Social Media Intern: A Risk?

As social media gains momentum, both non- and for-profits are encouraged to give their web presence more attention and employ an Online Community Manager in their offices, thereby freeing up other employees whose job descriptions do not include "Update Blog," "Monitor LinkedIn Group Activity," and "Tweet." Image credit by Matt Hamm

In this economy, however, hiring for a new position is a financially daunting concept for non-profits. The name of the game is simplicity, streamlining, and enabling the most efficient, cost-effective business model.

Solution? Putting interns and volunteers to the work of managing an organization's online presence.

Ahh, internships. I remember my first summer internship as an undergraduate, with a very successful Chicago-based theater company. I was given stacks of brochures, testimonials, subscription forms, and shown "the right way" to put them all together. For three months I assembled press kits and marketing folders, cleaned up the files and archives, and ran menial errands. Had I been somehow incompetent, irresponsible, or destructive, there was little damage I could have done with my limited responsibilities.

But an intern charged with maintaining the online community of an organization, or managing social media--that intern has a LOT of power. For organizations lacking a strong online presence, there are great guidelines for making the most of a social media intern. If you do a quick search for the position online, job descriptions, in addition to managing Facebook pages and blogs, include "providing copy for our website," "developing the online marketing of a new documentary," and often seek an individual who is "self-motivated," and "works with little direction."

One concern about entrusting this responsibility to an intern is explored here by Heather Gardner-Madras. While Gardner-Madras questions whether "social media [will] become so important that current experimental forays will come to haunt their organizations...[will they] regret not making a serious investment in this part of their communications now or will they be glad that they were smart enough to take advantage of the skills and smarts of low budget resources while getting under way?"

In my mind, this is secondary to what I believe is a more immediate concern: who are we letting behind the wheel when we allow an intern with a short-term investment manage the direction of our organization's social media development? A non-profit's mission and goals are often shared by its long-term employees. The carefully-selected hires who toil over databases and grant-writing efforts, one hopes, are working for a mission in which they believe on a personal level. But an intern, eagerly snapped up by an organization looking for enthusiastic, cheap labor (and there's nothing wrong with that) may seek experience over idealism, want to find new, funky ways to use the tools of the web, and build a resume, rather than save the world or promote the arts. Is this student acting with your organization's best interest in mind?

I don't think it's a stretch to assume that a theater's intern is less likely to identify himself by his internship than the theater's Artistic Director--the intern's personal identity is stronger than his or her professional identity. The longer that intern holds the position, or the more s/he is paid for it, the greater his or her committment to the organization rather than simply the work.

So, this intern, who is less concerned about professional identity, is entrusted to represent your organization across the internet, and is associated with the operations of the organization. When s/he posts a blog, or updates a group, s/he is attributed with ownership, and the connections between your organization and that intern's online presence (personal blog, flickr account, Facebook page, etc.) are forged. S/he fields the discussions and questions that come through these social channels, and is the point of contact for your online audience. If that intern doesn't feel the same connection to your organization, are you missing out on the power of social media by not being represented by someone as deeply committed as you?

What if your organization is devoted to preventing animal cruelty, and your intern has a public photo album of a weekend hunting trip? Or your organization targets a more conservative, moneyed audience, and your intern has borderline-explicit photos and comments posted to his or her Facebook page? Certainly, these may be extreme examples, but what happens in this case? Are these grounds for giving ultimatums (block your profile while employed here)? What if that intern is not getting paid? If there is not a direct and obvious link between the intern's personal online identity and the work done on behalf of the organization, does it matter what the intern does online on his or her own time?

I don't know if there's an answer to the risks involved in intern-sourcing social media, and I certainly can't say that this is necessarily going to be the case with every intern. I am, after all, an intern myself.

Who I Am...or, Who Am I?

As summer commences (and let's face it, it's difficult to pretend it's still spring in these temperatures) I am here to introduce myself as your newest blogger. I could tell you about myself, my work history, and so on. You could proactively seek out online articles about or by me, or see my connections on LinkedIn, or, with my "permission," follow @Corwin82 on Twitter. Or, if your RSS feeder has just the right combination of words, you may already be following my "personal" blog.

Leading me to muse about the blurred relationship between online personal and professional identities. I am aware that this is not some groundbreaking topic, but the regular complexities of managing our personal/professional identities include unique challenges when the job in question is in the non-profit sector. Nobody, truly, can ever act with complete impunity.  Yet somehow, when acting in cyberland, the user is instilled with a sense of anonymity and security while simultaneously exposing him/herself to EVERYONE else online.

Historically, people have always had to worry about the affect of out-of-office behavior on their professional life. The degree of real-world self-disclosure or choice of actions might take into account the place, time, and audience. An individual bitching about a coworker might choose to do so to her husband, or a close friend over coffee. Likely not in an inter-office memo, or a radio broadcast, or to the coworker's best friend. Similarly, a person dealing with an addiction might discretely go to a support group 25 miles from home and not have to fear being exposed on the front page of the corporate newsletter.

But now we are provided the internet.

You may believe that your blog will only be viewed by trusted friends (so you can vent about your job, boss, financial situation, custody battle, and so forth). You can choose to allow certain people to see your Facebook page, follow your Tweets, and access the photo album of your latest trip to Vegas. You "control" your channels of self-expression, and thus, you feel safe communicating as indiscriminately as you would face-to-face with close friends.

Conversely, you may feel safely anonymous online, believing that your clever handle, pseudonyms and codes for people and places, and cryptic profile ensure your blog will only be viewed by strangers (so you can confess infidelity, "secret" desires, the self-gifted bonus you finagled by skimming a little off the top). After all, in the tangled web of the wide world of cyberspace, what are the chances that someone you know in REAL life will learn anything more about you than what you would disclose face to face? There's no danger in your tennis partner learning about your secret loathing for him, or your boss finding out that you want her job at all costs, or your recent, devastating prognosis that could impact your insurance eligibility or ability to find work. Because you feel safe, you don't feel the need to censor your thoughts.

The internet isn't your bosom buddy, nor is it the complete stranger you meet while traveling and share many shots of ouzo, too much information, and nothing else. It's not the privacy of your bedroom, and it's not your cubicle. It's not strictly personal, nor strictly anonymous. There's no clear delineation of where "you" in your secret, most personal self ends and "you-as-representative-of-your-work" begins. The internet is a sphere that conflates all representations of ourselves into a strange new beast that is, ultimately, accessible by anyone, anywhere. There are entire companies devoted to managing how we come across online, new tools to decide who is allowed to know what, and a lot of very interesting discussions being held (online!) about this conundrum.

I would argue that people who work in academia and politics, for the most part, have long been cautious about what is documented and where. But as younger, more web-reliant generations enter the workforce, and an online presence supplements, and replaces, other media outlets, the question of how we present ourselves (and are perceived) online becomes increasingly imperative. Web expression is no longer dominated by angst-ridden teenagers blogging about broken hearts. Those former teenagers are now working online on behalf of corporations like Domino's Pizza (to counteract the damage done by angst-ridden teenagers), the Pope, and the White House.

As artists, or professionals in the arts, who use the internet to muse, pronounce, declaim, advertise, and in other ways reach out, what are we to do to delineate who we are as professionals from who we are as people? Is there a difference? Must there be? How does this influence how our work is perceived/received? There are the channels that we identify as more "professional," like LinkedIn, an organization's own website with its own blog, podcast, etc. What about the ones we identify as mainly "personal," such as Facebook (increasingly used by organizations, companies, and causes)? And the ones that are something of a crossover, like Twitter? Must we always be conscious of representing our organization? What if I am employed by an organization that is involved in practices which are in conflict with my personal beliefs? What if as an individual I engage in activities which conflict with the mission of the organization for which I work? And, as we, as arts non-profits, look for ways to cut costs and bring in more outside help to manage our organization's online presence, are we taking a risk by entrusting this job to volunteers and interns, whose online power may equal (or surpass) our own?

Each question leads to additional questions, so I will do my best to approach these over the next few posts.

(And it's nice to meet you!)

All the news that's fit to Tweet

It seems that over the past week Twitter has made it into the headlines for both being an amazing new communication tool, and how ridiculously it is being used.  This past Monday on the Daily Show John Stewart pointed out some of the effects that Twitter has on our perception of both the news media and congress.  While many members of Congress were Twittering through Obama’s most recent speech, the inane messages seemed to detract from the gravity of the event. As John Stewart said, “..these messages don’t enlighten or inform, it’s a gimmick that actually lessens the credibility of institutions in desperate need of authority." Regardless of the method of communication, why should we care unless you have something meaningful to say. Both the London Times and The Washington Post have tried to address the question as to why we twitter, only to come to the conclusion that we have a terribly underdeveloped sense of self and need to be reassured that we exist. From the London Times...

The clinical psychologist Oliver James has his reservations. "Twittering stems from a lack of identity. It's a constant update of who you are, what you are, where you are. Nobody would Twitter if they had a strong sense of identity."

"We are the most narcissistic age ever," agrees Dr David Lewis, a cognitive neuropsychologist and director of research based at the University of Sussex. "Using Twitter suggests a level of insecurity whereby, unless people recognise you, you cease to exist. It may stave off insecurity in the short term, but it won't cure it."

This is generally why I can't stand most Twitter feeds.  Yes it is a new and powerful means of communication, but it seems to me that right now it is primarily being used as a posturing mechanism to help aging organizations appear youthful and with it.  The majority of the Twitter feeds out there are either devoid of content, incredibly trivial or mundane.  They only communicate that someone exists and not much more.

That being said, there are some really amazing ways that Twitter is being used.  Organizations that understand the importance of real time communication with their audiences are pushing the boundaries with Twitter and capitalizing on the unique ways that they can receive audience feedback.

The Twitter Art feed at the Brooklyn Museum is part their new 1stfans program, and allows members access to tweets by contemporary artists every month, and has featured works by artists such as Mary Temple and An Xiao that utilize the social feedback aspect of Twitter.   An Xiao's piece was about Morse code and the history of instant communication in which 1st fans were asked to feed to tweet using Morse code, while Mary Temple's piece Currency provides a daily link to a drawing made from current news articles about important world leaders in the media.

Conferences are also beginning to utilize Twitter Back Channels to allow their audiences to discuss the content of a presentation in real time without disrupting the event.  This is in essence what we tend to get scolded for in school, passing notes, making fun of a presenter's overuse of the word "nascent," and whispering to a neighbor about the content of the presentation.  More often than not, these conversations are being spurred on by the speaker, and Twitter is creating a real-time avenue for discussion that is centered around the speaker's presentation.  This is creating a non-invasive avenue for audience participation and places the focus of these events back on the community of people attending instead of just sitting at the feet of the keynote speaker.

These organizations are utilizing Twitter feeds for audience engagement and a way for inducing a flattened level of communication.   The Brooklyn Museum also seems to be using the Twitter feed as an interesting source of revenue, as 1stfans membership costs $20 a year.

I can't help to think that it might be useful way to get instant feedback on the progress of projects and tasks at work, especially if certain employees are telecommuting or out of the office.  And the fact that updates can be sent by phone, allows updates to happen when access to a computer is limited.

Share what you think about Twitter, and some of the possible real world applications of using Twitter for audience (or employee) engagement in the comments below.

Surviving the Economic Meltdown as a Nonprofit

Several posts from around the arts blogging community have addressed the issue of fundraising in financially tough times. ("Tough" is an understatement, I know.) TechSoup recently posted an entry that pulls together some of the posts, and I thought it was important to share the link here. Obviously, there are no silver bullets, but it's helpful to see an overview of other organizations' strategies for fundraising when wallets are light. If nothing else, it's good to know that all nonprofits are sharing in this struggle.

So what technology tools are important for surviving the economic downturn (aka: recession, depression, slowdown, bump in the financial road)?

Social Media - Facebook, MySpace, Flickr and other online social resources are still the best way to use the Web to create community and investment in your organization. And if someone is truly invested in you, they will continue to support you regardless of their financial situation. Activate your network and get others to spread the news about how great you are.

Donation Buttons, Links and Widgets - (Please note: This post is not intended to endorse Barack Obama. Rather, this is an endorsement of his fantastic digital asset team. I feel there are valuable lessons to be learned by the nonprofit world from Obama's online campaign strategies.) Barack Obama's digital campaign efforts have been astounding. Even if he doesn't win the upcoming election, his campaign's online fundraising success has been extraordinary. One thing that has led to this success is the sheer number of times the campaign asks for money. In every message I receive from them, be it via Web, email or mobile device, there is a donation link or button. And because of the way their communications have been tailored and carefully crafted, I don't think of them as spam. In my opinion, if someone has opted into your lists, they're telling you they're interested in your work. As any fundraising pro will tell you, the secret to success is not being afraid to ask for money over and over and over again. Also, the Obama team hasn't asked me to give large gifts. Typically they're asking for $25-50. It's much easier and more likely for me to give $25 a few times a year than it is for me to give $250 in one lump sum. This may sound odd, but why not nickel and dime your supporters?

Online Fundraising Events - Rather than dishing out tons of money for artist travel, catering and rental fees when you want to offer fundraising events, why not try to host a few fee-based online opportunities? For instance, an arts organization could team up with a local band to offer an online concert followed by a chat session. You could require a donation in order for a user to access the concert and followup chat. Obviously, there is no virtual replacement for a live gala, but you may be overlooking some valuable opportunities for providing donors additional online content.

An important thing to remember is that in times of financial distress, it is more important than ever to make sure you have a clear and measurable communication strategy. For more information on establishing clear and effective communication goals, check out the Spitfire Strategies Smart Chart 3.0. This doesn't focus exclusively on digital communications, but it can be easily tailored for any type of message.

Save the Museum, Save the World

Today not only marks the return of "Heroes" (for super-hero fans like me), it also marks the beginning of Superstruct, a multi-player online game from the Institute for the Future (IFTF) in collaboration with the Center for the Future of Museums, an initiative of the American Association of Museums.  Superstruct is the first Massively Multiplayer Forecasting Game—designed to help solve real-world problems by harnessing the collective wisdom of participants to create a collaborative, open source simulation of a possible future.

Based on projections culled from forecast research conducted by IFTF, the following extreme scenarios are proposed for museums as part of the game:

"It’s 2019. Your museum is informed that an international group currently touring your building was exposed to the latest deadly strain of Respiratory Distress Syndrome. You are instructed to lock down the museum and shelter staff and visitors in place while authorities determine whether anyone is infected. Are you prepared to deal with this?"

Other snapshots from 2019:

• Is your museum ready to help your community cope with an influx of refugees fleeing climate change, food shortages and political upheaval?
• How will your operations change in the face of soaring energy prices or collapse of the food production and distribution system?
• Your museum depends on its website to deliver information and attract visitors, but your content has been corrupted repeatedly in the past few months by hackers attempting to undermine your credibility. How do you adapt?"

To read more about the game, visit www.iftf.org/node/2098.

The Center for the Future of Museums intends to use the content contributed by museums as a jumping-off point for further planning and discussion within the museum field. To receive e-mail alerts from the Center for the Future of Museums about the museum-specific storyline in Superstruct, contact CFM.

One Man Enters, Two Men Leave (Kinda)

It's not quite Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome -  there are no chainsaws, no axes, and no high pitched whistles - but the recently developed and now-on-the-market Aguru Dome does make things interesting. A person enters the dome. Bright lights flash. A cornucopia of photos are taken. Many, many computers think. And, Bob's your uncle! A digital, 3D model of their face is created. A rendering so good, it can be then used to create incredibly realistic digital effects in film (think action sequences), video games, and so on.

Now, I'm not a CGI expert, so you can get better details from the BBC article I read (thanks to artsJournal), this DV.com article, and the Aguru Images Web site. However, I have been known to be an actor from time to time. The Aguru Dome makes me feel just a wee bit uncomfortable. Why in the world would I step into that thing? (Not that anyone would want a 3D model of my face.) I get in, and you get a digital copy of my face that, theoretically, can replace me so well that people won't notice the difference. And you have it forever.

There has been debate about whether CGI could replace live actors for some time now. There have been cases of actors and their performances being digitized, but facial rendering has been one of the weak suits of CGI. This technology seems to get us closer to technicians being able to animate the human face, without needing a live actor to do anything other than sit still for a few minutes.

I wonder if the actors' unions have started talking about this yet.  The Aguru Dome ships out to customers in September 2008.

Building a Web App in Four Days for $10,000

TechCrunch has a really interesting piece by Ryan Carson about building a Web application in just four days. Naturally, arts organizations don't have the human resources and $10,000 to throw around, but the read really drives home how quickly new apps can be deployed given current technologies.

The result of Carson's team's efforts is Matt (Multi account twitter tweeting). Useful? Maybe. Beside the point? Absolutely.

What I Learned at the Americans for the Arts Convention...

Remember those essays you had to write in elementary school - e.g. "What I did for summer vacation"?  That's sort of what this post feels like since Brad chastised me for being remiss in my blogging duties.  Of course, I fired him - again.  I do that a lot.  It just never seems to stick. AFTA held this year's convention in Philadelphia - the city of brotherly love (and sisterly affection).  The hotel sold out long before I climbed out of my procrastination long enough to book a room.  Thankfully, I found a room at a nearby hotel - directly across the street from where they were filming Transformers 2.  If only I hadn't gotten bored and walked out of Transformers, then I might have been more starry eyed.

After three days in Philly with Americans for the Arts, I return to the Burgh with three essential take-aways:

1.  Affirmation -- In a recent (soon to be published) environmental scan of the arts community conducted by Americans for the Arts, it has been determined that, "The influence of technology, unconstrained access, and the new immediacy of communication on traditional and new and evolving production/delivery mechanisms is not yet entirely understood."  While the influence of technology on production/delivery may not be fully understood, the impact of technology on the arts community has been seismic.  Between AFTA and the NPAC conventions this month, I come back to the Burgh knowing that our Technology in the Arts conference, blog, podcast, and site resources are truly useful tools for the field to assist them in navigating unfamiliar terrain.

2.  Futurists Rock -  The Keynote Address was given by futurist Andrew Zolli, founder of Z+ Partners and organizer of the PopTech conference, in the manner that I've yearned for at all of the conferences I have attended throughout my professional life:  highly engaging, provocative and witty.  He touched on a multitude of issues - from innovation and "the tyranny of choice" to experiential economics, "the Long Tail" and "Citizen Brand." I think it was the first time that I went to a conference where the keynote speaker talked for 45 minutes, and I wanted to hear more!  For those of you who were not able to attend AFTA this year (or for those of you who just want to hear more of what Andrew has to say), check out these video clips on YouTube.

3.  The RenGen is Here - On Friday, I had the pleasure of listening to Patricia Martin talk about the premise behind her book RenGen: Renaissance Generation - The Rise of the Cultural Consumer and What It Means to Your Business.  Here's a brief bit from Patricia about the event that inspired her to do the research for this book:

I tried to run out to the AFTA bookstore to buy RenGen - but of course, it was already gone.  Amazon, here I come!

My two favorite concepts that she talked about during her session are:

• RenGen is a psychographic NOT a demographic. What characterizes this psychographic?
  • Lifelong learners
  • Time-starved idealists
  • Sensualists
  • Eco-conscious
  • Fusionists
  • Inner-directed creatives
• Collective Creativity - a post on the concept from her blog.

Okay, folks, I have blogged enough today to keep the Brad at bay.  I pinkie-swear to do better!

Who wants to be a curator?

Many arts organization Web sites offer users the opportunity to contribute to their online programming in some way, but it's typically an artificial engagement practice. Rarely do users ever offer up anything truly artistic, and it's even rarer still for the organization to showcase the work in a meaningful way. However, the Brooklyn Museum is taking the idea of "you" as the online curator to a new level and letting Web visitors select the pieces for an upcoming exhibit in its physical space. Its upcoming photography show Click! A Crowd-Curated Exhibit lets users register and adjudicate work that was accepted as part of a March 2008 open call. The submitting photographers were asked to "consider Brooklyn's transformation over the years, its past and its present, and submit a photograph that captured the 'changing face(s) of Brooklyn.'"

Now that the call for submissions has closed, the Museum has launched a Web interface that walks users through the registration and evaluation process. Rather than just showing images and asking users to vote for their favorites, though, the Brooklyn Museum offers evaluation guidelines. This is a real exhibit, and the Museum wants thoughtful consideration from its curators.

The Click! curator interface presents the image, its title and a description. Clicking the "Viewing Size" functions will increase or decrease the image size for those who wish to adjust for their screen resolutions or who wish to scrutinize the photo's detail. Users can also see thumbnails of the next images to be evaluated.

When the "curator" is ready to evaluate an image, he or she needs only to adjust the evaluation slider between "Most Effective" and "Least Effective" based on two questions presented by the Museum:

1. How well does the image illustrate or express the theme "The Changing Faces of Brooklyn"?
2. Do you consider this an exceptional image, given the technique and aesthetics?

"Curators" have until May 23, 2008, to submit their evaluations, and the exhibit will run from June 27-August 10, 2008, at the Brooklyn Museum.

While it's true that the crowd-curated approach doesn't work for all types of exhibits, the Brooklyn Museum has chosen a medium and theme that works well with an audience evaluation process. They ask about "technique and aesthetic," but the primary question is about Brooklyn's transformation.

So I guess my questions are:

1. Though it certainly isn't necessary to be an art expert to be qualified to evaluate the Click! submissions, should one at least be fairly familiar with Brooklyn?
2. Is this type of non-expert evaluation - as one recent blog reader mentioned - contributing to the dumbing down of art?
3. If enough people evaluate the work, does the group consensus validate that piece for a public show?

I'd be most interested to hear what formally educated curators have to say about the crowd-curated concept.

Wikipedia's Credibility

A documentary by Dutch filmmaker IJsbrand van Veelenhat premiered recently at the Next Web conference has been posted on YouTube. Clocking in at about 45 minutes, it's not a quick clip, but it's definitely worth your time.

...And in the old-fashioned tradition of eating words...

Maybe we do get some extras out of the deal, too! A piece I just saw in today's NYT describes new research that suggests musicians (specifically conductors) are able to simultaneously process sound and sight more effectively than the average person. So there ya go. The benefit of art is art. And the benefit of training musically is heightened senses. (Who woulda thought?)

Technology in the Service of Art

Lately I’ve been experimenting with Ableton’s Live software, which allows me to create interesting arrangements, construct new pieces from scratch, and generally play with music. Live lets me lay down every single layer within a track… by myself… fast… with thousands of different sounds at my disposal. It’s fantastic. Best of all, the anal retentive freak in me is able to go back and revise music I record to make sure that in the “saved” version of the piece, I hit the note smack dab at the beginning of the third thirty-second of the beat, rather than the hairs-breadth off that I actually played. Far from weaning me off traditional music making, Live has deepened my respect and love for the craft of artistry. I find that when I’m fiddling around with the digital manifestation of the music, trying to bring down the volume on the pedal point tones, or simply arrange the notes into a harmonic minor scale with just the mouse, I’m incredibly impatient with a task that should just HAPPEN under my finger tips.

Don’t get me wrong. Technology is wonderful. With Photoshop I can manipulate my images without investing in a full dark-room setup. With Illustrator I can create versatile graphics that can be used just about anywhere. With Live I can be an entire orchestra without leaving my home. And technology is especially wonderful when it enhances rather than detracts from art. When it allows me to do things that aren’t otherwise feasible. When it lets me experience things I can’t normally access.

Like the use of technology in Lois Greenfield and the Australian Dance Theater’s new performance, Held. For this work, Greenfield photographs the dancers mid-movement and the images are instantly projected onto a screen. This is a perfect exemplification of the Technology in the Service of Art principle. Greenfield notes in the Telegraph that in these images “you are seeing something you couldn't without the benefit of the photograph. I capture 1/2,000th of a second and our brains can't register that. But we can see it on a picture."

Held uses technology to intensify our ability to cherish and appreciate the craft of the artists. It’s a beautiful marriage of media because it respects the strengths and limitations of every component involved, from the camera to the artists to the audience.

Is Art and Shopping the new Art and Entertainment?

In our Strategic Planning class last night, our professor and CEO of the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra, Larry Tamburri, made mention of the current trend to link art with entertainment. On city websites and in tourist guides, "Arts & Entertainment" abounds- correlating performance and visual arts spaces with movies, bowling alleys and roller rinks. While these sectors, along with sports, are competitive for the use of our leisure time, one has to ponder whether the arts is becoming diluted or just marginalized by efficient marketing. This discussion, however, becomes completely moot as a whole new space and concept has presented itself in Winston-Salem, NC.

Wal-mArt

It's mildly disturbing and yet I can't help to acknowledge that it might just be another form of corporate sponsorship. There is also the chance that it was just a clause of the negotiation that allowed Wal-Mart to set up shop there.

A true test would be to see if the sculptures are "Public Art" or "Art in a Public Space." Without having a good picture to make reference, I would be really interested to see if Wal-Mart finally designed a building that reflected the community architecture, and by extension, contracted a sculpture that reflected its environs. �

Interpreting Culture, Part 2

As the shelf life of “new” continues to be defined by smaller and smaller time increments, how do we as arts administrators help artists to do their jobs – ask the timeless questions – in a timely fashion? I’m a big fan of John Seabrook’s 2001 book NoBrow: the Culture of Marketing and the Marketing of Culture, a series of essays that illustrate how these two phenomena work in contemporary American society. In one essay, Seabrook compares his own life to that of his father’s, noting the evolution of high-brow/low-brow distinctions are made through clothes: his father had a suit for every occasion, whereas “a Chemical Brothers T-shirt will get me further in many places than my father’s suit.”

One implication of Seabrook’s message is that in order to communicate effectively in a time when identity is defined by taste, arts organizations must realize that an artist’s message will be read in the specific context of a highly customized, consumption-driven life. People filter “high art” messages through the same lens they use to see billboards, print advertising, television commercials, product placements, movie trailers, product jingles…

What tools can we use to deliver artists’ content quickly and effectively? What role do we play in making sure their voices are heard clearly, and on time (particularly on a day like today)? How do we “buy in” to all the exciting two-way communication technology tools available to us now without “selling out”?

A vision of our future

Conference presenter Erika Block shared this video during her session, which examines the future of media and information and a forecast of changes at Google, Amazon, and The New York Times.

Music on the Brain...

I read a great article on Wired.com today about a new book by neuroscientist Daniel Levitin called This is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession. The book discusses our neurological reaction to music and examines why humans have loved music since cavemen were banging stones together. (Okay, I'm just assuming cavemen banged stones together for musical entertainment... that's not necessarily scientific fact.)

Read the full WIRED article.

What is the cost of saving art?

In 2001, the Taliban destroyed two 1,500 year old stone Buddhas in Bamiyan. Five years later, UNESCO is proposing to rebuild the statues at an estimated cost of $30 million each. In case you are not familiar with this story, you can read more in an article featured in the Washington Post earlier this week. Several thoughts and emotions ran through my mind as I read this article. First and foremost, I was disgusted at the violent destruction that took place in the Bamiyan valley. It is beyond my comprehension to understand how humans can completely disregard the sanctity of a site and crush the culture and religion of a group of people. But there are far worse crimes against humanity happening all over the world, and so I continued to search for more articles on the stone statues.

My disgust quickly turned to despair. There are two sides to every story, and Mullah Mohammed Omar, then leader of the Taliban, has his own reasons for destroying the statues. He claims to have ordered the destruction of the statues after he was refused foreign aid for food and medical attention. Instead, money was offered solely for the conservation of the statues. You can read more about the Taliban side in an article posted by the Asia Society on Asia Source.

We may never know or understand why the statues were destroyed, however I think the bigger issue is figuring out where the people of Afghanistan go from here. I wonder if spending $30 million dollars to try to put the pieces of a statue back together is the smartest and most favorable decision. My opinion is that the money would be better spent on food, agricultural tools and medical facilities. Rather than funnel millions of dollars into the preservation of an object, why not prepare the people of the Bamiyan valley for a more stable future? I understand the need to preserve art, particularly that which reflects cultures long gone. At this point, however, the residents in the Bamiyan valley are also on the verge of disappearing. And I think preserving their lives is more important than putting back the pieces of a statue.

My Computer is My Best Friend

An article, reporting on a survey by the woman friendly Oxygen network, shows some very interesting and long overdue trends with woman and technology. ”Diamonds are no longer a girl's best friend, according to a new U.S. study that found three of four women would prefer a new plasma TV to a diamond necklace.” More and more women are buying and using technology. Read the article here.

Although I must question if owning a technological device is the same as understanding how to utilize the device and how the device works. Using a computer to write email and to surf the Internet is very different then writing code or designing web pages.

Even though a plasma screen TV is tempting, I think I would pick the diamond necklace. I have to think about the long-term benefits. While the plasma TV is more entertaining, it will almost worthless in twenty years. Technology advances so fast that my new plasma TV will soon be ancient technology. On the other hand, the diamond necklace will not wear out and retain its value for years. Unless, they find a cheap way to mass-produce diamonds, which is possibility, again the endless technological advances.

Arts and culture boosting local economy

Lately there seems to be an abundance of attention focused on the impact of arts and culture on local economy. I thought I would share a couple of articles I found on the Cultural Commons Web site: Think tank promotes arts as an economic draw Detroit Free Press, 7/23/2006

Creativity seen as economic key Toronto Star, 7/25/2006

This is a trend I saw in a couple of Texas cities. In 2003, the city of Dallas announced plans for the Dallas Center for the Performing Arts, an amazing collection of venues in the Arts District of downtown Dallas. Indeed 2003 was a great year for Dallas as it also marked the opening of the Latino Cultural Center and the Nasher Sculpture Center.

The sleepy town of Marfa in West Texas credits its economic revival through arts to Donald Judd. You can read more about it on TravelandLeisure.com.

Finally, I must mention Austin, my favorite city to visit in Texas. Earlier this year, the Blanton Museum of Art celebrated the grand opening of its new building with an incredible attendance of 13,000 people. Thousands of visitors also flock to the capital city every spring for South by Southwest (SXSW), an annual film and music festival in its thirteenth year. If you are looking for something off the beaten path and have some vacation time, I highly recommend visiting any of these cities.