weebelly.com

Just jumped in on the last half or two-thirds of the keynote at the Theater Communication Group conference in LA: The Community Formerly Known as the Audience, given by Douglas McLennan, Editor of artsjournal.com/diacritical.

It was some pretty encouraging stuff to hear, see. I would say provocative, and maybe perhaps to some people it is just that, but I have been hearing some of the ideas far too much lately and not just from conferences. That is, I just attended the Dramatist Guild conference at George Mason, and some of the same persons were there as are now at TCG. While I heard some of these ideas at DG, many of the “provocative” notions that I am hearing from McLennan I have heard voiced from peer playwrights and, having recently gotten a certificate in nonprofit management at Case, ideas that I have heard expressed in many of the nonprofit classes (read, “marketing” and “fundraising”).

One of the more interesting ideas I came in on was when McLennan was speaking about a “Ladder of incentive if you interact with us.” Us being the theater. That is, the traditional nonprofit model is that there is a ladder of incentives if you donate to the organization—which can culminate in board membership or some “truly meaningful” (organizationally speaking) relationship with the theater. But in this case, McLennan was talking about finding ways to incentivize the patrons who most participate.

The point McLennan makes is: who do you value more, the person who gives you $1,000; or the person who buys $1,000 worth of tickets, sees all your shows, and brings their friends? If you know anything about fundraising, you damn well better value the latter person more than the former (unless they’re the same person).

McLennan comments, what if the Seattle Mariners call you up and say, “you bought a ticket on such-and-such a date, and your ticket only pays for 40% of our operating budget, would you like to donate to our organization?” McLennan notes that most people would laugh. So, he posits, why is it okay for theaters and other arts organizations to do the same?

Again, I just got a certificate of nonprofit management from Case, so I understand that nonprofit organizations are charitable organizations, that they exist to provide services that are of community benefit or toward a community purpose, but may not be services that are supported at the levels necessary by each community member/individual. For instance, clean air. Everyone values clean air; i.e., no one wants to breathe soot and smog and crap and die young. But who wants to pay for it? You? Your neighbor? The guy/gal down the block? Trying to get individuals to pay for clean air would be nearly impossible; but, get a nonprofit to advocate on behalf of healthy society, to monitor the government, EPA, etc., can achieve the goal of clean air. In this way, nonprofits are also an indirect way for the federal government to incentivize certain positive behaviors. This is one way to view arts organizations. Important, yes. Does everyone want to pay for them? Not really. Where am I going with this? To McLennan’s point. Why are there so many goddam nonprofit theaters? Why can’t theaters make a profit? Why is Broadway the only way? Why can’t we engage audiences in such a way as to bring them in and demonstrate the power of theater? Get them to participate with us? Why is “let’s pretend” encouraged when we’re children, but killed in us as adults? How can theaters tap into the new trends of engagement in our society, in the form of online participation? Perhaps a more brutal way of putting it: do we really so de-value ourselves that we believe that people won’t pay for what we offer?

McLennan put up a chart demonstrating his thinking on how arts organizations work: a hierarchy or pyramid where the institution is up top, artists are down a bit to the left, and the community is farther down to the right. That is, the theater as an organization sits as an arbiter over both the artists and the community. McLennan thinks, instead the model should be one of service on the part of the organization: artists <--> institution <--> community. The institutions connects both artist and community and works on behalf of both. It does not work as a filter or a parental figure, a regulator.

McLennan asserts that the most potent currency today is visibility. Your or your organization’s ability to get out in front of the community. The key, of course, is how you achieve this; how do you find a way to get in front of your audience and those who you would like to be your audience. McLennan asserts that not only do you have to find a way to engage your audience once they leave your building, but get them to engage each other about your organization. As McLennan pointed out, 78% of people trust peer recommendations of a product, whereas 14% trust advertising.

McLennan showed a television ad for the Australian chamber orchestra, the focus or meaning of which is that the purpose of the orchestra was to provide the audience with a great experience — hair blowing, knee grabbing, eye opening – that is, the “experience of the music”. And, further, that the “experience is not complete unless the audience has the ability to share it.”

Someone tweets in a question such as, ‘then why aren’t these people attending talkbacks’? – to which McLennan notes that the word itself is problematic. And if you think about it, he’s right. What does a parent say to their teen? “Don’t you talk back to me.” A “talk back” is not a conversation; this is an inherent problem in the nature of the dialog—or lack thereof. McLennan posits that “institutions have control of the relationship and they want to own it…that they are afraid to release that control.” McLennan thinks that theaters want a “perfect” product, and to get that product they have become too controlling. He posits that a better option is to give up control to gain influence: that it is “more powerful to be in the center of a community having a conversation; than being up on a stage preaching.”

McLennan recommended TED — Chris Anderson — crowd accelerated innovation and mentioned Clay Shirky — algorithmic authority; reputational capital; community capital.

The key, for McLennan, is to “incentivize your audience because they’re getting something out of it and you’re getting something out of it.” That there needs to be engagement and sharing and involvement. As examples, McLennan mentioned Netflix, which held a programming competition; Dragon Naturally Speaking, which enhances its product through its users , and Doritos, which found its best advertising by getting its eaters to create the advertisements during the SuperBowl.

Websites: ushahidi, indianapolis museum of art website, art babble. McLennan stresses the need for organizations to “shape your aesthetic.” That, for instance, your website needs to be not a brochure but split into two important goals: the first is the essential 411: ticketing, performances, info; and then there is the second: what McLennan calls “the daily you”: dynamic community, visibility, artists, institution, community, promote your artist who are out working in the community.

For instance, I have tried to get convergence to use its blog to share the elements that go into a production: director decisions, actor choices, character development, lighting and design discussions, also more dramaturgic stuff about a play. Additionally, for a while Lucy Bredeson-Smith was running a calendar on which company members could share what they’re up to in the community. McLennan asserts that this is a great idea. This is a great way to engage your audiences, not just for the organization, but to expand the reach of the organization into the community by demonstrating the reach and participation of your company in the community.

Other comments: that we are experiencing a “revolution in communication with our audiences in the arts world.” How are we going to interact with them? Our conversation right now is asynchronous, rather than two-sided, which has implications for the arts.

Escalation of expectation; paradox of choice; Barry Schwartz; the secret to happiness is low expectations

You can tweet or find tweets on TCG at #tcg2011; and you can hit live streams of the conference at http://www.livestream.com/tcgconference. There was a great moment where someone tweeted McLennan that his shoe was untied; he hadn’t noticed until he looked at his iPhone. Classic.

Attention Economy
Intention Economy
Share Economy

U.S. Happiness Index: Gross National Happiness

The first event I attended here at DG Con was a conversation with Christopher Durang, whose play Why Torture is Wrong and the People Who Love Them was at CPT not too long ago.

Durang was a highly engaging story-teller and was fabulous to listen to. For some strange reason, or perhaps not so strange, I was reminded of John Bellairs–perhaps it is the Catholic upbringing and the way it manifests itself in the work.

What follows below are the notes that I took as I listened. I have expanded on some things as I was inspired to do so:

One of the opening questions posed to Durang by host Jim Price was what is it that leads to the mix of serious and the strange in his writing. Durang talked about early influences, including: how to succeed in business w/o even trying; and I Love Lucy. Durang said that he was always attracted to quick paced performances and is not a fan of the real-time nature of drama in the 50s.

Durang wrote his first play @ age 8; and it revolved around the I Love Lucy episode when Lucy has a baby… the family and friends practice… it’s time… then panic when it happens… he loved that.

Durang says that he came from a family that was open to the arts
memoir of johnny durang…? He had his first production in 2nd grade… and he discovered that it was fun.

early musical banned in boston, etc. 13th birthday gypsy… his mother was like gypsy because she would tell everyone about his plays…

The 1st audition process he was involved in included girls from other schools; he was at an all-boys Catholic school; he recalls that the nuns were not happy that the girl (in the show) had to drop a shoulder strap at the end; the show ended w/4 weddings (it was very shakespearean).

Durang attended Delbarton 7 -12; had to work hard at math, not very good at it. Durang remarked that his mother’s divorce lawyer suggested he attend Harvard, where he goes. There he goes through a bout of depression from fresh – junior; not much theater during that time. Part of the depression he attributes the discovery/realization that what he learned during his Catholic upbringing, with regard to God and the universe, is not true.

At Harvard he creates the greatest musical ever sung for which Al Franken auditioned. (mad magazine style spoof of “real” songs)
Gospels in musical comedy terms. “everything’s coming up moses”
He lived in Dunster House. al gore and tommy lee jones were there at the time. The show included 9 apostles (5 women) couldn’t get 12. 2 weekends; good reviews; later uproar… offensive to Catholics…
“pigs trampling in a sanctuary” quote… included this statement in his Yale application.

yale
albert? irish nuns (repressive) vs. italian (violent)
a lot of cabaret stuff
howard stein
william blake/thomas gray met in glass menagerie
& eleanor and franklin roosevelt
2 weekends
graduate newspaper (wrote their own review under a pseudonym — did not give themselves a rave)
life story of mitsy gaynor? gloria steinem…

Durang remarked that from one of his shows there were lines cut … And Durang had to go to whomever cut them–professor, faculty–and say, essentially, sorry, our name is on it, not yours… I don’t remember the context; fully. But this goes to the Holding Our Tongue DG conference in Cleveland, where I first met Gary Garrison; and the issues surrounding the forms that censorship take.

new york
sigorney weaver
so hard to make a living…
wendy wasserstein
taught acting even though he didn’t act
typist at Yale Medical — had to write rejection letters for people’s “donated” bodies because they had too many
got $8K grant from yale
cbs playwriitng?
titanic… (sigorny weaver)
idiots karamozov
lustintania (another ship that sank) das lustintania songer spiel…
sister mary ignatious
vanities — 11pm slot $5 per performance
brecht — eva perone the demon first lady of buenas aires (a ‘fib’ they created)

With regard to the playwriting business today, Durang remarked that he has found the movement to be toward development versus production;
caveat being that he doesn’t know as much now about what’s going on…
teaching with Marsha Norman. Durang finds the atmosphere troublesome
in that, as he recalls when he started out in ’75-’76; there was alot of $ for production of plays (new american plays); now it’s “workshops”; and that if 5 theaters have an interest in a writer all five theaters will do readings of his/her work; the playwright doesn’t get a production and each theater will dramaturge the play and make suggestions and “playwrights lose their play” that way.

Further, Durang finds that dramaturgs tend to subscribe to rules when there are, in fact, no dramaturgy rules. For instance, one dramaturg told him that you “can’t open a play w/ a :30 minute monolog”.

Advice to writers: if you see something you love, try to figure out what it is about it that you love and how you can write something similar to it; additionally, it is important to find people who will give you feedback about the play that YOU want to write.

find your voice:
have them write from “their own stuff”
best plays come from when you’re writing “your stuff”
wrote from a feeling he had (sister marry ignatious) had no idea it would be successful

how long can you not produce before people forget about you: agent: 2 years (laugh)
mother was dying of cancer
the actor’s nightmare… (another play)

don’t hold on to just one play… be prolific…

question: self-censorship (sister mary)
wasn’t mad when he wrote it
did he ever not want to put some stuff in the play–want to hold back
thought everyone would agree with him
rules didn’t make sense to him
no idea people would find it funny
adults performing something children wrote (as funny)
especially with their understanding of the story
jesus crucified, but for children replacing it with a blonde-haired doll, etc.

sex and longing was tough for him because it was so badly received
hasn’t even read the reviews yet
difficult because he couldn’t fix it.

difficulty getting into expository writing classes at Harvard
was having a difficult time at that point in his life
didn’t feel brave enough to go to NY on his own
teacher encouragement was very important

write intuitively, spur of the moment, and when he feels like it/enjoys it

found it important to schedule time and force himself to write and stick with stuff even when he didn’t want to

business of life and laziness keep him from writing…

daniel goldfarb in his class…

betty’s summer vacation
writes improvisationally–so a serial killer appears…

friendliest plays–beyond therapy
best received

depressed to discover that the things he learned in Catholic school weren’t true (part of his depression)
cognitive therapy — positive frame of mind will generate positivity, etc.