•What
are the implications for organizations interested in touring if presenters are
more interested in non-traditional, international, and multi-cultural work?
I think that a very good general point from the readings this week was the idea that artists and managers need to really consider what sets their work apart from others of the performing arts industry as a whole before making the decision to tour. Yes, this is true for everything in the arts, but touring especially. What makes someone want to come to your touring production as their evening’s activity instead of any other of the myriad of choices one has when deciding what to do with their free time? It simply doesn’t make sense to produce a touring production of something that is so similar to something that may be happening locally.
Additionally, I think that when organizations are thinking about touring, they should consider how they can structure their tour around the potential educational value they can bring to the communities they are traveling to. This is especially true with the cuts to arts education across the country.
I believe that a production’s uniqueness and extra value (other than what is directly put on stage) is extremely important when presenters are so focused on non-traditional, international and multi-cultural work. It highlights the fact that shows can be so much more than just spectacle.
Finally, I wanted to bring up an interesting quote in the reading by John Gingrich in Booking Tour and Management for the Performing Arts: “While I’ve been an aggressive proponent of cultural diversity and multiculturalism, I’m not sure I ever wanted to have it sort of mindlessly… people who never understood string quartets are suddenly able to book groups from Indonesia or Sri Lanka or Bolivia with even less understanding of those musical cultures. It seems to be either a grant making deal or a last effort to be exotic and to avoid confronting the necessity of having the series be more a part of the community.” I agree with his statement—while multicultural, international work is extremely important especially with the melting-pot nature of our country, I think that “classical” works are equally as important in developing culturally informed and diverse communities.
I agree with Audrey regarding the importance of educational value. Several times in our readings it was mentioned that promoters and presenters need to know their audiences when they consider what to book in the area. Therefore, it can be a symbiotic relationship for the touring organizations as well as the presenters if a better understanding of what audiences want is translated from one entity to the other. If the presenters alerts the touring company ahead of time that their audience may need an introduction to their new piece / the exotic art form, then the performing organization can work to provide information and educational components available to their potential audiences that may (hopefully) increase their audiences in regions / cities that otherwise would not have had a demand for the work they are doing.
On one hand, if the organization (producer) is more comfortable to do classical, traditional work, while the presenter who is not that crucial on the producer's touring map is more interested in creatively new pieces, maybe they both can just wait for a better time to do business.
On the other hand, if the presenter who is looking for new pieces plays an important role in the touring market, plus the producer posses the potential to do creative thinking and producing, they can totally give it a shot. One of the easiest way to do a non-traditional, multicultural and international work is to partner with international artists/performers who are from other cultural. It's been more and more common in current performing arts market. Adding the element from other cultural smartly and appropriately to a kind of relatively mature form of performance can sometimes bring the audience unexpected good surprise. Besides, if the presenters are willing to take risk to present new pieces, that means that they are confident that their audience are open and eager to try some new stuff. It provides a good base for the producers to experiment their new ideas as well. one thing to consider for both the producers and presenters is how to keep your current audience interested while programming to new audience. In terms of this, I think Jessi made a good point. The producers and presenters can provide their audience with introduction/trailer to the new pieces before they put it on stage. It gives the audience a opportunity to understand the content, form and artist/educational value of the piece.
Speaking from personal interest, the chapter, The Road Show Abroad, was quite informative. On page 196, Becofsky states, "...a rule of thumb during the preparation period is to assume nothing, ask lots of questions, and be prepared to ask the same questions over and over again." The implications for producing abroad are multi-faceted and very complex. Planning for international tours need to be executed well in advance of the tour as there are many steps. Moreover, the plans need to be very flexible because of situational changes might arise throughout the process. Fostering relationships with the presenters abroad can help mitigate future problems that can occur.
Additionally, the organization can sometimes become reliant on the presenter abroad because of the organization's lack of knowledge. It is essential for the administration to make it priority number one to exhaust all sources of information in order to make the best informed decisions about traveling abroad. Because the focus is on the art, the administration needs to ensure that their performers are are as comfortable as possible, which can be very difficult due to lack of funds, especially in the current economic climate. Thus, the bottom line for making the decision to produce abroad boils down to the economic pay off and the level of financial constrain it poses to the organization. Becofsky says, that producing has the traditional finances associated to domestic touring as well as fees for travel, proper documentation, foreign taxes, etc.
To build upon Eric's idea that an organization can become reliant on a presenter abroad, I think that any organization touring a non-traditional, international or multi-cultural work needs to be aware of each presenter's typical season. Organization's are typically reliant upon a presenter to market and sell a production. If a presenter has traditionally booked musicals and is trying to branch out and be unconventional, they may not have the established audience base, appropriate series, or marketing knowledge to successfully present a different type of work. As Audrey mentioned, "people who never understood string quartets are suddenly able to book groups from Indonesia or Sri Lanka or Bolivia with even less understanding of those musical cultures". Organizations should ask presenters how they fit into their season schedule, and how they can make it special.
I think that a very good general point from the readings this week was the idea that artists and managers need to really consider what sets their work apart from others of the performing arts industry as a whole before making the decision to tour. Yes, this is true for everything in the arts, but touring especially. What makes someone want to come to your touring production as their evening’s activity instead of any other of the myriad of choices one has when deciding what to do with their free time? It simply doesn’t make sense to produce a touring production of something that is so similar to something that may be happening locally.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, I think that when organizations are thinking about touring, they should consider how they can structure their tour around the potential educational value they can bring to the communities they are traveling to. This is especially true with the cuts to arts education across the country.
I believe that a production’s uniqueness and extra value (other than what is directly put on stage) is extremely important when presenters are so focused on non-traditional, international and multi-cultural work. It highlights the fact that shows can be so much more than just spectacle.
Finally, I wanted to bring up an interesting quote in the reading by John Gingrich in Booking Tour and Management for the Performing Arts: “While I’ve been an aggressive proponent of cultural diversity and multiculturalism, I’m not sure I ever wanted to have it sort of mindlessly… people who never understood string quartets are suddenly able to book groups from Indonesia or Sri Lanka or Bolivia with even less understanding of those musical cultures. It seems to be either a grant making deal or a last effort to be exotic and to avoid confronting the necessity of having the series be more a part of the community.” I agree with his statement—while multicultural, international work is extremely important especially with the melting-pot nature of our country, I think that “classical” works are equally as important in developing culturally informed and diverse communities.
Audrey Kwong
I agree with Audrey regarding the importance of educational value. Several times in our readings it was mentioned that promoters and presenters need to know their audiences when they consider what to book in the area. Therefore, it can be a symbiotic relationship for the touring organizations as well as the presenters if a better understanding of what audiences want is translated from one entity to the other. If the presenters alerts the touring company ahead of time that their audience may need an introduction to their new piece / the exotic art form, then the performing organization can work to provide information and educational components available to their potential audiences that may (hopefully) increase their audiences in regions / cities that otherwise would not have had a demand for the work they are doing.
ReplyDeleteOn one hand, if the organization (producer) is more comfortable to do classical, traditional work, while the presenter who is not that crucial on the producer's touring map is more interested in creatively new pieces, maybe they both can just wait for a better time to do business.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, if the presenter who is looking for new pieces plays an important role in the touring market, plus the producer posses the potential to do creative thinking and producing, they can totally give it a shot. One of the easiest way to do a non-traditional, multicultural and international work is to partner with international artists/performers who are from other cultural. It's been more and more common in current performing arts market. Adding the element from other cultural smartly and appropriately to a kind of relatively mature form of performance can sometimes bring the audience unexpected good surprise. Besides, if the presenters are willing to take risk to present new pieces, that means that they are confident that their audience are open and eager to try some new stuff. It provides a good base for the producers to experiment their new ideas as well.
one thing to consider for both the producers and presenters is how to keep your current audience interested while programming to new audience. In terms of this, I think Jessi made a good point. The producers and presenters can provide their audience with introduction/trailer to the new pieces before they put it on stage. It gives the audience a opportunity to understand the content, form and artist/educational value of the piece.
Speaking from personal interest, the chapter, The Road Show Abroad, was quite informative. On page 196, Becofsky states, "...a rule of thumb during the preparation period is to assume nothing, ask lots of questions, and be prepared to ask the same questions over and over again." The implications for producing abroad are multi-faceted and very complex. Planning for international tours need to be executed well in advance of the tour as there are many steps. Moreover, the plans need to be very flexible because of situational changes might arise throughout the process. Fostering relationships with the presenters abroad can help mitigate future problems that can occur.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, the organization can sometimes become reliant on the presenter abroad because of the organization's lack of knowledge. It is essential for the administration to make it priority number one to exhaust all sources of information in order to make the best informed decisions about traveling abroad. Because the focus is on the art, the administration needs to ensure that their performers are are as comfortable as possible, which can be very difficult due to lack of funds, especially in the current economic climate. Thus, the bottom line for making the decision to produce abroad boils down to the economic pay off and the level of financial constrain it poses to the organization. Becofsky says, that producing has the traditional finances associated to domestic touring as well as fees for travel, proper documentation, foreign taxes, etc.
To build upon Eric's idea that an organization can become reliant on a presenter abroad, I think that any organization touring a non-traditional, international or multi-cultural work needs to be aware of each presenter's typical season. Organization's are typically reliant upon a presenter to market and sell a production. If a presenter has traditionally booked musicals and is trying to branch out and be unconventional, they may not have the established audience base, appropriate series, or marketing knowledge to successfully present a different type of work. As Audrey mentioned, "people who never understood string quartets are suddenly able to book groups from Indonesia or Sri Lanka or Bolivia with even less understanding of those musical cultures". Organizations should ask presenters how they fit into their season schedule, and how they can make it special.
ReplyDeleteIndeed -- knowing how your work will be received (and your artists in the community) is critical to touring success.
ReplyDelete