Planning and Managing Programs -- the content of our last 7 weeks. Measuring success is a component of the managing, hence my focus on that topic. That being said -- the point that was implied but not discussed is that there are two tracks for evaluation at hand in the programs: a) the actual quality of the art itself and b) the achievement of the program against stated goals or at least organization mission.
What happens if the art is less than high quality (ie it sucks) but the program succeeds? Does that matter in your opinion?
I definitely think that an organization should "practice what it preaches" and deliver the highest quality of art possible. Today I was looking over a SWOT analysis of a small theatre company for which I'm an intern. Under Threats there was a bullet point that said "Bad theater." Of course no where else in the SWOT analysis (or entire strategic plan) did the organization explain what "bad theater" was to them, but they acknowledged that consistently putting out a sub-par product would hurt their chances of meeting their goals and, arguably, be their ultimate demise. This organization, since it is small, realistically recognizes how small it is on the "food chain" of the numerous nonprofit theatres in Pittsburgh. Even if this organization is successful at creating mediocre theatre, it really is just setting itself up for failure because a smaller, younger organization could swoop in and steal its audiences with a superior artistic product. Of course some patrons are dedicated in that they will always support an organization because of the administrators that run it, but that is in no way a sustainable form of management.
ReplyDeleteIn my personal opinion, in some cases it does not matter if the art is not good, but the program succeeds regardless. I believe this because the main purpose of a program is to accomplish a previously established goal, not necessarily to produce good art. While I’m uncomfortable with the fact that I’ve stated that, because in theory we should be encouraging people to produce art of high quality, it is still possible for people to learn something, even if it is taught by or produces “bad” art. For example, when I was in high school, I worked with a children’s theater company in their theater academy. While some of the theater that was produced by the children was amazing, there was a fair amount of less than stellar acting. However, goal of the program was to teach life skills through stage skills and in achieving this goal, this program was incredibly successful. Many of the students left the program feeling more confident and ready to approach different aspects of their life. In this case, the art might have not been great, but the program successfully accomplished its goal. However, at the end of the day, if one of the goals of the company is to produce high quality art, then they should be consistently producing high quality art.
ReplyDeleteIn such case that the program succeeded in increasing ticket sales and revenues but not in meeting the goals in terms of artistic excellence or its mission, this cannot be considered as a true "success" and it will be problematic as, ideally, the internal definition of success for arts organizations should be based on their mission statements and strategic goals. Another important part when discussing this point would be the definition of artistic excellence. Who decides and evaluates the quality of art, especially in cases when the art itself is controversial? I think there should be a solid evaluation tool to analyze the "quality" as well as the definition of “success”.
ReplyDeleteGoing back to the main point, the program success without meeting the mission or without artistic excellence seems problematic for the following reasons. First of all, it clearly shows that the organization is moving toward a wrong direction that was not intended. This causes a lot of inefficiency for the organization and implies that the funds are not properly invested. Secondly, many organizations should deliver their missions and shared goals as well as keeping the high standard of artistic quality so that they can maintain a good relationship with their constituents. Donors usually invest their money because they believe in the art that they are investing and they want to see further development in such art. However, if we miss the important core beliefs or reason for being, the success cannot be sustainable.
Developing audience and increasing ticket sales are another important part of every organization's mission; if some organizations can find a way to connect more audience through providing more accessible programs rather than aiming high quality of performances, they need to revisit their mission statements or goals so that making such success to be part of their mission or goals. However, I believe that the quality of programs and success have a great correlation, meaning that the more we pursue artistic excellence, the more we have chance to deliver our mission and goals. Programs without quality may achieve success in the short-term, but we need to focus more on the long-term prosperity by pursuing both artistic excellence and the programs in line with the mission for sustainable growth.
My heart screams things like “No! No! No!” and “How could it succeed if it sucks?” to this question. But, here’s the thing: not all performances can be winners. Sometimes the best of the best get together and somehow end up creating a work that is mediocre or even downright terrible (OMG, Sam Mendes’ The Tempest at BAM was the absolute worst!). While organizations need to strive to create/produce the best quality art possible, they also need to be able to weather productions that miss the mark (and evaluate what good, if any, came out of it). I realize that some might interpret this as dangerous- that these organizations would just get complacent in producing sub-par work, I believe the opposite to be true. That, without a willingness to accept occasional poor artistic quality, an organization will lose the ability/willingness to take risks. And, for my money, risks are greater than safe bets.
ReplyDelete