, to not belong in a place?
  • People carry many “places” (contexts) with them when they move
  • We don’t have to resolve it today do we? Can we just explore the problem? Even further?
  • Who is included in the discussion?

2. Developing cross-sector collaborations

  • Generational gap? Why do we have to stop learning L
  • Non arts discipline engagement
  • Who do we approach because of curiosity
  • Work together
  • Networking
  • Recognize your own power and behavior through someone else’s eyes
  • Be honest with myself (and transparent) about what I want out of a project.
  • Don’t try to collaborate with every group, and accept that you will need to support your partners’ top priorities
  • Mutually beneficial collaborations
  • Alack fo common space and central community to collaborate
  • Are we aware of “plae” in our collaborations
  • Within arts (eg music + dance) vs. with non-arts (eg. music + medicine)
  • Who are the collaborations serving?
  • Work to foster and MAINTAIN relationships
  • Fighting stigmas within our own disciplines
  • What expectations are brought?
  • Think beyond known methodology
  • Know your value
  • Don’t be afraid to ask the difficult questions; it helps us understand each other
  • What type of opportunity does collaboration bred when accounting for global aesthetics and experiences
  • Changing expectations
  • Drawing from past experiences

And this Venn diagram: sticky madness

3. Listening and responding

  • Remove judgment from the dialogue
  • A response is not reqired for every thing, especially ones [that] are not well thought out. LISTEN
  • Realizing your own idea or truly responding?
  • Reacting
  • How do we teach people to listen? Role of education?
  • Who gets to respond?
  • Space to dialogue without an ulterior motive
  • Learning another’s story helps create respect and trust
  • Who initiates the listening
  • Who has the right to speak?
  • Sharing experiences to ear the right to share and listen
  • “If you want to know someone else’s story, you have to tell your own”
  • Listening to myself
  • Openness
  • Does “place” disrupt the “listening” process?
  • Who are we listening to most? Least?
  • A willingness to hear opinions that are different than one’s own
  • Teach teachers and artists how to engage in intercultural dialog
  • Allowing expectations to dissolve
  • Curiosity
  • Acceptance
  • Space for dialogue
  • Face to face connections
  • Listening to someone else and not my own thoughts
  • I want to talk less and listen more
  • Willingness
  • Every conversation across “borders” should begin by asking what three things they do not want heard/said about their group
  • Listening and responding does not simply mean our ears and voices but also through thoughts and actions
  • Traveling to different places
  • Mindfulness
  • Curiosity
  • There is a multiplicity of story. We do not always have a shared history.

And this Venn diagram:Venn2

Video of the entire symposium is available through our livestreaming partner, Howlround/newplay tv, in a raw unedited form.  High res video will be available soon on the Pave website.

Posted in Arts education, Arts entrepreneurship, arts infrastructure, Arts policy, Culture and democracy, Higher education | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

An Alphabet of Culture and Community

ABCAs part of the third biennial Pave symposium: Entrepreneurship, the Arts, and Creative Placemaking held April 12-13, the Phoenix chapter of Emerging Arts Leaders facilitated a workshop on connecting arts to communities in the Phoenix metro area (or “The Valley” as we sometimes call it).  For part of the workshop, the team distributed paper around the space, each with a single letter of the alphabet and asked people to write a single word on as many as possible that related to the theme of culture and community – either in support of strengthening communities through arts and culture or hindrances to doing so in the region.  This was the last session of the symposium, so attendance had dwindled to about 25 students, community artists, and other presenters and attendees.  I share with you here, without editing, the results of that exercise, an alphabet of culture and community:

A – altruism, acceptance, arguments, assumptions, ageism

B – Borderlands, beliefs, bustle, big business, bored, burdens (v. opportunity)

C – centralization, consciousness, church, city limits, catalyst, children, cooking, complications, Cannibalist Manifesto

D – deep listening, development, design, death, de-colonial aesthetics, dialect, dependence, distance

E – equity, enduring, engaging, educating, entitlement, expectation, emptiness

F – friend-building, fellowship, “fine” arts, food (2), fear (2), famish, family, fairness, freedom, filling empty seats

G – gender, growth, gardens, gentrification, God?, giving, graffiti, generosity

H – hunger, history, hope, housing, humanity, happiness, homophobia, heroes, heat (2), home, help, health

I – intergenerational ageism, international relations, independence, interdependence, impact, interaction, innovation, isolation(ism), immigration, I can’t hear well

J – justice, Judaism, joy, jam sessions, judgment [this last with a line through it]

K – knowledge, keep, kindle, kindness, kin

L – language, listening, love, love ≠violence, leaders, laughter, lifting, lifecycle events, learning, laughter

M – men, mobility, meaning, music (2), mastery, mystery, money, matching, magical, mindful

N – nice, nuance, neo-colonialism, no one comes, nodes, numb, numbers, narcissism

O – opportunity, organize, oppression, otherness, optimism, organizations, openness, open-minded.

P – perspective, people, pluralistic, pollution, population, privilege, places

Q – questions, quiet, quandary

R – reactive, religion, relationships, race, research, radio, respect, re-invent, reaction

S – space, skeptical, sustainability, storytime, sprawl, suburbia, spatial, separate, stigma, simplicity

T – transportation, time together, theory, trial, tangible, transition, traffic, turmoil, time

U – underrepresentation, underdeveloped, underserved, Umbanda, useful, union, unity, urban

V – vandalism, validation, venture

W – water – lots of it, work, wisdom (who has it?) women, willing, world-view, willingness

X – xenophobia

Y – yarn, yearn, youth

X – zoos

The group discussion that followed focused, in large part, on “sprawl,” how sprawl is a hindrance to “equity,” and how equity is a preequisite for healthy commmunities.  (For more from me on equity and the arts see “Diversity, Equality, Bus Lanes, and Arts.”)  There was also some discussion of food as both a carrier of culture across generations (intergenerationalism was a bit of a throughline as well) and a friendly, non-threatening way to introduce new cultures into communities.

In the next week or two, I’ll be publishing more outputs of the symposium.  You can watch video of the proceedings on the livestream.com newplay channel.

Posted in Arts education, Arts entrepreneurship, arts infrastructure, Arts policy, Culture and democracy, Higher education | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Spiraling Up

Rendering of proposed redesign of the canal at 16th St and Indian School Rd. From "Canalscape"

Rendering of proposed redesign of the canal at 16th St and Indian School Rd. From “Canalscape”

I went to a talk by my visiting colleague Nan Ellin recently.  Nan is an urbanist and visionary, as well as well-respected scholar.  She was talking about her new book, “Good Urbanism.” Her thesis is a simple one: in order to improve cities, we shouldn’t build toward sustainability by identifying problems and finding solutions but instead build toward prosperity by mining (or “prospecting,” to use her term) the assets that already exist in a place and spiralling upward from there.  Coming from her background in urban design, she understandably focuses on physical assets, in the case study she discusses, the canals of Phoenix. (Did you know Phoenix has more miles of canals than Venice and Amsterdam combined? See the Canalscape project for more info). As I mentioned in my previous post, Stern and Seifert take an analogous approach – make best use of existing assets — but focus more on human capital in their conception of “natural cultural districts.”

Can we apply this concept to the arts sector? Of course. And when we do, in a concerted way, the sector as a whole can prosper.  One example of doing so in a small way was explained in James Carter’s recent post on the ArtsForward blog.  His suggestion is to build up from the administrative capacity of artists by employing them in hybrid administrative/creative positions.  Doing so would support both artists and organizations while, and here’s what I like most about the idea, supporting the creation of new art.  There are other means too, including the “never be dark” concept of making maximum use of unused performance spaces.  This concept hit home to me as I was out walking this morning (it’s a weekend).  I passed the sprawling campus of an elementary and middle school.  Nobody will be in those buildings from Friday at 3pm to Monday at 7am.  That’s 64 hours during which a theatre company might be able to use the stage or gym for rehearsals.  The asset exists, but we (the arts sector) are not making use of it.  For fundraisers, this concept means shifting away from the “my cup is empty, please fill it or I will go thirsty” approach, to a “look at the fertile seeds we have, if you provide some water, the world will enjoy the flowers” approach.

Nan suggests starting the process of spiraling up with an inventory of assets rather than problem identification. Look at what you have, what is good, and what can be built upon as you spiral up toward prosperity and more creative places.*

* For more on Creative Placemaking, consider attending the Pave program’s third biennial symposium, “Entrepreneurship, the Arts, and Creative Placemaking,” April 12-13, 2013.

Posted in arts infrastructure, Culture and democracy, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment