One of the biggest differences that stuck out to me while reviewing the link to the Ford Foundation was the nearly complete lack of hierarchy throughout the exchange. Rather, focus was placed not only on the collaborative effort of creating the artwork, but also on information-sharing at every step of the process (between the ethnographers, artists, and staff, as well as between the various organizations involved in the program regarding best practices). Overall, this type of exchange/partnership is concerned with the creation of the work and the experience of the artist(s) in ways that the standard ‘presenting/touring’ model we’ve been discussing lately typically is not. This isn’t really surprising, though, considering the reasoning behind, and logistics comprising, projects routed in cultural exchange. Whether government-run, nonprofit-based, or highlighted by a foundation, the links provided showcased exchange programs that were deeply committed to cultural diplomacy. Unlike, say, a Broadway tour, then, there is little (or really no) talk of profit-making. Instead, phrases like “innovative arts projects for mutual benefit” and “help[ing] nations overcome long histories of reciprocal distrust, insularity and conflict” become the driving forces of these initiatives. Another difference, and this is admittedly a general one, is the length of commitment from artists. While a standard tour might continue for years, recasting performers as needed, exchange programs seem designed to retain the same artists for the duration of each project. Again, this may be a natural attribute considering the purpose of these programs.
In terms of similarities, both share a need for (and in some cases, a dedication to) community engagement and education (this especially echoes project-based touring). Put simply, both bring something to a region that wasn’t there before; they attempt to break through cultural barriers using artistic means to emphasize commonalities. In this way, a cultural exchange with dancers from Russia is not so different from a New York-based modern dance company performing in rural Mississippi.
I agree with your comments Joanna that an integral element of the exchange process is open lines of communication between artists, arts managers, and other organizations. Information sharing is essential for creating impactful and knowledgeable exchanges of artistic ideas. The video from Jimena Lara Estrada, the program coordinator for the Mexican Cultural Institute of New York, also highlights how participants develop an emotional and intellectual connection when given the opportunity to share their work processes and insight gained from their own endeavors. The exchange process allows artists to learn about the similar trials and tribulations every artist goes through with the creative process. Much more personal and artistic growth for all participants results from exchanges as compared to a standard bus-and-truck tour model.
AH! This is what I commented about last week. I'm glad we are discussing this different model of touring aka the exchange experience.
EXACTLY! This type of sharing and cross-cultural awareness is the type of relationship building that I believe can truly make a difference in a world-view. Although the arts manager, artists, and organizations are coming together to share, the tough part comes when trying to engage audiences in something they might not know anything about.
Just like the conversation about Les Mis becoming a movie and therefor creating the "mass media" recognition in perhaps not arts focused audience members who then might decide to see live theater because of name recognition, cultural exchange might not bring in the quantity of audiences that make this type of model financially favorable.
Also, Joanna, I agree that New-York can be just as foreign to rural Mississippi as Russia!
Interestingly....and this is a total tangent....there is a long history between Broadway/theatre and the movies with sharing and power networks going in both directions. In fact, in the early days of film there was a deep and close relationship as film had almost no content creation for scripts except theatre.
I agree with a lot that is going on here! Looking beyond profit making, this model allows for much more cultural exchange and dialogue, and accounts for artistic freedom. I think that in an ever "flattening" world, it is incredibly important not just as arts administrators/managers/appreciators, but also as global citizens – to understand and appreciate various cultures. Given that I believe in the power of the arts to make this kind of cultural impact, the opportunity for an artist exchange is incredibly powerful. Not only can an artist experience a different culture as an individual – she can express it for others to experience.
I also think that there is value in the cross pollination between film and theater, and the value that they have on creating mass media attention and interest in theater. One of my favorite memories as a child was sitting in my grandmother's "TV room" watching old (color-edited) musicals. Things such as "The King and I," "My Fair Lady," and "South Pacific," which were essentially film versions of a stage musical. However dated these films might be, they certainly provided name recognition for the shows, and I can remember asking my mother to take me to see the stage version when it came to town. Each of the films created an interest in song, dance, and culture (even though an American film set in Asia and produced in the early-ish 20th century may not have been the most accurate). I think that with cinematography and editing capabilities in the present day, it is possible to create an even greater alternate reality for the movie-goer, thus fostering greater social sensitivity and awareness, and interest in theater, which is perhaps the origin of the show.
For the record, I can't wait to see Anna Karenina.
One of the biggest differences that stuck out to me while reviewing the link to the Ford Foundation was the nearly complete lack of hierarchy throughout the exchange. Rather, focus was placed not only on the collaborative effort of creating the artwork, but also on information-sharing at every step of the process (between the ethnographers, artists, and staff, as well as between the various organizations involved in the program regarding best practices). Overall, this type of exchange/partnership is concerned with the creation of the work and the experience of the artist(s) in ways that the standard ‘presenting/touring’ model we’ve been discussing lately typically is not. This isn’t really surprising, though, considering the reasoning behind, and logistics comprising, projects routed in cultural exchange. Whether government-run, nonprofit-based, or highlighted by a foundation, the links provided showcased exchange programs that were deeply committed to cultural diplomacy. Unlike, say, a Broadway tour, then, there is little (or really no) talk of profit-making. Instead, phrases like “innovative arts projects for mutual benefit” and “help[ing] nations overcome long histories of reciprocal distrust, insularity and conflict” become the driving forces of these initiatives. Another difference, and this is admittedly a general one, is the length of commitment from artists. While a standard tour might continue for years, recasting performers as needed, exchange programs seem designed to retain the same artists for the duration of each project. Again, this may be a natural attribute considering the purpose of these programs.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of similarities, both share a need for (and in some cases, a dedication to) community engagement and education (this especially echoes project-based touring). Put simply, both bring something to a region that wasn’t there before; they attempt to break through cultural barriers using artistic means to emphasize commonalities. In this way, a cultural exchange with dancers from Russia is not so different from a New York-based modern dance company performing in rural Mississippi.
I agree with your comments Joanna that an integral element of the exchange process is open lines of communication between artists, arts managers, and other organizations. Information sharing is essential for creating impactful and knowledgeable exchanges of artistic ideas. The video from Jimena Lara Estrada, the program coordinator for the Mexican Cultural Institute of New York, also highlights how participants develop an emotional and intellectual connection when given the opportunity to share their work processes and insight gained from their own endeavors. The exchange process allows artists to learn about the similar trials and tribulations every artist goes through with the creative process. Much more personal and artistic growth for all participants results from exchanges as compared to a standard bus-and-truck tour model.
ReplyDeleteAH! This is what I commented about last week. I'm glad we are discussing this different model of touring aka the exchange experience.
ReplyDeleteEXACTLY! This type of sharing and cross-cultural awareness is the type of relationship building that I believe can truly make a difference in a world-view. Although the arts manager, artists, and organizations are coming together to share, the tough part comes when trying to engage audiences in something they might not know anything about.
Just like the conversation about Les Mis becoming a movie and therefor creating the "mass media" recognition in perhaps not arts focused audience members who then might decide to see live theater because of name recognition, cultural exchange might not bring in the quantity of audiences that make this type of model financially favorable.
Also, Joanna, I agree that New-York can be just as foreign to rural Mississippi as Russia!
Interestingly....and this is a total tangent....there is a long history between Broadway/theatre and the movies with sharing and power networks going in both directions. In fact, in the early days of film there was a deep and close relationship as film had almost no content creation for scripts except theatre.
ReplyDeleteI agree with a lot that is going on here! Looking beyond profit making, this model allows for much more cultural exchange and dialogue, and accounts for artistic freedom. I think that in an ever "flattening" world, it is incredibly important not just as arts administrators/managers/appreciators, but also as global citizens – to understand and appreciate various cultures. Given that I believe in the power of the arts to make this kind of cultural impact, the opportunity for an artist exchange is incredibly powerful. Not only can an artist experience a different culture as an individual – she can express it for others to experience.
ReplyDeleteI also think that there is value in the cross pollination between film and theater, and the value that they have on creating mass media attention and interest in theater. One of my favorite memories as a child was sitting in my grandmother's "TV room" watching old (color-edited) musicals. Things such as "The King and I," "My Fair Lady," and "South Pacific," which were essentially film versions of a stage musical. However dated these films might be, they certainly provided name recognition for the shows, and I can remember asking my mother to take me to see the stage version when it came to town. Each of the films created an interest in song, dance, and culture (even though an American film set in Asia and produced in the early-ish 20th century may not have been the most accurate). I think that with cinematography and editing capabilities in the present day, it is possible to create an even greater alternate reality for the movie-goer, thus fostering greater social sensitivity and awareness, and interest in theater, which is perhaps the origin of the show.
For the record, I can't wait to see Anna Karenina.