Let me preface this post by saying that I had no idea that international arts partnerships were such a well-established phenomenon! I was pleasantly surprised to see that there are such formal systems in place, even at a governmental level, that give arts groups the opportunity to embark on these partnerships.
I think traditional tours and international partnerships serve different purposes in terms of utilizing what an arts group has to give to, or trade with, the communities it visits. With tours, the organization shares its art form as a product (in the tangible sense, not necessarily the commercial sense), most often channeled through performances. In the case of partnerships, the "currency" consists of the elements of the artistic process, such as the artists' resources and/or educational outlets.
Additionally, tours and partnerships differ in their overall function. Tours mainly serve an organization's existing audience base: touring groups are not always filling a market void in the communities they visit (for example, the Cleveland Orchestra isn't really displacing - or replacing - the Vienna Philharmonic by performing a concert in Vienna), so it is very likely that patrons attend touring events at least in part due to the organization's name and reputation. However, that's not to say that touring organizations don't also raise awareness of their brand and art form among new audiences. On the other hand, international partnerships serve community members in general, sometimes even at an individual level. With these partnerships, it seems that there is a somewhat concrete goal built in, such as helping young musicians train for placement in a professional ensemble. While not in the same operational vein as the models in the links Brett provided, the New York Philharmonic just finalized a partnership with the Shanghai Symphony that goes beyond a tour by helping run an orchestral training ground for Chinese music students: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/arts/music/new-york-philharmonic-and-shanghai-symphony-become-partners.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0
There are things that both tours and partnerships have in common as well. The public may perceive both tours and partnerships as an act of diplomacy between two cultures, where arts groups are ambassadors for the entirety of the cultures they originate from. Embarking on either a tour or an international partnership reinforces the universality of the art form being presented - with our volatile global landscape, it's easy to forget that in many cases, members of different cultures can mutually appreciate an artistic experience.
There are actually some significantly wonderful books on Arts as Cultural Policy, but it sadly focuses mostly on visual art (one by my former colleague, Naima Prevots, focuses on Dance). That being said, art itself is a political act in its existence, thus exchange programs that are formalized or not still create cultural dialogue and engagement (we are all ambassadors when we travel :-)
I like to think of national tours as a way in which we create our cultural identity and international partnerships as a way that we share our cultural identity with others. National tours of Broadway shows and other performances help to define Americanness and provide common references by establishing the American performance canon. When American companies partner with international companies they create a dialogue - an exchange of ideas that helps to identify the similarities and differences that define our respective cultures.
I completely agree with Kate (and later Lauren). I think that international partnerships are a wonderful way to engage each community on a general level and on an individual level. They are also a way to learn about the cultural identity of others and to share our cultural identity with others. Yet, I don't think we can't forget the necessity of sharing "Americanness" with Americans and international tours sharing its own culture with its citizens. I believe it is part of what makes members of each culture have a desire to learn and pay to see these international tours (it's a catalyst in the sense that it creates curiosity).
As you mentioned, it seems that international exchange experience at an individual level has its purpose mainly on developing young professionals. I have noticed a training program provided by SITI Company, which one of my friends, an actress, took part in. According to its mission statement, the SITI Company is run with three components: the creation of new work, the training of young theater artists, and a commitment to international collaboration. (http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/13-3730731/saratoga-international-theater-institute.aspx) My friend, who is a Korea-based actress, had an opportunity to train under an internationally renowned artistic director in New York and to perform with other international actors and actresses, which I believe the program benefited both the organization and the participating performers altogether.
Then how can the intercultural exchange be promoted? It reminded me of another case I have observed in visual art field. This case reveals how a global for-profit corporation can be a facilitator as well as a sponsor for international exchange programs. A few years ago, an exhibition was held in Finland, which had a section of highlighting Korean media artists. The exhibition organization asked a branch office of Samsung Electronics in Finland for a support for the program. In order to promote Korean media artists by giving them international exposure opportunities and to collaborate with the organization based in Finland for future brand promotion opportunity, Samsung Electronics mediated between two groups. Samsung introduced a couple of Korean media artists to the Finnish organization and provided the artists with travel cost to the exhibition installation.
As I read through the article about L3C business model, I thought that it is now getting more challenging for arts organizations to solely stand as a pure nonprofit organization. Like the L3C model indicates, part of for-profit elements, here, the idea of investment, can be adopted for achieving socially beneficial mission. As Difonzo discussed in his article about L3C model, potential gain from investment for social projects and organizations may boost their willingness to fund the arts projects. Likewise, involving for-profit companies can also be initiated by touching the companies’ needs to support socially beneficial projects such as promoting intercultural exchange or developing young professionals.
In implementing the L3C Model, it is essential to have a development department that is capable of donor cultivation on a very high level. Arts Not for Profits, in terms of performing arts entities, depend on funding from their patrons in order to produce quality productions. The investment in the art is already there, but it is a matter of knowing the clientele well enough to move them from benefactor level to the investor level. The best way for this to occur is having a department that has the analytic function to pinpoint these patrons. Knowing how to attract socially responsible venture capitalist can help.
In order to ensure solvency, arts managers should treat their organizations like businesses and not only look at the double bottom line but take their entities to the next level and look at the triple bottom line, as well. If an organization is truly going to be socially responsible, it cannot ignore the environment (the triple line). I find it very disconcerting that every arts institution I have worked for had a complete disregard for the environment.
I am aware this off topic, but while reading Difinzio's blog post, it made me think of all the environmentally irresponsible NFPs I have come into contact with. In my opinion, there should be better federal regulation environmental responsibility. The term "triple bottom line" is currently a buzz word in the entrepreneurial world and it would behoove arts entities to incorporate this into their infrastructure. Money is always a concern, but arts executives should also make the socially responsible decision to include environmentally responsible decisions when planning for the future.
With respect to the donor cultivation, there is an interesting text titled "ROI for nonprofits" that essentially argues that nonprofits should think and report out to their donors in a stakeholder/shareholder mindset.
I do think many arts nonprofits are environmentally savvy but have no reason or infrastructure demand to report out in such a way? I love the idea, though!
I have always been interested in the utilization of visual art as propaganda in other countries. Throughout history, policy has existed to encourage artistic exchanges that would help better the representation and mentality of one country to another. Even the famous Julia Child's husband, Paul Child, was working to help increase American-French relations by showing American artists' exhibitions - mainly in Paris.
My concern has always been in the content of these exhibitions and how politics control what messages are conveyed through these exhibitions. Sometimes works can be created to hurt another country's reputation or shed a false light. What kind of filters and control is exerted to sensor what message is being presented through these international partnerships (especially those promoted and funded by the governments)?
I agree with many of the points that Michelle made about the similarities and differences between tours and exchanges between nations/cultures. However, I'm not sure that I agree with Michelle's comment that, "international partnerships serve community members in general, sometimes even at an individual level." I think that while this is sometimes true, that it is also important to discuss more broad partnerships besides just one-off events or fully integrated, personal exchanges. I think that more often than not, international partnerships fall somewhere in the middle of these two.
For example, the Chicago Shakespeare Theater in Chicago, IL has an annual program called "World's Stage" (more info here: http://www.chicagoshakes.com/main.taf?p=7,10,2) that is curated to bring performers from across the globe to the Chicago community. As their website states, the community "benefit tremendously from personal interactions with their international counterparts, including rare chances to attend master classes and forums featuring our esteemed guest artists." And I think that this is a key distinction from some of the other partnerships mentioned because there is a both a performance and an educational component that allows for both individuals AND the community to engage and understand the visiting culture and their opinions/insights/techniques/etc.
Let me preface this post by saying that I had no idea that international arts partnerships were such a well-established phenomenon! I was pleasantly surprised to see that there are such formal systems in place, even at a governmental level, that give arts groups the opportunity to embark on these partnerships.
ReplyDeleteI think traditional tours and international partnerships serve different purposes in terms of utilizing what an arts group has to give to, or trade with, the communities it visits. With tours, the organization shares its art form as a product (in the tangible sense, not necessarily the commercial sense), most often channeled through performances. In the case of partnerships, the "currency" consists of the elements of the artistic process, such as the artists' resources and/or educational outlets.
Additionally, tours and partnerships differ in their overall function. Tours mainly serve an organization's existing audience base: touring groups are not always filling a market void in the communities they visit (for example, the Cleveland Orchestra isn't really displacing - or replacing - the Vienna Philharmonic by performing a concert in Vienna), so it is very likely that patrons attend touring events at least in part due to the organization's name and reputation. However, that's not to say that touring organizations don't also raise awareness of their brand and art form among new audiences. On the other hand, international partnerships serve community members in general, sometimes even at an individual level. With these partnerships, it seems that there is a somewhat concrete goal built in, such as helping young musicians train for placement in a professional ensemble. While not in the same operational vein as the models in the links Brett provided, the New York Philharmonic just finalized a partnership with the Shanghai Symphony that goes beyond a tour by helping run an orchestral training ground for Chinese music students: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/arts/music/new-york-philharmonic-and-shanghai-symphony-become-partners.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0
There are things that both tours and partnerships have in common as well. The public may perceive both tours and partnerships as an act of diplomacy between two cultures, where arts groups are ambassadors for the entirety of the cultures they originate from. Embarking on either a tour or an international partnership reinforces the universality of the art form being presented - with our volatile global landscape, it's easy to forget that in many cases, members of different cultures can mutually appreciate an artistic experience.
There are actually some significantly wonderful books on Arts as Cultural Policy, but it sadly focuses mostly on visual art (one by my former colleague, Naima Prevots, focuses on Dance). That being said, art itself is a political act in its existence, thus exchange programs that are formalized or not still create cultural dialogue and engagement (we are all ambassadors when we travel :-)
DeleteI like to think of national tours as a way in which we create our cultural identity and international partnerships as a way that we share our cultural identity with others. National tours of Broadway shows and other performances help to define Americanness and provide common references by establishing the American performance canon. When American companies partner with international companies they create a dialogue - an exchange of ideas that helps to identify the similarities and differences that define our respective cultures.
DeleteI completely agree with Kate (and later Lauren). I think that international partnerships are a wonderful way to engage each community on a general level and on an individual level. They are also a way to learn about the cultural identity of others and to share our cultural identity with others. Yet, I don't think we can't forget the necessity of sharing "Americanness" with Americans and international tours sharing its own culture with its citizens. I believe it is part of what makes members of each culture have a desire to learn and pay to see these international tours (it's a catalyst in the sense that it creates curiosity).
DeleteAs you mentioned, it seems that international exchange experience at an individual level has its purpose mainly on developing young professionals. I have noticed a training program provided by SITI Company, which one of my friends, an actress, took part in. According to its mission statement, the SITI Company is run with three components: the creation of new work, the training of young theater artists, and a commitment to international collaboration. (http://www.guidestar.org/organizations/13-3730731/saratoga-international-theater-institute.aspx) My friend, who is a Korea-based actress, had an opportunity to train under an internationally renowned artistic director in New York and to perform with other international actors and actresses, which I believe the program benefited both the organization and the participating performers altogether.
ReplyDeleteThen how can the intercultural exchange be promoted? It reminded me of another case I have observed in visual art field. This case reveals how a global for-profit corporation can be a facilitator as well as a sponsor for international exchange programs. A few years ago, an exhibition was held in Finland, which had a section of highlighting Korean media artists. The exhibition organization asked a branch office of Samsung Electronics in Finland for a support for the program. In order to promote Korean media artists by giving them international exposure opportunities and to collaborate with the organization based in Finland for future brand promotion opportunity, Samsung Electronics mediated between two groups. Samsung introduced a couple of Korean media artists to the Finnish organization and provided the artists with travel cost to the exhibition installation.
As I read through the article about L3C business model, I thought that it is now getting more challenging for arts organizations to solely stand as a pure nonprofit organization. Like the L3C model indicates, part of for-profit elements, here, the idea of investment, can be adopted for achieving socially beneficial mission. As Difonzo discussed in his article about L3C model, potential gain from investment for social projects and organizations may boost their willingness to fund the arts projects. Likewise, involving for-profit companies can also be initiated by touching the companies’ needs to support socially beneficial projects such as promoting intercultural exchange or developing young professionals.
The LC3 is an interesting option to what some companies already engage in through for-profit subsidiaries.
ReplyDeleteIn implementing the L3C Model, it is essential to have a development department that is capable of donor cultivation on a very high level. Arts Not for Profits, in terms of performing arts entities, depend on funding from their patrons in order to produce quality productions. The investment in the art is already there, but it is a matter of knowing the clientele well enough to move them from benefactor level to the investor level. The best way for this to occur is having a department that has the analytic function to pinpoint these patrons. Knowing how to attract socially responsible venture capitalist can help.
DeleteIn order to ensure solvency, arts managers should treat their organizations like businesses and not only look at the double bottom line but take their entities to the next level and look at the triple bottom line, as well. If an organization is truly going to be socially responsible, it cannot ignore the environment (the triple line). I find it very disconcerting that every arts institution I have worked for had a complete disregard for the environment.
I am aware this off topic, but while reading Difinzio's blog post, it made me think of all the environmentally irresponsible NFPs I have come into contact with. In my opinion, there should be better federal regulation environmental responsibility. The term "triple bottom line" is currently a buzz word in the entrepreneurial world and it would behoove arts entities to incorporate this into their infrastructure. Money is always a concern, but arts executives should also make the socially responsible decision to include environmentally responsible decisions when planning for the future.
With respect to the donor cultivation, there is an interesting text titled "ROI for nonprofits" that essentially argues that nonprofits should think and report out to their donors in a stakeholder/shareholder mindset.
DeleteI do think many arts nonprofits are environmentally savvy but have no reason or infrastructure demand to report out in such a way? I love the idea, though!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have always been interested in the utilization of visual art as propaganda in other countries. Throughout history, policy has existed to encourage artistic exchanges that would help better the representation and mentality of one country to another. Even the famous Julia Child's husband, Paul Child, was working to help increase American-French relations by showing American artists' exhibitions - mainly in Paris.
ReplyDeleteMy concern has always been in the content of these exhibitions and how politics control what messages are conveyed through these exhibitions. Sometimes works can be created to hurt another country's reputation or shed a false light. What kind of filters and control is exerted to sensor what message is being presented through these international partnerships (especially those promoted and funded by the governments)?
I agree with many of the points that Michelle made about the similarities and differences between tours and exchanges between nations/cultures. However, I'm not sure that I agree with Michelle's comment that, "international partnerships serve community members in general, sometimes even at an individual level." I think that while this is sometimes true, that it is also important to discuss more broad partnerships besides just one-off events or fully integrated, personal exchanges. I think that more often than not, international partnerships fall somewhere in the middle of these two.
ReplyDeleteFor example, the Chicago Shakespeare Theater in Chicago, IL has an annual program called "World's Stage" (more info here: http://www.chicagoshakes.com/main.taf?p=7,10,2) that is curated to bring performers from across the globe to the Chicago community. As their website states, the community "benefit tremendously from personal interactions with their international counterparts, including rare chances to attend master classes and forums featuring our esteemed guest artists." And I think that this is a key distinction from some of the other partnerships mentioned because there is a both a performance and an educational component that allows for both individuals AND the community to engage and understand the visiting culture and their opinions/insights/techniques/etc.