605 1p

slkdgha

Curtains_The_Future_of_the_Arts_in_America_----_3_Brave_New_World_Part_I_The_Arts_in_America_in_2035.pdf

Home >English homework help >605 1p

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 B R AV E N E W WO R L D,

PA RT I

T H E A RT S I N A M E R I C A I N 2 0 3 5

Over the coming two decades, the trends that began (or have been accelerating) since the year 2000 will cre- ate a new arts ecology in this country and abroad. Improvements in technology coupled with new distribution methods will alter both arts institutions and arts programming. A second generation of children without substantial arts education in the schools will reduce demand for the classical arts. And the aging of our donor base and audience will create financial instability throughout the sector.

Of course, people will always have a need to express themselves — regardless of race, economic status, or educational level. The cave dwellers of Lascaux demonstrated this over 17,000 years ago. The drawings there are monuments to a human desire to comment on our surroundings. We can see in our mind’s eye the great paint- ing, sculpture, architecture, dance, music, and theater that have emerged from every era in history — from the ancient Greeks to the Renaissance Italians to the Tudor English. There is no scenario which suggests that arts-making will stop.

People in the future may have different tastes, but they will still need to express their opinions on life, love, and their environment in song, movement, picture, and word. Live performances will still happen, but there might be fewer of the large ensemble casts that we enjoy now. The cost of mounting such performances, the ready availability of cheaper substitutes, and the accessibility of excellent online performances will work to reduce the number of live-and- in-person events. And such events will be expensive — tickets will cost up to $1000 each for performances by major groups, limiting

Kaiser, Michael M.. Curtains? : The Future of the Arts in America, Brandeis University Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/bu/detail.action?docID=1882462. Created from bu on 2019-03-31 15:52:52.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. B

ra nd

ei s

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

. . . . . . . .

Curtains?

demand to the very wealthy or the truly passionate, with even the biggest devotees able to attend only a few events per year.

With fewer performances, arts institutions will become less reli- ant on ticket sales and more dependent on fund-raising. This trend has already been in evidence. Twenty years ago, the Metropolitan Opera earned 60 percent of its total revenue from ticket sales. In 2012, that figure was only 27.6 percent, with 44 percent coming from fund-raising and 10 percent from its movie-theater broadcasts. And while the Metropolitan Opera may be one of the largest performing arts institutions, it is certainly not the only one to experience this decline in ticket sales.

Long before 2035, it is likely that many more productions will be available for viewing at home, on demand. While these perfor- mances should attract sizeable audiences, there will be a reduction in overall demand for the classical arts, owing to another two de- cades without comprehensive arts education and the passing away of many current arts lovers and supporters. Far fewer donors will want to support the arts. The people who will be forty-five to sixty- five years old in 2035 are now in their late twenties and early thir- ties. As they represent the first modern American generation that did not receive systematic arts education, they are likely to dedi- cate their philanthropy to other sectors, including healthcare, ed- ucation, and social services. Most of the support for the arts that remains will go to the largest institutions, which will have national and international impact through their broadcasts. These groups will benefit from high visibility, potent fund-raising mechanisms, and strong boards. Such assets will make them attractive to funders motivated by the desire for social status and access to famous artists.

This does not mean that diverse sectors of the population will not remain involved in the arts. People will continue to sing and dance and paint and act. There will be smaller professional and commu- nity-based organizations that cater to local audiences; these will provide outlets for new artists and new art forms. Such organiza- tions will always exist, giving citizens and local performers the op- portunity to flex their creative muscles.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. B

ra nd

ei s

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

. . . . . . . .

Brave

New World,

Part I

There also will be a host of computer-driven tools that allow peo- ple to write, compose, act, sing, and perform music. Although the antecedents of these tools already exist, they will be improved sub- stantially. People will conduct virtual orchestras, act in movies (re- plete with special effects), design theater sets and costumes, and compose opera scores in their living rooms. They will be able to record the results and share them with friends via new online so- cial networking platforms. The millennial generation has demon- strated a great love of participation. They have been distinguished by their community spirit and performed a great deal of volunteer work, even as young teens. They also enjoy and expect active par- ticipation in their entertainment — they vote for their favorite sing- ers online, play interactive games, and enjoy performances that feature audience participation. The availability of these astonish- ing methods for making art will present cheap, convenient, and en- gaging substitutes to buying tickets to performances.

Some of these home-generated performances will “go viral,” becoming even more popular than the performances broadcast by large institutions. In 2011, the Metropolitan Opera broadcasts reached 3 million viewers; the following year over 1 billion people watched a YouTube video featuring the South Korean singer Psy! When the average person can create a video with special effects, high production values, and full musical accompaniment, the number of competitive online offerings will become huge.

Many other forms of entertainment will be available online. There will be numerous “stories” not created originally for television or the movies, such as the Netflix series House of Cards, which has won several Emmy awards. These also will be special productions, not unlike the live broadcast of The Sound of Music with Carrie Un- derwood; these will be created for online sales, however, without the backing of a television network. To consumers, such backing will be irrelevant. Writers and directors will be especially prized. Such stories may actually appear to “happen” in your home — through the use of holographic technology. One might get to see the murdered corpse in your living room, then have the chance to solve the crime by interviewing suspects as they sit before you, and

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. B

ra nd

ei s

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

. . . . . . . .

Curtains?

examining the evidence yourself. It will be difficult for a small mod- ern dance group to compete with that!

New books and music will be available on demand, as will concerts and other performances. Higher-definition screens with higher- quality sound duplication will make concerts and other musical events far more satisfying. Speaker design and configura- tion will make it feel like one is truly there in the live audience, rep- licating the overtones that we feel inside the concert hall. Although traditional movies will still be available, they will be streamed, on demand, to our computers and mobile devices. It is not a certainty that movie theaters will continue to exist, however, let alone mov- ie-theater broadcasts of opera, theater, or ballet. Virtually every de- vice will be voice-actuated, if not thought-activated; the argument over which kind of keypad works best will likely be moot.

Home theaters will be the norm, with customized seating, screens, and sound systems all controlled by a single, simple de- vice. Headphones will not be necessary to avoid offending the neighbors, as the directional speakers will only be heard by those in a specific location.

As communications and teleconferencing systems improve, telecommuting will become far more common. With more people working from their homes, this will lower the costs of commuting and reduce the need for business travel. And with home theaters and vastly expanded home shopping capabilities, people will have few other incentives to venture out.

With all of these new tools, arts participation will become as sol- itary as enjoying one’s iPad is today. Technology will make com- munications far easier, reducing the need for social interactions in public places. Some people may still enjoy congregating to share an entertainment experience, but current trends do not suggest that they will represent the majority of Americans. The cost of maintain- ing a theater will have to be spread over a smaller base of ticket buy- ers, meaning ticket costs will go up and watching a performance in public will be considered a luxury.

Along with sporting events and religion, the arts had been one of the few activities that people did together. But technology has given

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. B

ra nd

ei s

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

. . . . . . . .

Brave

New World,

Part I

us the ability to do whatever we chose, at our own time and pace. Even in 2013, sports “participation” increasingly meant watching at home. Ticket prices were so high, travel felt like a waste, and hd television changed the home viewing experience. At-home viewing allowed for additional features not available at the game itself. The RedZone package, for example, showed any nfl football game in which a team was within the twenty-yard line of its opponent (and thus facing a scoring opportunity). One no longer had to watch an entire football game in order to enjoy the highlights.

Following a similar model, opera buffs will tune in the high- lights instead of waiting for Celeste Aida or La donna è mobile. Even church services will be “delivered” for home viewing, as organized religions will forfeit the sanctity of a house of worship in order to at- tract more followers.

Although museums will remain the secure repositories of great artistic and historical objects, it will no longer be necessary to visit a museum to see a curated exhibition. These will be distributed on demand to our computers, along with large quantities of sup- porting materials — letters, historical documents, maps, and other types of information. One will even be able to curate one’s own ex- hibition by assembling the works one wishes to display and pro- viding commentary; such exhibitions will be shared online as well. Advances in holographic technology will enable sculptures to be “displayed” in one’s living room in three dimensions. Because it also will be possible to beam the great performers of the past and present into our living rooms, the now unlikely scenario of Michael Jackson dancing next to the Winged Victory could become a com- monplace reality.

One of the reasons that people will not attend as many public performances is because they will be working harder; spending more hours at their computers and having even less predictable time off. In 2013, new communications and Internet technologies already meant that everyone was available all of the time. People were texting on ski slopes and at the gym. One could attend a the- ater performance and, at intermission, watch a sizable portion of the audience use their smartphones until the curtain rose again. In

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. B

ra nd

ei s

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

. . . . . . . .

Curtains?

many instances, they were transacting some form of business. But people in 2035 will not be earning more in order to live a life of lei- sure, they will be earning more simply to earn more.

This will result, in part, from changing goals and ambitions. In the 1950s, the American dream consisted of a comfortable mid- dle-class home with two cars in the garage. In the latter half of the twentieth century, that dream changed to becoming a millionaire. By 2010, people dreamed of being billionaires, and there were al- ready many in our midst (the U.S. total was 442). Achieving this level of wealth requires a focus and dedication not often in evi- dence fifty years earlier.

By 2035, there will likely be little or no formal arts education available in our public schools. While both educators and indus- try leaders will recognize the value of arts education to developing a creative workforce, school systems simply will not have adequate budgets. The funds required to pay the health-care and living ex- penses of the aged will be astronomical. With no political will to deal with these costs, government funding for anything other than absolute necessities will be cut to the bone. Online arts educa- tion will have to suffice, augmented by the efforts of arts institu- tions to fill the breach. But without organized effort, these episodic encounters will not create the arts background that will nurture a significant involvement with the arts. Where will the audiences, volunteers, donors, and board members of the future come from? Will the donor base become too narrow just at the time when arts organizations will be most dependent on fund-raising? Will this mean that only a few arts organizations can truly prosper?

There will, of course, be many people who still love the arts. Un- fortunately, there will simply be a lot fewer of them as a percentage of the total population. These will be the lucky ones who were ex- posed to the arts as children; the ones whose parents and teach- ers loved the arts and wanted to ensure that their children had the same opportunities as they did.

Demographic trends will affect whether parents have the time and money to bring the arts to their children. There is already a growing bifurcation in the ages of U.S. parents. Many are having

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. B

ra nd

ei s

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

. . . . . . . .

Brave

New World,

Part I

children when they are very young, while another segment is wait- ing longer to form their families. Over one-third of U.S. residents in 2010 had at least one child before the age of twenty (and 79 per- cent of these were unmarried). For a high percentage of these teen- age parents, the arts will be unaffordable. Young parents must work hard just to take care of basic needs and do not often get the educa- tion they need to create a more secure lifestyle for themselves and their children. Even with a desire to introduce their children to the arts, the disposable time will simply not be available.

For those who wait until their thirties and beyond to have chil- dren, finances may be less of an issue. But will there be the nec- essary love for the arts? Will there be time to bring the children to piano lessons and ballet class? Or will their careers be so demand- ing — and interest in the arts so low — that their children will be offered other, more easily delivered forms of entertainment? Will parents whose interests lie elsewhere feel the pressure to introduce their children to flute lessons and acting classes? It seems unlikely.

P E R F O R M A N C E S I N 2 0 3 5

Besides reducing the demand for seats at performances, these trends also will decrease interest in classes, workshops, and other sources of auxiliary income, which will cause additional fiscal problems for arts organizations. As these organizations face finan- cial challenges, they will be motivated to offer less programming overall, as well as less challenging or surprising work. This will make the arts look dull compared to other entertainment options and will weaken demand even more. This vicious spiral will result in the demise of many arts organizations.

Those performances that still occur are likely to fall into one of two basic categories. The most visible will be those featuring world- class and world-famous organizations and stars. While a lucky few might be able to afford tickets to see these performances in per- son, most people will be watching them in their own homes. These events will be mounted only in large venues, in important cities, and will be extremely expensive. In 2013, Broadway theaters al- ready could charge up to $600 for a ticket to a show featuring a

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. B

ra nd

ei s

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

. . . . . . . .

Curtains?

celebrated actor, and the Metropolitan Opera charged $300 for an orchestra seat on a regular basis. Even regional companies such as the Seattle Opera, Minnesota Opera, and Florida Grand Opera had seats that sold for over $200 a performance. One can only imagine how expensive tickets will be in the future, when there are fewer performances available and we have experienced another two de- cades of inflation.

The second kind of performance will consist of relatively low- budget productions with modest ticket prices, for which artists will be paid poorly if at all. These will feature local artists with an ear- nest desire to express themselves and groups of young performers for whom this is the only way to gain experience. Many of the orga- nizations that produce such programming will be short-lived. With modest management resources, an absence of stars, and a lim- ited amount of publicity, it will be difficult for them to establish a substantial donor base. This will make it simply too hard to main- tain operations. These smaller groups will work extremely hard to mount a performance; they will struggle to build an audience, earn only a pittance, and fail to attract a base large enough to make the next production better and more profitable. Many will last for a sea- son or two, then quietly disband in pursuit of more sustainable ven- tures. For many people living outside of major cities — and those in major cities without access to a great deal of disposable income — these groups are likely to provide the only opportunities to see live performances on a regular basis.

It will be difficult for arts organizations that are now considered “mid-sized” to prosper. Local performances will satisfy the needs of many in the audience, and online performances by the largest institutions will dominate the media, viewed by hundreds of thou- sands — if not millions — of people. Creating an audience base of people willing to leave their homes for a mid-level performance will be difficult. More challenging still will be the task of finding enough donors who know about the organization, value its work, and are willing to underwrite the costs of production. While mid- sized organizations play a huge role in the current arts ecology, by 2035 they are likely to be relatively scarce.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. B

ra nd

ei s

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

. . . . . . . .

Brave

New World,

Part I

M A R K E T I N G I N 2 0 3 5

Creating visibility for arts organizations of any size will become more challenging. It isn’t clear that the word “newspaper” will mean much anymore. People will receive their news online, in real time, with real-time video and commentary. There will be so many opportunities to personalize the stream of news and entertainment that it will not be attractive to read the same newspaper that some- one else reads. People will get reports on those stories and topics of most interest to them, without having to sort through stories and advertisements that are of little interest.

Online news distribution also will offer greater opportunities for celebrity journalists who can forego the support of an estab- lished publication. We have already witnessed the beginning of this trend with the defections of Nate Silver from The New York Times to espn, Ezra Klein from The Washington Post to Vox Media, and Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg from The Wall Street Journal to nbc Universal. Many journalists will come to believe they could gain a larger readership, more control over their own work, and earn far more money by becoming independent. This will create a small group of very powerful opinion-makers in all forms of jour- nalism, including arts criticism. The resulting lack of diversity of opinion will provide a challenge for those institutions and artists not favored by the powerful few. The quantity of widely read, pro- fessional criticism will be vastly reduced, making it far harder to build visibility than it is today, especially in smaller cities.

These few, potent voices will be counterbalanced by the myriad of amateur opinions that find a presence on the Internet. It is likely that new platforms will aggregate criticism by genre and by perfor- mance; these services will provide more exposure for those writing reviews. Rating systems based on audience surveys will automati- cally tabulate and display information for each performance. One will not have to wait for these ratings, since they will be displayed in real time. Although there will be no shortage of opinions, there will likely be a shortage of educated and professional critics, since only those with a strong following will be able to earn a living from their reviews.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. B

ra nd

ei s

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

. . . . . . . .

Curtains?

A range of devices will provide these ratings and reviews — tab- lets and smartphones, for the old-fashioned types, but also smart watches, online glasses, and perhaps a device that communicates through one’s ear or even directly to one’s brain. (This might seem improbable now but who would have predicted twenty-five years ago that a handheld device could provide access to so much on- line data!) The pressure to communicate immediately and to have huge quantities of data accessible at all times will only reinforce the bias for bite-sized shreds of information at the expense of in-depth analysis or reporting.

While news will be transmitted faster and more directly than ever, it is unclear what this means for the feature stories that are now so important for creating visibility in the arts. Will there still be magazines? Will short-form reporting — or tweet-like messages — replace serious arts journalism? Will feature writers find a way to be compensated for their work? Will there be enough interest in the arts to enable cadres of journalists and critics to cover local events? Or will significant arts events become so concentrated in large cit- ies that only a small core of professional arts journalists will exist (and only in those cities)? If so, small and mid-sized organizations, as well as those in more rural areas, will find it extremely difficult to attract coverage — making it more of a challenge for any of them to gain a larger following. The press has been an important ally to many arts institutions. The visibility provided to arts events and personalities by media coverage is crucial for creating an institu- tional brand. If this attention is no longer available, arts institutions will lose another major support structure. (We’ve already lost the help of the for-profit recording industry, which has withered if not actually died.)

This will mean that arts organizations will have to create visibil- ity entirely on their own — posing a new set of challenges for arts marketers. Creating a higher profile without the assistance of the media will force arts managers to look to other techniques. But which ones will work the best?

Direct mail will not be competitive in a world where other forms of communication are virtually free. And with the quantity of mail

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. B

ra nd

ei s

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

. . . . . . . .

Brave

New World,

Part I

falling substantially, there will be fewer deliveries. (Saturday deliv- eries are already threatened.) Given the growing expectation that information will be available immediately, fewer delivery days re- duce direct mail’s potency and attractiveness even further.

Posters have never been particularly effective for selling tickets — except in very small, focused areas, such as university campuses. Reduced interest in the arts means that ticket purchasers will be even less concentrated. Marketing efforts therefore must be spread over a wider territory.

Newspaper advertising will disappear along with newspapers; if a few printed newspapers remain, their circulation will be too low to provide a significant marketing boost.

Online advertising, via e-mail blasts, Web sites, and social media platforms, will become the dominant focus of arts marketing. The total volume of online advertising will be so substantial, however, that competition for attention will be fierce. Arts institutions will have to find ways to keep their messages from being blocked by spam filters. Because social media can have an important impact on sales, campaigns to build followers will rival those to build member- ship levels over the past decades. Finding the optimal Web sites on which to advertise will require a great deal of data and strategy. In 2013, one could rely on the Web site of the daily newspaper to have the attention of much of the potential audience. But by 2035, no sin- gle site is likely to claim the majority of the local community; our at- tention will be split between hundreds of platforms and selecting the appropriate place to advertise online will be far more difficult.

Because it represents the only technique that is likely to remain potent, the amount of online arts marketing will continue to in- crease substantially even as the number of arts organizations falls. In this glut of messaging, smaller organizations will have a chal- lenging time attracting any attention whatsoever. The largest in- stitutions will be motivated to mount huge marketing efforts, not unlike the movie campaigns of today. Millions of dollars worth of sales and donations (and advertising revenue) will be at stake with every broadcast. The use of micro sites to sell productions is likely to become common. (Museums have already begun to experiment

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. B

ra nd

ei s

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

. . . . . . . .

Curtains?

with micro sites for specific exhibitions.) Smaller organizations simply will not be able to match these campaigns. Facebook and Twitter may be extinct by 2035 — we are already hearing predic- tions of Facebook’s demise among younger users, who already pre- fer texting to e-mail. Over time, other platforms will emerge — each faster, more powerful, and more user-friendly than the next. Suc- cessful arts institutions will need the flexibility and capital required to move from platform to platform, taking advantage of the oppor- tunities to reach millions of people at very low marginal cost.

A RT S E D U C AT I O N I N 2 0 3 5

Although reading and writing will remain required skills, they will recede in importance as video, audio, and holograms become the norm. Many people will still read books — literature will not be- come extinct — but the vast majority of books will be read online and printed books will be a luxury; bookstores will all but disap- pear in most cities.

The current trends in educational methodology will continue; there will be far more online learning than classroom learning, es- pecially at the college level. With students already struggling to pay off student loans, online courses will offer a far less expensive op- tion for earning a degree. As other efforts are made to reduce the costs of education, achieving economies of scale will be prized — lessons or lectures that can be distributed to thousands at a time via the Internet will be considered desirable.

While online learning was considered a novelty a decade ago, in twenty years it will be the norm, especially for so-called “special” subjects such as the arts; this trend will apply even at the prima- ry-school level. Just as we expect a small group of online journal- ists to become stars, so will a select corps of celebrated educators. Not every university will survive; as online education becomes the norm, a few select institutions will dominate the Internet.

O R C H E S T R A S I N T H E F U T U R E

It is highly likely that we will have fewer professional symphony or- chestras in the decades to come. While community and university

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. B

ra nd

ei s

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

. . . . . . . .

Brave

New World,

Part I

orchestras will continue to provide opportunities for amateur play- ers to perform and for smaller cities to enjoy live music, one must expect that the number of professional ensembles will fall. This will, of course, reduce the number of people who have access to live per- formances of virtuoso musicians and further limit interest in clas- sical music. Those who still care about the art form will be able to watch broadcasts from the several world-class ensembles that sur- vive the shakeout, such as the Vienna Philharmonic, London Sym- phony Orchestra, and Los Angeles Philharmonic. This reduction in demand won’t be a new phenomenon — every orchestra faces the challenge of attracting interest from an audience that increasingly turns elsewhere for entertainment. It is instructive (and depress- ing) to note that during one week in January 2014, the number- one selling classical album, which featured the violinist Hilary Hahn, sold only 341 copies! If this represents the baseline of interest in classical music, the future is not bright: the vast majority of classi- cal music enthusiasts are already over the age of fifty.

In fact, it is safe to say that more than a few orchestras will go bankrupt. With demand falling and the most loyal donors passing away, several ensembles will accrue such large deficits that they simply cannot survive. This is especially likely in organizations whose boards and administrative staffs do not plan effectively for the coming changes in the arts environment. There are many who believe that programming more Beethoven and Tchaikovsky will create enough demand to enable an orchestra to survive; they are wrong.

Some boards will try the “Minnesota method” of calling for dras- tic salary cuts. In some cases, this will result in a serious erosion in the base of support; in others, management and musicians will fail to reach an agreement on wage reductions and the orchestra will close. The Minnesota Orchestra was such an acclaimed ensemble that politicians, journalists, and members of the public united to create pressure for a settlement on both the board and the musi- cians. When a similar problem is faced by a less famous orchestra, there will be fewer editorials, fewer columns, and fewer letters. It is entirely possible that the organization will simply close, without

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. B

ra nd

ei s

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

. . . . . . . .

Curtains?

much notice. Such encounters will embolden board members of other orchestras to attempt the same approach, thinking that mu- sicians will agree to their demands out of fear. As a result, we will witness an epidemic of labor problems in the orchestral world in the decades to come. Over time, job security likely will become the key focus of union demands in collective bargaining sessions; sal- ary growth will be a secondary consideration.

When an orchestra closes, it is unlikely that a similar ensemble will spring up in its place. Most attempts to start new orchestras from the wreckage of old ones result in smaller, less potent groups than before. Musicians’ salaries tend to fall dramatically, as the new symphonies rely a great deal on earned income at the start. Contri- butions to new organizations tend to be lower, and a smaller ad- ministrative staff is left to do a myriad of tasks, leaving less time for fund-raising. A healthy organization sometimes emerges over time, as was the case when the Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra followed the demise of the New Orleans Symphony, but such resur- rections will be far harder to accomplish in the future. Assembling a sufficient group of volunteers and donors will be a significant chal- lenge in any but the largest of cities, as even a small professional or- chestra will require a budget of several million dollars a year. Such ensembles — and many mid-sized orchestras as well — will find it difficult to compete effectively with broadcast concerts and other forms of entertainment. It is the largest, most prominent orchestras that will have the best chance for survival.

Some orchestras will attempt to widen their base of support by building residences in multiple cities. After the demise of the Flor- ida Philharmonic Orchestra, for example, the Cleveland Orchestra began offering three weeks of performances in Miami each year. This move not only extends the orchestra’s season, but also pro- vides opportunities for fund-raising in the South Florida market. That only three weeks of performances satisfy demand in the re- gion must be noted with dismay. But as more orchestras begin to close, expect the survivors to mimic this scheme.

Other orchestras will attempt to survive by merging with a near neighbor. When two orchestras perform less than 100 miles apart,

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. B

ra nd

ei s

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

. . . . . . . .

Brave

New World,

Part I

for example, there will be pressure to combine operations as re- sources become tighter and demand remains weak. Some logical partners in the United States include Dallas and Fort Worth, and Washington, D.C., and Baltimore. It is likely that demand in one of these cities will be insufficient to support a full-time orchestra. When that occurs, a single orchestra might serve two nearby com- munities, giving performances, offering educational and outreach programming, and even touring on occasion. A merger would allow one set of (well paid) musicians and administrators to re- ceive ticket revenue and donor contributions from two cities. Such arrangements would provide far more job security for musicians and allow the new institution to afford better music directors, solo- ists, and guest conductors. These mergers will not happen without a great deal of union and public protest, of course, but the econom- ics suggest that this approach makes sense and, in the end, eco- nomics usually win out.

Despite modest demand, there will still be a few national and international orchestras that make recordings and videos (for electronic distribution); these activities will be viewed as essen- tial marketing and outreach vehicles. When a high-profile orches- tra, conductor, and soloist combine for an important performance, there will be demand for Internet broadcasts. Although these ven- tures will bring in some extra revenue for the artists, the requirement that it be “special” will be acute. In a world with an endless array of entertainment options — plus sports, politics, and news available on demand — arts programming will have to fight to stand out.

This will pressure the world-class symphonies to mount block- buster programs in order to attract the share of online users they need to earn profits, win sponsors, and maintain visibility. We al- ready see orchestras like the New York Philharmonic and the Los Angeles Philharmonic creating special projects out of concert pro- ductions of musicals and operas with all-star casts. Unfortunately, it is rare that a purely symphonic concert receives the same level of attention. The tension between artists (who want to perform new and adventurous repertory) and marketers, fund-raisers, and fi- nancial executives (who want to please large numbers of potential

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. B

ra nd

ei s

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

. . . . . . . .

Curtains?

donors) will grow even more intense. When today’s arts executives worry about audience, they think of a few hundred to perhaps a few thousand people. In the future, arts executives at major insti- tutions will need to please hundreds of thousands or even millions of viewers. Their concerns for ratings will mirror those of today’s major television networks.

There will be regional orchestras, to be sure, but there are likely to be far fewer of them. Musicians at most regional ensembles will only be paid for the days when they play or rehearse, receiving “per service” contracts rather than a fixed number of guaranteed weeks. As the demand for performances wanes, such guaranteed con- tracts will become less and less common. But moving to per service contracts will have its side effects. When musicians are paid in this way, it becomes less attractive for management to organize exten- sive education and outreach programs — since they must pay the musicians for each event. Those orchestras with guaranteed weeks of work can often find extra time here and there to engage musi- cians in outreach programs, children’s performances, and so on. The reduction in outreach activities will further reduce the appreci- ation of classical music among young people and the underserved, causing demand to fall even further. This will affect engagement in classical music for generations to come.

For musicians, the loss of guaranteed weeks means that most will be left without a suitable income; this will force them to find auxiliary jobs, perhaps teaching music or playing in other ensem- bles. As a profession, classical music will be become far less attrac- tive than it has been for the past fifty years. (My grandfather was hired as a violinist by the New York Philharmonic in 1934, during the height of the Depression; he was paid well and lived like a king. Those days will be gone forever.) And it isn’t just salaries that are threatened. The Minnesota Orchestra settlement, for example, called for almost a 12 percent reduction in the number of full-time musicians, from ninety-five to eighty-four. Other boards are likely to press for similar reductions in orchestra size, and unions will be forced to accept these terms or see their orchestras close. This “nu- clear option” will essentially nullify the power of unions.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. B

ra nd

ei s

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

. . . . . . . .

Brave

New World,

Part I

For a majority of regional ensembles, management’s search for “sustainability” is likely to be viewed through a single lens, focus- ing only on cost reduction (not revenue enhancement). Per service contracts and smaller budgets will lead to less exciting perfor- mance programs and more modest education programs, with less overall quality than that of a more stable ensemble. As a result, the number of donors willing to sustain such organizations will fall. As online music delivery improves and technology that can recre- ate concert-hall sound is perfected, there will be even less demand for live performances by regional orchestras. Fewer performances will reduce opportunities both for earned income and for contribu- tions. And as contributions and earned income fall, orchestra man- agement will require even fewer services from musicians. Without a major educational program to develop new audiences, the de- mand for performances is likely to fall even further. This down- ward spiral will continue until many orchestras simply shrink into irrelevance.

The Nashville Symphony Orchestra struggled to make the pay- ments on a loan for construction of its Schermerhorn Symphony Center. The 110-year-old Honolulu Symphony shut down in 2010 because of financial and management problems. Symphonies in New Mexico, Minnesota, and Utah — as well as in Syracuse, Louis- ville, Detroit, Philadelphia, and Charlotte — have all faced signifi- cant financial problems. In early 2014, the Memphis Symphony announced that, unless it can raise a substantial new endowment, it will cease to be a significant regional orchestra. The symphony is not bankrupt; however, its board recognizes that it simply cannot continue to operate as in the past. Expect similar announcements through the coming decades.

With fewer regional orchestras to offer career-building opportu- nities to young performers, the number of world-class conductors and soloists will dwindle. And existing organizations such as Young Concert Artists, which provide experience and exposure for young soloists, will have a harder time attracting attention. Perhaps shows like America’s Got Talent or American Idol will provide a model for classical music. One can imagine a similar competition — broadcast

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. B

ra nd

ei s

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

. . . . . . . .

Curtains?

nationally or internationally — providing a faster route to stardom (among those who still care about classical music) than the tradi- tional opportunities for career development.

There will still be classical music, of course. The music of Bee- thoven and Brahms will never completely disappear. While over- all interest in classical music may diminish, there will still be many people who want to participate in making music, and even more who will want to listen to it. But the orchestral infrastructure built during the twentieth century is going to be dismantled, to a large extent, in the twenty-first.

T H E AT E R I N 2 0 3 5

Theater organizations should fare better than symphony orches- tras. Demand for theater performances is far higher than that for classical music, perhaps because theater tells stories, perhaps be- cause it is a more visual art form, perhaps because it feels more rel- evant to many audience members.

The for-profit theater industry should thrive, as the number of movie and television stars anxious to participate in Broadway pro- ductions has increased dramatically. Such performers can earn sig- nificant salaries as well as the prestige now associated with starring in a Broadway show. The stars drive up the ticket prices (and the ticket prices attract the stars). The profit potential of a hit show is now very large. Among recent shows, The Book of Mormon, Wicked, The Phantom of the Opera, and The Lion King have all returned as- tronomical amounts to their producers. This has encouraged ad- ditional investment in for-profit theater. It also has encouraged regional companies to attempt to move their shows to Broadway. After some dismal years in the 1970s, we now have more shows looking for theaters than we have theaters. (But this phenomenon has been restricted to New York and does not necessarily extend to for-profit theaters in other cities.) As Broadway shows grow more and more popular, featuring higher production values and more stars, we should expect that they will be broadcast, for a price, to people’s homes. Stephen Sondheim’s Merrily We Roll Along has al- ready been broadcast from London’s Menier Chocolate Factory to

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. B

ra nd

ei s

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

. . . . . . . .

Brave

New World,

Part I

American movie screens. Many more such broadcasts will certainly follow.

But today’s array of not-for-profit theater companies is likely to shrink, as marginal organizations will find it hard to compete with big for-profit productions and with other forms of storytelling.

We are already witnessing the division of regional theater into two groups: those that regularly send productions to Broadway — such as Harvard’s American Repertory Theater, the La Jolla Play- house, and the Steppenwolf Theatre Company — and those that don’t. While these successes often represent additional revenue for regional theaters, they also provide an important boost in pres- tige — which can attract larger donations.

Those theater organizations that consistently produce inter- esting work will become important providers of content for other media, just as hit Broadway musicals have been important pro- viders of content for the movie industry. (And as regional theaters gain the capacity to broadcast from their home bases, the pres- sure to move a show to Broadway may be lessened.) But success will become increasingly difficult for small theater organizations; the focus will be on large-scale productions rather than small, inti- mate, or avant-garde work.

More people will experience “theater” in their homes. Ironically, this stay-at-home trend will follow several decades of building larger arts venues. Beginning with the opening of Lincoln Center in the mid-1960s, planners have touted arts centers as a means of revitalizing cities, creating vibrant hubs of activity, and attracting visitors and tourists. The fact that donors were happy to provide the resources for construction often made the opportunity too good to pass up. Politicians encouraged the development of arts centers and arts organizations eagerly anticipated the drawing power of new venues. But these facilities were conceived and developed at a time when almost no one anticipated the online distribution of arts events. While there will certainly be some live performances in the future, there will most likely be fewer of them, with these clustered in major cities. It is not clear what types of activity will fill the hun- dreds of venues constructed over the past twenty years, as many of

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. B

ra nd

ei s

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

. . . . . . . .

Curtains?

the surviving companies will be too small to afford the costs of per- forming in a large theater. (In the Washington, D.C., area alone, a host of theaters were constructed over the past decade.)

In fact, many arts organizations are already feeling “house poor.” New facilities are almost invariably larger than their predecessors — and more expensive to operate. When a growing percentage of an organization’s budget is allocated to paying for a facility, less will be devoted to programming and marketing, the two real income generators. With less art, less marketing, and higher overhead, it is not surprising that many arts institutions are experiencing difficul- ties with cash flow. Although many boards have been searching for new and creative ways to use their facilities (thus generating new streams of revenue), these efforts have been mostly in vain. With fewer organizations offering performances in the future, and most of these producing fewer events than they do now, the occupancy rate of many arts centers is going to decline. Because many of these structures were purpose-built and won’t easily be converted to other uses, we are going to have an ever-growing number of white elephants. A few arts centers will remain major players, hosting world-class organizations, attracting large donor bases, and serv- ing as broadcast headquarters. But many others will sit vacant, re- minders of a different era, not unlike the Colosseum in Rome and the Parthenon in Athens.

O P E R A : A N E W PA R A D I G M

As in theater, there will be stark differences between national and regional opera companies. Regional companies will face reduced demand, owing to the in-home broadcasts that will become a nat- ural outgrowth of movie-theater opera. The difference in price be- tween electronically distributed opera and regional opera will grow wider, as will the difference in quality. As the costs of hiring singers, stagehands, and orchestral musicians rise, there will undoubtedly be efforts to reduce salaries. (Unlike other industries, the arts ex- perience no improvement in productivity to offset the inflation in costs.) Stagehand salaries can be extraordinarily high; one stage-

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. B

ra nd

ei s

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

. . . . . . . .

Brave

New World,

Part I

hand at Carnegie Hall made over $450,000 in 2012 and several others earned nearly as much! While stagehands provide a much- needed service, such salaries are not likely to be supportable in the future, even by the very largest of organizations. How can an or- ganization justify asking its musicians to accept salary reductions while leaving other pay scales untouched?

The quality of performances by regional opera companies will not keep pace with that of the national companies with access to the biggest stars, best conductors, and most lavish sets and cos- tumes. While differences in quality are evident today (and have been since the advent of regional opera), most people do not have regular access to live, in-person performances at the handful of major companies across the nation and around the world. In the future, broadcast performances by these great companies will be accessible, on demand, to everyone. One will have the same access to companies from New York City as to companies from London or Moscow. (However, we do expect to see far fewer European opera houses in total. Government ministries are already encouraging mergers in an effort to conserve resources. As funding is cut, some companies simply will not survive. In Italy, for example, only three opera houses are currently solvent. A shakeout is certain to occur, resulting in an ugly period of retrenchment featuring numerous strikes, outbursts by the press, and political maneuvering.)

As online broadcasts make comparing the quality of performances much easier, one would expect the demand for performances by smaller regional companies to fall. Further improvements in tech- nology — allowing special effects or sound enhancement not possi- ble in the opera house itself — may place regional companies at an even greater disadvantage.

The difference in demand also will put downward pressure on the ticket prices charged by regional companies. If the artists and production quality are not comparable with those of national companies, it will be difficult to charge prices that are commen- surate with costs. As the current group of opera donors begins to die off— and as large national companies expand the reach of their

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. B

ra nd

ei s

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

. . . . . . . .

Curtains?

fund-raising efforts — income will again decrease. It is likely that the number of regional opera companies will fall; most of those that do survive will produce less opera each season.

National companies also will struggle to balance their budgets, since producing opera will remain expensive and there will be competition with other arts organizations for donors and audience members who can afford very high ticket prices. But these larger groups will have opportunities for added revenue from the elec- tronic distribution of their performances and access to a national (or international) pool of donors. Of course, as the number of orga- nizations broadcasting their performances increases, the compe- tition for viewers also will increase. While the Metropolitan Opera had a virtual monopoly when it began its broadcasts, the field is growing rapidly. This will place pressure on the prices charged for broadcast performances, which will further hurt the regionals (since their ticket prices will seem comparatively higher), while re- ducing the profitability of the large companies. Not all of them will survive either. If electronic distribution is implemented properly, however, it can help build a national, or even international, donor base. The impact of electronic distribution on fund-raising can only grow; in the future, it is likely to be required of all major arts orga- nizations. Executives will need to become expert in the operation and financing of such broadcasts, as well as the cultivation of do- nors from a distance, further increasing the sophistication required to be a successful arts manager.

The Kennedy Center, for example, already raises two-thirds of its contributions (some $50 million of the $75 million raised annually) outside of the Washington, D.C., area. Some of these funds are con- tributed by a committee of arts patrons who come from many dif- ferent countries. Imagine how much more could be raised — and how much larger that international committee could grow — when Kennedy Center programming is accessible to hundreds of mil- lions of people across the globe, and when those with real interest are cultivated properly, with subtle (or not-so-subtle) fund-raising pitches.

One can imagine the “exclusive” benefits offered to people who

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. B

ra nd

ei s

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

. . . . . . . .

Brave

New World,

Part I

want to feel closer to the Kennedy Center: “private” backstage tours, views of an opera rehearsal, or invitations to a taping (all conducted online, of course). But there will be competition with other large institutions — the Metropolitan Opera, the Royal Opera House, and the Paris Opera, for example — all of whom will be vying for attention. The ability to implement marketing and fund-raising campaigns effectively (especially in terms of donor cultivation and stewardship) will be a crucial factor in achieving fiscal stability in this high-budget, high-stakes environment. Because American arts institutions currently have far more experience in these areas than their European counterparts, they are likely to have the initial com- petitive advantage.

Broadcasting also will provide a way to engage younger audi- ences. The Metropolitan Opera and other organizations have al- ready begun to offer abridged performances for children, although these now reach only a relatively small audience, often at a very high price. In the future, expect to witness alliances between arts organizations and school systems to provide arts education via the Internet. Current online portals, such as the Kennedy Center’s ArtsEdge .com (which supplies information for teachers and activi- ties for students), are likely to expand their capabilities in the future as school systems and universities seek ways to lower costs. Online recreational arts programs also will become more popular as par- ents seek arts experiences for their children at a reasonable price. Creating and viewing art is fun and rewarding; no amount of social or economic change will alter that basic fact. The sites that offer the best of these programs will begin to build a group of young people with allegiance to their organizations. If five-year-olds get used to visiting the Web site of the Royal Opera House, for example, and enjoy the games, activities, and performances available there, they are likely to feel closer to this institution than to any local opera company.

The overall reduction in the number of opera companies will make it correspondingly difficult to become an opera singer, con- cert artist, or conductor. Those who do find employment will face additional hurdles to becoming a star, since the amount of serious

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. B

ra nd

ei s

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

. . . . . . . .

Curtains?

criticism will be vastly reduced, as will the network of regional companies that can help young artists build their careers. The most talented — and most fortunate — artists will be recognized early in their careers and engaged by the major opera houses; the remain- der will have far fewer performing opportunities. Because sales of future broadcasts will rest, in part, on the fame of singers, directors, and conductors, the large opera companies and symphonies will have an incentive to invest in promoting talent, not unlike record companies in the past.

Artists and their managers will have to play larger roles in build- ing celebrity. This is already a trend. Today’s managers often de- velop important, visible projects for their artists. Despite this change, managers have lost a substantial portion of their traditional clout, as the number of truly famous artists has declined and the fees they can demand are falling. The days in which a major agent could pressure (if not blackmail) a large opera company to engage his singers are virtually over. If the cash-strapped opera companies of the future urge artists to further reduce their fees, then manag- ers will come under corresponding pressure to reduce the amounts that they charge artists. As all organizations strive for reduced costs, it would not be surprising to see the manager function assumed by the arts institutions themselves. In the 1950s, movie studios cre- ated stables of famous artists who became “their” stars; similarly, we can expect major opera houses to hoard the singers who bring them high ratings and high visibility.

As broadcasts become more common, it is likely that the quali- ties that define an opera star will be determined less by the way the voice projects in an opera house and more by appearance, acting ability, and charisma. Just as the performers who were successful in silent movies could not necessarily make the transition to talkies, and those actors who made careers in radio did not necessarily become television stars, performers who have been successful in opera houses may not necessarily “sell” on screen. The experience of listening to an opera in person is likely to be very different from watching it on a screen. And the audio enhancement that will be available in a broadcast should be able to conceal a multitude of

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. B

ra nd

ei s

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

. . . . . . . .

Brave

New World,

Part I

vocal sins. Some opera singers with beautiful but relatively small voices already are able to achieve remarkable success in recordings. In the future, we should expect that some singers who have become huge stars on broadcasts will disappoint when heard in person.

The profitability of online ventures will be determined, to a large extent, by the fees that can be charged by artists and others associ- ated with the production. As broadcasts become more popular, all of the participants — from the lead singers to the chorus, from the orchestra to the stagehands — will demand higher salaries. Some television stars now earn millions of dollars per episode; opera stars will only be able to raise their salaries if they can regularly draw a substantial audience to their broadcasts. Those organizations un- willing to pay will lose the biggest stars to other opera houses. In the past, singers’ fees were bid up by international opera houses that received large government subsidies; now the major competitors will be those with the largest online presence.

Unless substantial underwriting can be attracted, the price that opera companies can charge for these broadcasts will be the sec- ond determinant of profitability. There are likely to be fees for each broadcast, or for a subscription series, just as there already is when renting a movie through Netflix or purchasing a pay-per-view box- ing match. These prices will likely be tiered: big events with huge stars will have different prices than more modest attractions. As the required technology becomes cheaper, and the number of institu- tions offering broadcasts increases, prices are likely to fall. Although most arts institutions will need broadcasts to attract audiences and donors, they may not end up being as profitable as anticipated.

Online broadcasts, of course, can easily cross national bound- aries; Metropolitan Opera movie-theater broadcasts, for example, already go to dozens of countries. While opera companies will be competing for the services of singers, conductors, and designers, opera consumers will be able to select among different productions, choosing those that best match their tastes. Viewers will be able to choose between La Traviata at the Metropolitan Opera, Aida at the Royal Opera House, or Eugene Onegin from the Bolshoi. There will come a time when many different broadcasts of La Bohème are

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. B

ra nd

ei s

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

. . . . . . . .

Curtains?

available, just as there already are many different recordings of that opera. Consumers will choose the one they wish to see the most. It is a tantalizing prospect from the audience’s perspective, but a scary one from the viewpoint of the opera houses themselves. One can- not be certain that, as supply increases, demand will as well. While movie-theater viewership of opera broadcasts has increased, the vast majority of attendees identify themselves as frequent opera- goers. It is not clear that electronic distribution is producing a new generation of opera lovers, as advertised. As opera houses face in- creasing competition for viewership, this may serve to lower ticket prices and force organizations to raise production values, include more stars, and offer more promotional gimmicks.

In any event, such a scenario is consistent with the way all indus- tries evolve. A specialty product becomes commoditized, prices fall, and the pressure on profitability becomes more intense. This process can be fast — as it was in the case of transistors — or slow. In a situation where there are multiple providers, the price sensitiv- ity of customers forces prices down. The problem for the arts is that they seldom have been profitable (owing to the productivity prob- lem), so there is no financial cushion if prices begin to fall. To sur- vive a reduction in income from ticket sales, arts institutions must raise additional income from donations or go out of business.

E VO L U T I O N O F T H E DA N C E WO R L D

From the outside, the dance world will appear to be the least changed of the performing arts genres in the future. The major in- ternational companies in Moscow, St. Petersburg, London, Copen- hagen, Paris, San Francisco, and New York will be complemented by a few other companies that can create donor bases large enough to sustain themselves. A central challenge for ballet companies will be creating new repertory that can attract an audience of younger people who are not wed to the classics and do not discriminate among ballet, contemporary dance, and popular dance quite like their parents do. It is difficult to name one work that has entered the standard repertory of ballet companies in the past thirty years. A majority of tickets are still sold for a handful of full-length ballets —

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. B

ra nd

ei s

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

. . . . . . . .

Brave

New World,

Part I

including Swan Lake, Sleeping Beauty, Giselle, The Nutcracker, Romeo and Juliet, La Bayadère, and Coppélia — and a group of shorter works by Balanchine, Robbins, Ashton, Tharp, Kylián, and a few others. Will an art form that has been essentially stagnant be able to compete for audiences in a world of high-tech wizardry?

When audience members are watching ballet in their homes (and recording their favorite performances), it will be difficult to get them to purchase new performances of the same works. This problem befell the classical music industry when CDs replaced lps; since CDs didn’t scratch or break, customers purchased their favor- ite performances of specific works, then stopped purchasing more. Some consumers would want to hear a familiar work performed by a new phenom, but such buyers were in the minority, leading to huge problems in the recording industry. Unless a group of cho- reographers can create new works that attract new audiences, the ballet world will face a substantial challenge in the future.

In modern dance, a handful of major organizations will sur- vive, at best. Even now there are only a select few, including the Alvin Ailey organization, which has built unparalleled support for an organization of color. From its start in 1958, the Ailey company has had the benefit of multiple choreographers. When Alvin Ailey passed away, it was therefore natural for the dancers and the audi- ence to experience new works in the repertory. And in Revelations, the company has a perennial favorite that maintains its audience. But will audiences continue to support the organization just to see Revelations for another twenty years?

The mid-sized companies with a single choreographer (many of them modern dance legends) are likely to shrink or disappear en- tirely. The Martha Graham Dance Company, for example, is already a smaller version of its former self, while the Merce Cunningham Dance Company was folded in a most orderly fashion, according to the wishes of Cunningham himself. Twyla Tharp does not main- tain a permanent company anymore, and Paul Taylor would be 105 years old in 2035! With no new organizations growing and building support, it is unclear if we will have the marquee companies to re- place the institutions created by these legends.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. B

ra nd

ei s

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

. . . . . . . .

Curtains?

Modern dance is most vital when a group of choreographers are creating new works that entice new viewers, often the younger peo- ple that other art forms strive to attract. Despite the presence of many dynamic younger choreographers, no current organization has captured the imagination of audiences and tour presenters, and none is poised to replace the senior companies. Mark Morris started the most successful recent company, and he will be nearing eighty by 2035. Will he still be producing new work? Will his com- pany still exist? Without a few modern dance stars, the entire field will suffer. As less money is invested in the art form, modern dance may evaporate from view, especially as the larger ballet companies add modern choreography to their repertoires.

Many of the mid-sized regional ballet companies also are likely to shrink or disappear. Companies in Miami, Philadelphia, Oakland, San Jose, Orlando, and elsewhere already have experienced major crises. Although some of these organizations may build a level of support that allows them to maintain operations, it is doubtful that they will all survive.

One ominous trend may spell doom for many regional ballet companies: the decline of Nutcracker sales. This perennial Christ- mas favorite has been a financial mainstay, with many companies depending on Nutcracker sales to support the remainder of their seasons. As this holiday tradition becomes more expensive — and as alternative forms of entertainment become more attractive — many families are choosing to forego their annual Nutcracker attendance. Ballet needs new repertory that will encourage its au- dience members to buy tickets; this will be especially important if Nutcracker sales continue to decline and the remainder of the bal- let season must begin to carry its own weight.

Almost every sizeable dance company requires some level of touring to sustain itself, as there is not enough demand in most cit- ies to support full-time work. Of the major American ballet compa- nies, for example, only a few have built long seasons in their home cities, allowing them to guarantee weeks of work for their dancers and forego most touring opportunities. Dance requires consistent performance and rehearsal to maintain quality levels. That need to

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. B

ra nd

ei s

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

. . . . . . . .

Brave

New World,

Part I

perform, coupled with the lack of demand in any one city, is the reason so many dance companies tour.

In the future, successful dance companies will be those — like the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater — that build strong touring programs or online broadcasts that earn high fees. If a few major ensembles tour or broadcast extensively, they may effectively re- place the local companies that are unable to perform at the same high level. The competition faced by local companies will be par- ticularly strong if demand falls. One can imagine a cadre of ten or so major ballet companies serving the dance needs of the entire country.

While this may turn out to be efficient, that reduction in the number of dance organizations will come at a price. Each company has an opportunity, through the activities of its artistic leadership, to create important, innovative, and exciting work that moves the field. When one reduces the number of organizations of a specific genre, one reduces the odds of the next great work being created. The most interesting works are not always created by the largest companies, even though they are the ones most likely to survive a shakeout. Some large institutions will be disinclined to take the huge risks necessary to allow the art form to develop.

Dance institutions, like most arts organizations, do more than simply offer performances. They provide a myriad of services to the community: from arts programs in the public schools, to bal- let classes for young children and lectures and demonstrations for adults. When the number of local organizations is reduced, the amount of community outreach also falls and the probability of bringing new people into the art form similarly diminishes. This will further reduce demand, lowering both attendance and dona- tions, and thereby creating additional problems for the field.

A reduction in the number of companies also means fewer op- portunities for artists to find work. Our conservatories and dance schools already produce far more artists than can find employ- ment. While it is wonderful that so many young people get the chance to pursue their dreams, it is also a sad fact of life that many will leave college, burdened by debt, with little hope of earning

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. B

ra nd

ei s

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

. . . . . . . .

Curtains?

enough to support a family. Graduates in many industries are fac- ing the same challenge, of course, but artists face the longest odds. Salaries in the arts are already falling, the number of job possibili- ties are few and far between, and demand for their services is likely to be further reduced in the future. Arts students also are least likely to be able to pursue their college degrees online. While academic courses will become more available (and less costly) via the Inter- net, it is unlikely that in-person instruction in singing, dancing, acting, or composing will ever be satisfactorily replaced by online classes. Artists will therefore have the unfortunate combination of an expensive education with few opportunities for employment.

A F U N D - R A I S I N G E X P LO S I O N

Major arts organizations will increasingly need to become fund- raising machines. While some people say that arts institutions al- ready have begun to overemphasize fund-raising at the expense of art-making, the need to increase contributions dramatically will force all arts organizations to intensify their development efforts. As the competition for revenue grows, the organizations with the best art, strongest boards, and best-organized fund-raising efforts will attract donors at the expense of others. The largest arts orga- nizations — those with international stature and popular online broadcasts — will be able to offer unparalleled visibility to their most generous donors. Instead of announcing sponsorships to the few thousand people who read a theater program, or the tens of thousands who receive promotional materials (but may not read them), online announcements could reach hundreds of thousands or even millions of people across the globe. For those sponsors seeking visibility, this increases their return dramatically. Institu- tions of more modest size will suffer simply because they will not be able to compete on a level with the largest organizations.

Not unlike television advertising today, the attractiveness of such sponsorships to corporations, foundations, or individuals will depend on the ability of the arts organization to attract large num- bers of viewers to their online programming. One can imagine the remarkable pressure that might be placed on the programmers

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. B

ra nd

ei s

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

. . . . . . . .

Brave

New World,

Part I

at major opera companies, for example, by those with responsi- bility for financial results. “Do we have to produce Lulu this sea- son? Can’t we do Barber of Seville, instead? It’s far more popular.” And with professional critics losing clout, there will be far less ex- ternal pressure for programming that is important and daring. In fact, it will be fair to question whether the largest opera companies are functioning more like for-profit entertainment companies than old-fashioned non-profits. This charge has already been directed at some New York theater companies whose work regularly competes for Tony Awards with for-profit productions. If these organizations are developing work for the mass market, are they really occupying a different space than the for-profit producers? And should they re- ally be able to offer tax deductions to their donors? As more arts organizations depend on broadcasts to cover their costs of pro- duction, these questions will be asked with greater frequency. And considering the federal government’s ongoing quest to reduce its budget deficit, the fate of tax deductibility for contributions may rest on the answers.

The shift to online broadcasts will create other convergences with the for-profit entertainment industry. For example, it is likely that arts awards will change both in scope and impact. Currently, awards are offered for local productions — in New York, for in- stance, or Chicago, or London. In the not-so-distant future, as more productions are available for viewing online and geography no longer prohibits judges from evaluating distant productions, some group is likely to offer awards for excellence in a genre, un- related to location. The competition for these awards will be fierce, just as they are currently for the Oscars, Tonys, BAFTAs, and oth- ers. Winning the award for best opera, best concert, or best ballet will offer an important seal of approval, creating audience demand for future Webcasts and attracting sponsors who want to be asso- ciated with the best. One can easily imagine the gala presentation of the International Arts Awards, held in London or Paris or Bei- jing or New York — and available for viewing online, of course. The evening will feature an unprecedented gathering of arts luminar- ies; most of the serious arts production in the world will cease for

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. B

ra nd

ei s

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

. . . . . . . .

Curtains?

a day or two as the best and most famous gather for this remark- ably visible event. Will these awards be decided by a blue-ribbon panel or will the public vote for their favorites? Online voting from millions of fans could trigger widespread campaigns for the nomi- nated productions.

Winning such an award will help attract donors and, impor- tantly, board members as well. The larger arts organizations will have to intensify their search for the most potent board members. As the need for large contributions grows, only the most generous patrons — with access to other like-minded contributors — will be considered satisfactory board members. Board members will be expected to make very large gifts annually and to solicit others who can do the same. As these have not been traditional roles for board members at foreign arts institutions, American organizations will have to convince foreign board members that their roles extend to giving and getting funds.

And there is little doubt that board membership for large orga- nizations will become increasingly international, as fund-raising activities expand over larger geographical territories. The Kennedy Center established its international committee in 2002 to raise funds for international presentations. By 2035, it is likely that inter- national representatives will serve not only on special committees, but also on boards with fiduciary responsibility. Only those orga- nizations that serve an international market — and achieve inter- national acclaim — will be able to attract the most generous of this new breed of board member.

Today, board members at most arts organizations in other re- gions of the world are only modestly helpful as donors, with very few feeling an obligation either to give or solicit funds. Tradition- ally, such boards have been viewed as overseers of government resources. In many cases, board members were appointed by the governments themselves. Boards would approve strategic deci- sions, annual budgets, and performing calendars, but would not in- volve themselves in resource-gathering to the same extent as their American counterparts. Arts boards in other countries also were typically smaller than U.S. boards, since the oversight role did not

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. B

ra nd

ei s

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

. . . . . . . .

Brave

New World,

Part I

require as many governors. In fact, numerous arts organizations maintained a separate fund-raising entity, such as a trust, with its own, separate board. In these cases, the trust would be responsi- ble for overseeing the endowment and raising any private funds. For example, my board at the Royal Opera House was appointed by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media, and Sport; there were seven people on the board and only one made a substantial finan- cial contribution, even though the organization was conducting a capital campaign. A separate Royal Opera House Trust endeavored to raise the necessary operating and capital funds. But the boards of the two organizations often clashed, making it difficult at best to implement a coherent fund-raising strategy.

It is possible that American arts organizations will help create cultures of philanthropy in other countries. Many large foreign arts organizations — including the Louvre, the Royal Shakespeare Company, the Budapest Festival Orchestra, and the Mariinsky The- ater — currently raise money in the United States (through U.S.- based charities). In the future, American arts organizations will be appealing to wealthy donors in other countries. To the extent that these efforts are successful, with adequate stewardship of the re- sulting relationships, we will be teaching foreign patrons that arts sponsorship can be fun and enriching. This could encourage such patrons to support the work of local arts institutions and give those institutions a model for mounting strong development efforts as well, helping them to build private sources of funding to replace dwindling government support.

As international arts organizations become more reliant on con- tributed funds, they also will seek to attract strong board mem- bers. Although European arts organizations may not admire the American system of arts funding, they remain jealous of the gen- erosity of American board members. As European organizations turn increasingly to private fund-raising, they will find themselves on a collision course with American institutions. Such competi- tion won’t be entirely new, since many international arts organi- zations already have established fund-raising operations to mine the philanthropic culture of the United States. Over time, however,

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. B

ra nd

ei s

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

. . . . . . . .

Curtains?

the search for new donors is likely to move overseas, with Ameri- can fund-raisers combing Europe, Asia, and South America for the wealthiest arts lovers.

We have lived through the golden age of regional arts orga- nizations, with numerous opportunities to build expertise and gain employment. By 2035, much of this system will be disman- tled and there will be fewer opportunities for artists to find work. Our conservatories and arts schools will be challenged to attract enough students to cover their overheads; many will close. Simi- lar cutbacks in Europe will affect young American artists who tra- ditionally looked overseas for experience. Young opera singers, for example, often moved to Europe during the early part of their ca- reers, since provincial opera houses throughout the continent were happy to hire well-trained American singers at modest fees. Renée Fleming, for instance, performed in Europe before coming to the world’s attention. But as government cutbacks force companies ei- ther to reduce their performing schedules or close entirely, these opportunities also will become scarce.

T H E N E W M U S E U M

While the outlook for the performing arts is dire, museums have better chances for survival. New technology has made museum vis- its more exciting, and looking at a great painting or sculpture on a screen does not duplicate the in-person experience. While many will say this is true of the performing arts as well, the cost per visit is much greater for the performing arts than for museums. That dis- crepancy will encourage many to watch opera, ballet, or theater at home while continuing to make trips to the local museum. Much concern was expressed when New York’s Museum of Modern Art raised its entry fee to twenty-five dollars, even though this is a small fraction of the cost of one performance at the Metropolitan Opera. But moma has not suffered from its increased fee; in fact, it is about to expand again. Other museums will undoubtedly increase their entry fees as well. It will be interesting to see when the reduction in attendance will occur, as high fees must eventually encourage

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. B

ra nd

ei s

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

. . . . . . . .

Brave

New World,

Part I

people to embrace online forms of distribution. If museums are not careful, they could experience the same drop in demand as the per- forming arts.

No matter how the viewing of art is distributed, however, mu- seums will retain a most critical function: safeguarding and con- serving collections of immense value. And then there is their other, less visible role: as purchase advisors for wealthy patrons. With so much interest in contemporary art today, and so much money at stake, curators have become the unofficial advisors to art collec- tors who, in turn, support the institutions that engage the curators. This situation is unlikely to change soon, although some of the very wealthiest of arts patrons are now hiring their own curators and building their own museums.

Because convenience will remain a factor in determining how people view art, some will choose to watch from home. But it is hard to imagine that those living near major museums or traveling to their host cities will not continue to pay in-person visits.

As in the performing arts, it will be the large institutions — such as the Museum of Modern Art, the Hermitage, and the British Mu- seum — that will embrace the new technologies, mount the public programming, and implement the marketing campaigns that build visitorship, a broad base of donors, and strong boards. The biggest prizes — gifts of important collection items — will go increasingly to those institutions that have the staff to cater to the needs of donors, and the stability to assure those donors that their gifts will be cared for in perpetuity.

The building boom of the past three decades is likely to be over, as fewer museums will have the resources to build new galleries in the future. The exceptions to this trend will be for buildings fi- nanced by individuals to house their own collections, either at single- collector museums like the Broad Museum in Los Angeles, or in galleries attached to existing institutions. At most museums, however, physical growth will be constrained by the loss of older donors who were willing to give huge gifts for capital expansion (and whose children have different giving priorities).

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. B

ra nd

ei s

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

. . . . . . . .

Curtains?

D E C L I N I N G D I V E R S I T Y

While both the performing and visual arts will be changing in the future, it is the diversity within each art form that will change the most. As financial strength, artistic resources, audience base, and board potency become concentrated in just a few organizations, one can be certain that these will be mainstream institutions — the ones that traditionally serve higher-income arts audiences. While minorities as a group may comprise a majority of Americans in the near future, the majority of the wealth will continue to belong to white people, and the donor base will reflect this fact. Organi- zations that provide art which emerges from specific ethnic com- munities or that serve those communities will be relegated to the minor leagues. This is not a new trend. Apart from the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater, it is nearly impossible to name an organi- zation of color with an annual budget of more than $10 million. The distribution of wealth in the United States is mirrored in the distri- bution of the arts.

Theaters of color are in disarray. Of the many potent African American theater companies formed in the second half of the twen- tieth century, most have either gotten smaller or have disappeared entirely. Crossroads Theater, for example, was once a thriving com- pany in New Brunswick, New Jersey. After winning a regional Tony Award in 1999, it suffered through a near-death experience and is now a shadow of its former self. Of the several promising Latino theater companies, such as Pregones Theater in New York City, none has yet earned a national reputation for excellence.

Dance companies of color are experiencing the same fate as their white counterparts — as their founders age or die, they can- not maintain their vibrancy. Company founders often put their hearts, souls, and cash into these enterprises. With their passing, a new generation of leaders has been unable to assure the survival of their organizations.

As dedicated as these founders were, they rarely were able to build support beyond the major foundations and government agencies in their cities. And though their boards were passionate, they were not potent. Many boards of such organizations func-

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. B

ra nd

ei s

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

. . . . . . . .

Brave

New World,

Part I

tion more as community groups than as fund-raising entities. The members are passionate about the work of the organization and the importance of the arts in their communities but have neither the personal resources to contribute large sums nor connections to others of great means. This has severely limited the size and reach of most arts organizations of color.

By 2035, it is doubtful that many of the currently existing orga- nizations of color will be thriving. This has important implications for the accessibility of live, in-person performing arts for everyone except well-to-do people in major cities. It is likely that only a very small elite will have ready access to high-quality arts in person. This will further disenfranchise the people who suspect that the arts are not for them. It is possible that the arts will come to mean some- thing reserved only for the wealthy, like yachts or equestrian sports.

Although new organizations will undoubtedly be formed to meet the needs of communities of color, it is not likely that any will achieve success on a large scale, unless a potent group of board members can attract a staff leader of true vision and skill. It has be- come increasingly difficult for smaller arts organizations to attract the type of leadership necessary to build great institutions, since larger arts organizations (which pay much higher salaries) siphon off the best talent. Even when a skilled director can be engaged, the lack of local arts journalism makes it challenging for young, excit- ing groups to establish the reputation for excellence required to build a larger base of support.

A RT S M A N AG E R S I N A N E W AG E

With the growing divide between larger and smaller organizations, salaries for arts managers will continue to bifurcate. While such sal- aries have risen across the board, the leaders of the nation’s largest arts organizations now command salaries that approach $1 million, while salaries at most other organizations remain under $100,000. Similarly, development directors at larger institutions are now earning several hundred thousand dollars a year; this equates to the total salary budget for many smaller institutions. This chasm is likely to grow in future years.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. B

ra nd

ei s

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

. . . . . . . .

Curtains?

Arts managers currently face a difficult conundrum: while much of the most interesting art is produced by smaller arts organiza- tions, the larger institutions pay much higher salaries and have the resources to produce arts projects of great magnitude. It can be dif- ficult to resist the temptation to work for a major institution like Carnegie Hall or the San Francisco Opera even if one’s own tastes are more eclectic. As more and more students leave school bur- dened with debt, their job choices are increasingly influenced by salary levels, job security, and retirement benefits.

Nevertheless, many arts managers join the field hoping to en- gage with an organization where they can work closely with artists, and where the aesthetic of the organization matches their own. After all, one of the great rewards of working in the not-for-profit realm comes from attaching oneself to an organization with a mis- sion similar to one’s own. In the for-profit sector, every corpora- tion has essentially the same mission: to reward its shareholders by making as much money as possible for as long as possible. It can be difficult to find passion for such a mission, especially if one is not, personally, a shareholder of the corporation.

In the not-for-profit arts, however, we can work for an organi- zation that is committed to accomplishing what we ourselves find important. This compensates in a big way for the lower salaries in the not-for-profit world. When a small arts institution is thriving, it can feel remarkably rewarding to be part of the team. When such institutions encounter periods of poor cash flow, however, many boards and senior staff members lose sight of the true missions of their organizations and focus instead on balancing the books. This often antagonizes the staff and artists who came to work for the or- ganization only because of the stated mission. These members of the organization may feel cheated if, after all their hard work and sacrifice, that mission is compromised.

This feeling may become especially evident when a board looks to engage a financial expert, often from the corporate sector, rather than a manager with true arts experience. In difficult times, the board may hope that a leader with financial acumen can fix the in- stitution’s money problems. While this strategy sometimes works,

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. B

ra nd

ei s

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

. . . . . . . .

Brave

New World,

Part I

more often the board has confused someone who can measure the size of the problem (a financial person) with someone who can solve the problem by finding new revenue (an arts entrepreneur). When timely and accurate financial reports continue to tell the same story of cash-flow constraints, board members often learn the error of their logic.

By this time, many of the organization’s most dedicated staff members will have left to find a more hospitable place to work. In the industry’s current state, experienced arts managers have oppor- tunities to move from organization to organization, building their careers by steadily increasing their responsibilities. This may not be as easy in the future, if there are fewer mid-sized organizations to provide steppingstones for younger arts managers. It is possible that the arts industry may suffer from the same system that now ap- plies to law firms, in which the best graduates of the best schools go to work for the largest institutions, enduring an “up or out” system that roots out under-performers.

The managers who will run our future multi-national arts insti- tutions — the organizations with board members from around the globe and huge electronic distribution networks, audiences, and donor bases — are likely to receive salaries that mimic those of cor- porate leaders and university presidents. Board members of small, local arts organizations, with their limited budgets, are therefore going to have difficulty attracting the best managerial talent. The pay, benefits, and security at larger organizations will be too tempt- ing for the most talented arts managers to turn down. Since the success of an arts institution is, in large measure, a function of the quality of top management, this “brain drain” will hurt smaller or- ganizations substantially.

Make no mistake: the movement of the most talented managers to the largest organizations is a trend that seriously threatens the fabric of arts organizations in this country. One can separate arts institutions into two groups: those that are managed well, with an entrepreneurial leader in charge, and those that have less effective management. There is nearly a one-to-one correspondence be- tween good management and good organizational health.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. B

ra nd

ei s

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

. . . . . . . .

Curtains?

Arts organizations with strong management will be able to thrive even when prevailing trends work against them. In the future, too many of our smaller organizations will find that they cannot retain the best managers. Even when such institutions can find effective and ambitious young leaders, these leaders are likely to depart for larger, more established institutions that pay better. Replacing the departing leader will be a huge challenge, as lightning rarely strikes twice in the same place. Even now small organizations that lose a strong leader often find that the new executive is not a satisfactory replacement. This will become even more common in the future, making it far more difficult for smaller arts organizations to grow into larger ones. The sort of leadership that allowed organizations like Glimmerglass Opera or Mark Morris Dance Group to grow into potent institutions will not be attracted by salaries too low to cover the cost of living and the repayment of student loans.

The only real winners in this new world order will be the few celebrity artists and arts managers who benefit from the acclaim that comes from participating in widely distributed productions — along with the consumers who prefer to watch opera on their iPads or in their home theaters. The choices available to these consumers will be spectacular and varied.

Amateurs and hobbyists, of course, will have numerous and exciting opportunities to make art and to share that art with both friends and strangers. But for many others in the art world, the fu- ture does not look as bright. Young artists will struggle to be seen or heard, while small organizations will struggle to remain solvent and to pursue their missions with vigor. Audiences in many mid-sized cities will lose their local theater, opera, and ballet companies, along with their symphonies and perhaps even their museums. People of color will likewise lose access to the organizations that provided tar- geted opportunities both for enjoying and participating in the arts.

The current network of regional institutions, boards, and man- agement teams will begin to unravel. And the competition among the largest institutions — for artists, ratings, donors, and board members — will become far more intense.

The notion that “all arts are local” will become simply a memory.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. B

ra nd

ei s

U ni

ve rs

ity P

re ss

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .