Dinner-Vention Update

Good morning
"And the beat goes on....................."

The Dinner-Vention - Jammin' at Djerassi was held this past Friday night, and we had a probing discussion and spirited exchange of ideas.  We video taped almost three hours, and now begin the task of editing the tape into a cogent, and we hope, compelling presentation.  I hope we can have the finished record of the conversation done and up on this blog site within a month or so.

Given our initial reaction to the event, I think it very likely we will do Dinner-Vention II next year.  Perhaps, after that (or even a third one), we might gather all the guests together for a two or three day gathering - with no agenda, no issues on the table - just the opportunity for some very smart people to share ideas. And then to share those ideas with the wider field.  We learned a lot about the processes, protocols and dynamics of this effort, on which we can build the next one.

Meanwhile I've asked all the dinner guests to consider blogging or otherwise writing about the experience - their reflections, comments and reactions to all that was said, as well as their further thinking - and will provide links to any that opt to do so.  For those of you that may not have seen dinner guest Devon Smith's thoughts prior to the dinner (posted by Thomas Cott's You've Cott Mail) , I have included them below.  We've also set up a closed Facebook Group so the dinner guests might continue the conversation they started Friday night.  It is my hope for this project that this inaugural class of the Dinner-Vention, having bonded through the process, will continue to share their thinking not only with each other, but with the wider field.

Three hours is clearly not enough time to fully address the myriad questions and issues the table put forth (let alone all the thoughts of the guests which the limitations of time prevented us from even bringing up), and we probably raised more questions than we answered, but there was considerable food for thought last Friday night - from specific ideas, to wider conceptual thinking.

I want to thank everyone involved in this project - Anthony Radich, and everyone at WESTAF, for their support; Shannon Daut for helping me to guide the project; and Margot Knight at Djerassi for her kind and gracious hospitality in hosting the event.

I especially want to thank the dinner guests themselves.

There is no doubt the Dinner guest group - representing the future of our field - was a gifted assemblage of some of the brightest minds on the rise in our sector.  And giving this cohort of our leaders a wider platform was one of the objectives of the effort.

Here then is Devon Smith's pre-dinner thinking paper:  (and I invite all the guests, if they wish, to submit their own lists of questions which I would like to post here.)

"Dinnervention is a gathering of 12 "up and coming voices" in the arts, conceived by Barry Hessenius, paid for by WESTAF, more than a year in the making, and finally happening IRL tomorrow evening over a two-hour dinner at Djerassi.  It began with crowdsourced voting of potential dinner guests. More than 350 names were submitted. Hunger Games style, 12 were chosen, though I doubt we'll be debating to the death[a]. Next came the selection of a meaty dinner conversation topic, sourced by the guests themselves, and shaped into a coherent vision by the selection committee.

Then we chosen few were asked to write briefing papers (Part I) and (Part II) about how we would address the topic of, "Traditional audiences are declining and participation patterns are shifting seismically, which is having a deleterious impact on arts organization's traditional revenue streams. How can we address this pattern on a macro scale? What would a new movement around the arts look like?" Barry published these online, and asked us to continue ruminating and engaging via email with each other, and the organizers.

I have to admit I haven't been able to contribute to the conversation in the way I had hoped months ago when this whole plan began to take shape. There's been a dearth of open dialogue on social media by the 338 other I'm sure incredibly well deserving potential participants. I didn't get a chance myself to dive into the other 11 briefing papers until the 6 hour flight from DC to SFO I'm currently aboard. None-the-less, I find myself inspired and brimming with ideas that I hope we have the opportunity to tackle in what will amount to roughly 7 minutes of speaking time per guest.

As we were taking off, I ritualistically opened my latest copy of WIRED magazine, fortuitously titled, "The Future of Design. Invisible. Beautiful. Everywhere." And suddenly, my trusty Field Notes memo book was filled with potential. What follows is a summary of what amounts to my own Random Access Memory.

• Google's Project Loon: where is our moonshot idea? our willingness to invest in R&D?
• Nassim Taleb's new book, Anti-fragility, shows how randomness and complexity tend to make (some) systems stronger. In the way that recovering from Chicken Pox provides us immunity. Or the way that humans still beat computers at chess because even experts sometimes make random moves that rigid computing systems can't replicate. How do we design our arts ecosystem for anti-fragility, rather than stability, or survivability?
• How do we align incentives across a wide spectrum of stakeholders? I want whistleblowers who will blow the doors wide open at institutions who are inefficiently using the public's funds. Not just misappropriating them, but, for any reason, not maximizing the most productive use of capital to create art.
• I think that in a given city, our product doesn't have enough variability. People show up to museums not knowing what exhibits are showing. What makes us think they don't do the same with theatre performances? When we market the arts, it is too often about the art.
• Why aren't there more (any?) arts think tanks? I live in the city of think tanks (DC), and see how they are moving surprisingly swiftly with 21st century needs to shine a digital spotlight on all their experts, and encourage thoughtful dialogue on important issues of policy. Policy that doesn't stop short at the Beltway, but finds itself impacting communities around the world. Great as it may be, we need more than New Beans, and Createquity. We need the authority of Brookings, the embedded evaluators of RWJF, the global perspective of Demos, the intellectual bent of Third Way, the zeal and approach to digital distribution of the Heritage Foundation and the funding of Pew. 
• FWD.us is advocating for the goals of the technology community, by focusing on immigration reform. What does arts policy look like, beyond tax breaks, economic revitalization zones, and more federal funding for artists?
• What happens when people start wearing Google Glass to the theatre? The New York Times is broke, but they've already developed a Google Glass app. Does any artist, in any institution, even own a pair of Google Glass?
• What happens when we can 3D print our props and costumes? Does any University MFA program even own a makerbot?
• Glitch Art demonstrates an interest in the unrefined. The mistakes made beautiful. Who's producing glitch (performance) art?
• Google has the same problems we do--declining audiences, declining time spent with their core product, and an influx of competitors that offer audiences new ways to do what Google's always offered. What do they do about it? Invent Google Glass to give advertisers entirely new performance metrics. You thought pay per click was useful? Wait until pay per glance. They develop self driving cars. Not for the data, but for the 90 minutes of time it will free up for 100 million people in the US alone. 90 new minutes of brain space for people to search Google, and click on Google's distributed ad network. They make the insane plausible with Project Loon. 3 billion people aren't yet connected to the internet (and therefore are out of our reach)? No problem, let's replace costly satellites with low-fi weather balloons to provide wi fi to the world. If we can clearly articulate the problems we're facing in the arts (which frankly, I don't think there's any agreement on), then we can start exploring moonshots.
• What if an arts organization employed a user experience designer? What problems would they tackle first?
• The reason we run theatrical performances so long is to recoup the costs of building them, relying on the ephemeral "buzz" to build over time. So build cheaper, and market faster.
• There's a new wave of hyper-local living room shows. Where "Do It Together" is the new "Do It Yourself." Sometimes just giving a name to something makes it cool, and approachable, and the idea itself tangible to audiences. What does hyper-local arts look like? Maybe we've already got it, we're just not capitalizing on the term.
• What is the quantified self data for the arts? What does a Jawbone product look like, optimized for aesthetic consumption and production, rather than for health? What could we do with that data?
• We need more "Digital Curator meets Community Manager." Someone who is immersed in the art-making in our spaces, as much as in the community-making online. Dinnervention itself would have benefited from such a role, helping to guide and nurture the online opportunities in the run up to this IRL event.
• Moore's Law fundamentally drives innovation in the technology world. What is our Moore's Law that can predict how (and how quickly) the landscape will change?
• The government is now looking for Nudges, to guide users to make the right decision, of their own volition. How can the arts use behavioral economics principles to drive attendance and participation?
• Dark Patterns refer to those online systems set up to "trick us" into doing something we otherwise likely wouldn't. Opting in to your email newsletter for example by providing a helpfully "pre-checked" box in your ticket purchase flow. They are meant to be deceptive, and in doing so, destroy our relationship with our audiences at the very moment they're forking over their hard earned cash to us. Stop doing it.
• I want to know the moment that X% of the audience takes out their phone in a quiet theatre to check the game score. I want to be able to use that data to better optimize our performance, the same way programmers minimize bounce rates by speeding up page load times. I want to know the paths that people take through museums. I want to be able to use that data to build new museums, and new exhibits, new experiences, the same way that grocery stores silently ping my cell phone's wifi to know which aisle I walk down first, and where they should put more high-value signage for the latest sales.
• Big data is coming to the arts. See Chris Unitt and Sean Redmond for more.
• Impossible business models have disrupted industries not through institutions making change, but from entrepreneurs with a vision--for the product and the business model. Warby Parker disrupted the monopoly of LensCrafters by pairing two MBAs with a sense of purpose and nominal exposure to the industry. Invite the quants to the table.
• NAMP (perhaps unknowingly) adeptly employed digital retargeting on me yesterday. I visited their website once, and then their ads followed my web browsing the entire rest of the day, courtesy of Google's distributed ad network. More like this please.
• Speaking of NAMP, in the spirit of TCG's "doing > learning" mantra, November's conference should feature a workshop on iphone photography apps & methods. These produce incredibly high-quality and artistic opportunities to create in minutes for free what a studio photographer will spend weeks and tens of thousands of dollars on.
• We live in a Filter Bubble. Individually, and as an industry. The most value you could probably get at a conference is to go to a Healthy Hackathon and see how that industry is using digital technology to influence behavior, not just purchases. Go to Games for Change to blow your mind on how to use art to influence behavior. Go to XOXO to be inspired. Go camping in Portland for a week to learn how to make 3D prototypes. And the very ones who put on our industry conferences should be paying you to go learn from these other conference, and bring your insight back to the industry. Foster an attendee swap partnership with your colleagues at other foundations/service organizations. You don't think healthcare professionals would be inspired to learn from the Chorus America national conference?
• Last week I noticed a tweet asking "do we have enough conservative art." Who is our Fox News? We need them (or at least, that far end of the spectrum) to be truly diverse.
• WIRED's 101 signals for high density information sources breaks individuals down by business, technology, security, science, culture, and design. You know what "culture" means to the WIRED generation? Music, board games, cartoons, graphic novels, TV, Film, video games, sports, and comedy. Not a museum, theatre, opera, dance company in the mix. And who are the "designers"? They are the pre-fixes of architecture, video game, industrial, visual, urban, tech-art, interaction, user experience, technology, data viz, video, graphic, typographic, and furniture -designers.
• Where is our Angel List, matching funders with potential sources of investment?
• Who are our Entrepreneurs in Residence? Hackers in Residence?
• Where are our incubators?
• Who is our Fred Wilson to provide decades worth of free insight to the up-and-coming generation, humble in his role as community moderator more than guru.
• My first perception of your organization if of your website. Does it reflect what you want me to think about you?
• Medium is a platform for creators. Some they pay, others they offer free "space" to, distributing the ones who become popular on their own merits, and those they believe deserve more attention. YBCA is our Medium. Where are the others?
• Why hasn't Ben Cameron done a Reddit AMA? I demand it by the end of the year.
• Where is our HackerNews? Ian David Moss, great as he is at link roundups, isn't enough.
• In the past year I've joined the homebrew beer community, that connects kitchens to Twitter, elevating the amateur, who consume what they create, and idolize the craft movement while vilifying the "big beer" industry. Where is our homebrew arts?
• The Corporation for Public Broadcasting pays local radio stations to merge together. What arts funder will be brave enough to propose the same model?
• What arts organization would use local Google search result trends to drive their programming calendar?
• There is a culture of craft in our midst, a renaissance of handmade goods. Where are our hand made (artistic) experiences?
• What would this dinnervention look like, formatted instead as a presidential debate. Each of our POV on a litany of specific issues, with an opportunity to frame and rebut each other's assertions. There's a conference panel I'd like to see.
• There will be a Massively Open Online Course this fall, using the 4th season of the Walking Dead to speak to physics, epidemiology, mathematics, and sociology. Where is our artistic MOOC?
• The triumvirate of the Knight Foundation, Niemen Journalism Lab, and Poyntner Institute collective cover some of the most interesting experimentations and trends in the journalism world. Where are the large institutions taking risky leaps with outspoken words about what's working and not in the arts ecology?
• In the technology world, the pro-am power dynamic is flipped. Facebook is run by a 29 year old billionaire. We trust Zuck, but not your interns?

Upon which, my flight landed in SFO. My incredibly patient driver navigated the dusty, windy, sun-drenched, and often unmarked roads to Djerassi, what must be one of the most beautiful places in the world for an artist to spend time creating."

Have a great week.

Don't Quit

Barry

The Arts Anti Defamation League

Good morning.
"And the beat goes on......................"

Last month, Stephanie MIlling posted a blog on the Americans for the Arts Arts Blog site, sharing a story about a news article on protests against a retailer - The Children's Place - for selling a girls tee shirt that many considered sexist as suggesting young girls were not good in math.   As Stephanie noted:

The shirt said “my best subjects,” and featured checkboxes next to shopping, music, dance, and math. The boxes next to shopping, music, and dance contained checks while the box next to math was empty. While the controversy surrounding the shirt was motivated by individuals who viewed the shirt as sexist—and I am not denying that it was sexist–I was also bothered by the fact that it trivialized dance and music as core subject areas. By selling such a product, The Children’s Place and the t-shirt designer communicated that young women are intellectually inferior to their male peers and that studying the arts is equivalent to shopping.

This kind of defamation isn't new.  We are use to this.  We have lamented for years - decades now - the inaccurate portrait in the media and held by large blocs of people, that the arts are an unnecessary and non-essential frill; unimportant, trivial, and hardly worth serious consideration.

The dictionary defines "defame" as "to harm the reputation, as by slander or libel."  As a legal term, slander is difficult to prosecute because the definition is:  "a malicious, false and defamatory statement", and it is difficult to prove intentional maliciousness. Libel is limited to "defamation by written or printed words or any form other than spoken words or gestures." But defamation is accomplished even when slander and/or libel isn't involved.

Unquestionably, the arts are defamed on a regular basis.  There has developed over a long period of time the public mindset (manifested in the media coverage and the portrayal of the arts as fluff and as a pursuit of fringe people) that the arts are irrelevant, add little value other than as entertainment, and aren't really important to the fabric of society; and further that even if they aren't an unnecessary frill, they hardly rise on the pantheon of values that ought to be supported by society.) We all know that such thinking is simply, and categorically, untrue, false, and yes, defamatory.  Whether the intention is malicious or not.  The media is chock full of references to us as akin to the Children's Place tee shirt as on a par with such frivolous activities as 'shopping'.

Over time, hundreds of thousands of these images and stories have cemented a false image in the public mindset.  From words echoed by politicians in the halls of Congress and beyond, to the treatment of the arts by business, retailers, industry, and even serious educators (STEM not STEAM), the message is clear and relentless: the arts are at best a marginal human endeavor.   Sometimes these messages are sent by people who ought to know better, sometimes by people who use us to further an agenda, sometimes by people who fail to even try to understand what value we bring to society.  Defamation of the arts manifests itself in sundry ways - creating a pervasive mind set that partially explains reluctance to accept the arts as an essential core subject.  It has led parents who - with good intentions - try to convince their children to prepare for serious work and not pursue the arts as a career. The defamation is endemic and systemic.

Other groups facing religious or other kinds of bigotry, intolerance, marginalization or even outright hatred, have for a long time understood that it isn't in their interests to allow others to defame them publicly, and have taken proactive steps to identify those instances of defamation, and then to counter them.

The ADL - the Anti Defamation League, one of the oldest of these organizations, has as its original mission:

"To stop, by appeals to reason and conscience, and if necessary by appeals to law, the defamation of of the Jewish people."

This has been a continuing struggle over a long period of time, and while far from over, there is clear evidence these efforts have helped to stem the tide of ignorance, prejudice and bigotry.

GLADD (the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) has also operated for a long time describing its mission:

"GLAAD amplifies the voice of the LGBT community by empowering real people to share their stories, holding the media accountable for the words and images they present, and helping grassroots organizations communicate effectively. By ensuring that the stories of LGBT people are heard through the media, GLAAD promotes understanding, increases acceptance, and advances equality."

Their website says:

"GLAAD is leading the conversation for LGBT equality, and changing the culture. As the LGBT movement's communications epicenter, GLAAD is the principal organization that works directly with news media, entertainment media, cultural institutions and social media. Through the undeniable power of the media - whether it's your favorite TV show, telenovela or local newspaper - or even on the sports field or through an online petition with hundreds of thousands of signatures, GLAAD is there advancing the stories that need to be told and that make real change." 

Now I am not suggesting that defending the arts against defamation is exactly analogous to defending people who for far too long have been the target of hatred.  But I am suggesting that like those groups of people who early on recognized that they had to defend themselves against unfair, unreasonable, false portraits in the media and the public mindset, it is incumbent on the arts not to allow falsehoods about who we are to be perpetuated.  Action - to first identify, then counter the negative images, and to correct the falsehoods and erroneous portrayals using stories, education, facts, and even appeals to the legal system or such actions as boycotts, would ultimately help us as it has helped other groups.

The really important activity is in identifying those who would spread the falsehoods, create the stereotypes, and perpetuate the myths, and then confronting them  to say, in no uncertain terms; 'this is unacceptable'; and finally, to demand that those engaged in defamation cease and desist and correct their mistakes.

I think the time has come that the arts ought to establish its own ARTS ANTI DEFAMATION ALLIANCE in a formalized sense with the creation of a nonprofit whose sole objective would be to identify the falsehoods about the arts, educate those who spread the misinformation, and demand they stop.

While this would doubtless be a full time endeavor just to monitor, research and identify all the instances of those who defame us, and would likely take us a long, long time to change those behaviors, I think in the long run it would be of tremendous value and benefit for us to begin now to do so in earnest.

This doesn't have to be an unwieldy exercise.  It isn't rocket science.  It's legwork. A three person office, whose job would be to begin to organize the task of identifying those who defame us, aggregate materials in response, and make demands of those who consciously or unconsciously are harming us could be up and running within months of the decision to make it happen.  You make a start and you build on it overtime.  If the arts community would be supportive, by lending the power of our numbers, and perhaps even some minuscule individual contributions, this kind of effort could become self-supportive.

This could be jumpstarted by a relatively modest funding grant by a consortium of funders.   Over just a few years, I believe we could begin to see a dramatic shift in the way we are portrayed in American society.  Would such an organization struggle on launch? Of course, and I suspect both the ADL and GLADD struggled a little too at the start.  But over time, I think people in our field could see the value of fighting back and would be supportive of the effort. And the publicity of defending ourselves would, I believe, relatively quickly position us so that those who, without thinking, attack us, would think twice.  And how much would it cost relative to what we might gain by not -- finally -- having to always, always defend ourselves as having relevance, meaning and value?  I'll bet you could do this for a couple hundred thousand dollars, and then it could be self-supportive.  To me anyway, that seems like a really small investment for a potential huge return.  It would help us to spread our case stories, to rally those who support us - within our own universe, and in the wider public realm - and it would help to build a sense of community among ourselves centering on the belief that we are not impotent to stop all those things that are harming us.  It would support our advocacy and lobbying efforts, and perhaps even earn us more supporters and audiences.

We are in a titanic struggle for how we are perceived in society. The constant, relentless defamation of the arts insidiously works against all our good efforts.  We really can't afford to let that defamation continue unchallenged.

Or we can continue to do nothing but lament the inaccuracies of which we have so long been the brunt.  We can do something positive, or we can let the problem grow worse.  We can fund a couple more studies on something by brilliant minds that will go unread and languish in the nether world that is the domain of such studies, or we can use the money to actually try to do something. Because there is little doubt it will continue to get worse.   I think the time has come to fight back - in an organized and structured way.  Our past "hit and miss" approach of leaving the confrontation of those who marginalize and defame us to someone (somewhere) to pick up, hasn't worked.  Oh yes, when there is something so egregious as the recent New York Times Op Ed piece suggesting the arts, as a charity, was a bad charity choice, we will respond in a chorus.  But there are a hundred, nay tens of thousands such false ideas that work against us out there that, in the aggregate, are a lot more damaging than something so obvious.  The falsehoods, the lies, the mischaracterizations continue unabated.  Let's stop them now.  Let's at least try.  It is in all our interests to make this attempt.

BTW - the retailer in the story about the girls tee shirt above stopped selling it and apologized for offending people.  This kind of action works.  And remember, we have a very, very powerful bloc of people in our universe and even wider untapped support in the general public.  When is the last time you read about someone who maligned the arts, apologizing?  One good threatened boycott in the right situation could do wonders for our position.  We need to put those who would mischaracterize us on alert that we will no longer sit idly by and let those instances of defamation continue.  

Have a great week.

Don't Quit.
Barry

2013's Fifty Most Powerful and Influential People in the Nonprofit Arts (USA)

Good morning.

"And the beat goes on................."

This is the sixth annual Barry’s Blog listing of the Most Powerful and Influential Leaders in the Nonprofit Arts.  It has become far and away the most widely read of my postings (last year it attracted 12,500 page hits in addition to the subscriber base circulation - up from 5,000 additional hits from the previous year).

While I know many (most) people skip this introduction and immediately scroll down to the list itself, two points before you rush to judgment and / or criticize:  

1.  Please don't send me a comment noting the conspicuous absence of artists on the list.  That is intentional.  There are, of course, countless artists, who because of their talent, skill, passion, genius and dedication are both powerful and influential. They greatly influence all of us.  But this list is limited to those leaders who work in the nonprofit arts field as administrators. And that means that not only are artists intentionally omitted, but the classes of curators, directors, publicists, managers, and others are also not the province of this list - though I certainly recognize these people and others have considerable influence.  There are several artists on this list, but their inclusion is because of their role in some facet of the administration of the nonprofit arts, not in their capacity as artists.  Perhaps someone else may wish to compile a list of powerful and influential artists and others, but that is another list from this one.  You have to stop somewhere.

And this list is only a list of those who work in the nonprofit arts field in America.  Obviously there are powerful, influential and admirable leaders across the globe.

2.   A few people (every year) let me know they don't like this kind of list.  More often than not, what they really don't like is the inclusion of certain of the people who are on the list.  It's not that they have anything against any of these people, rather that they want to promote power and influence accruing to a different kind of arts administrator; leaders whose thinking is different from the prevailing approaches of most of the folks on this list.  They want the future to be here now. I understand and appreciate that.  

In fact, I am heartened that the list provokes some discussion about who should have power and influence and why, and where power and influence ought to reside, and why.  One of my purposes in compiling this list every year is that I think it is important to know where the field perceives power and influence to lie, and why - because these people largely determine how the debates in our sector are framed and what the agendas will be. They drive our discussions of policy, and they are the people who control much, if not most of the money, and decide where the funding goes (at least in broad swatches).  They influence what issues should be on the front burner, and what we talk about when we meet. They define our goals and objectives, our priorities and the positions we take – and even the way we do things.  They can ‘green light’ new programs and projects and are chiefly responsible for prioritizing which challenges we address. In large part, they are our most experienced and knowledgeable people – arguably some of our best thinkers; certainly our established power brokers. Some of them represent specific segments within our larger community; others have at-large platforms. They have varied, substantial, and sometimes eclectic resumes and experience.  Some have served in the field for a long time; others are newer to our ranks.  

The reality is that some people do have more power and influence, or are perceived as such - whether anyone likes it or not.  To pretend that any world (ours included) is not stratified, tiered, territorial and subject to politics and disproportionately controlled by an oligarchy at the top is naïve.  If as a field, we want to change how we assign power and influence, to whom, when, and why - then that should be pushed via open and transparent dialogue across the sector.  I think it of value to know who we think the people with power are.  I believe the people who work in our field are passionate and motivated and seek the higher good, but I also recognize that they are human beings, and that our field isn’t some separate and perfect world – and that power and influence are tangible currency – sometimes spent wisely, other times needlessly squandered.  And I acknowledge that there are people who honestly think that the people on the list holding power and influence is not necessarily a good thing. 

Power is defined as “the capability of doing or accomplishing something; the possession of control or command over others; authority.”  Influence is defined as “the capacity or power of persons or things to be a compelling force on or produce effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of others”.  Thus this list does not purport to necessarily measure impact, creativity, accomplishment or lasting effect – but rather who has the ability and capacity to get things done and move others to get things done – and in this case on a large stage -  or (perhaps even more importantly) who is perceived as having that ability, for the perception itself confers a degree of power and influence.  It isn’t meant to be a popularity contest.  Indeed, some of those on the list are perhaps not universally loved - but they do have power and / or exercise influence.  Neither does this list attempt to measure or evaluate anyone’s job performance or skill sets.  

Leaders come and go, move from one post to another and their fortunes and the fortunes of the organizations they lead change from year to year, as do both the circumstances in which they operate and their own level of activity and involvement.  Thus some leaders included on this list one year, may not be on the radar screen of my nominators the next year. Some leaders are active one year, quiet the next.  Admittedly this is but a subjective exercise and the selections are arbitrary. As such this list is, of course, incomplete and flawed.   All lists are. This one is neither exhaustive nor definitive.  No insult is meant to anyone whose name is not on the list, and I am sure there are many people whose names should be on the list. While I personally agree with most of the final selections, as in prior years there are some I find surprising. I am also confused by the omission of others that I would have thought would have been consensus inclusions. Particularly surprising (and puzzling) to me this year is the absence of the nominations of leaders working so hard in the arts education field.  Some may argue that the categories included are incomplete; that some categories should include more people, others fewer.  People may agree, or disagree that the names on this list have power or influence.  I acknowledge that it is merely a “snapshot’ in time of our leadership; one that tries to recognize influence exercised over the past year, and circumstances that will likely confer the power of influence in the coming year. 

This year's list includes many who have frequently been on the list (and not surprisingly, there is heavy representation of funders who control grants), but I also note a definite trend towards another generation of leaders - included not so much because they have the power of position, or purse or long standing place - but rather because their ideas speak eloquently and convincingly, and their thinking continues to gain traction with an ever widening group.   This list is becoming less about power each year, and more about influence.  Slowly - but surely.  And more of the next generation of arts leaders are appearing on the list.  As the Boomers retire, that trend can only get more pronounced.  Power is never wholly static, nor is influence - both are in a constant state of flux and transition - nowhere more so than in our perceptions.  (Certainly the perception of who has power and influence is a fickle thing; (Half the names on this year's list were not on last year's list; almost half of this year's people have never been on the list before).

I also note that there is a shift in many places of power and influence moving from state agencies to city agencies.  That may be largely a function of the fact of state funding cuts, and cities faring better in garnering public and private financial support.  Funding cuts have curtailed the reach of state agencies and with less money for grants, programs and projects, their influence has naturally ebbed.

And as the private (foundation) funders continue to try to  pick up some of the public funding slack - there has been a rise in their visibility, and in their power and influence.  Like everywhere else in society, money talks.

There are, of course, countless unsung, brilliant leaders in our field – whose exemplary accomplishments and contributions are known to but a small circle and whose reputations are thus not yet widely established.  That they did not make this list in no way diminishes their contributions; rather it is more likely an indication that they are not yet, for whatever reason, perceived as having as much power and influence as others in our field. Doubtless the profile of many of these leaders will rise over time. Others may move on.  This list includes individuals who principally operate on a national stage, and most have long term tenures in the field and years of experience.  But even though only six years old, the list has changed over time, and will, I suspect, continue to morph in the future.

Finally, this year WESTAF and I launched the Arts Dinner-vention project, which will take place at the end of next week.  This is an attempt to give a platform and voice to some of those exemplary leaders and thinkers in our field who are not necessarily likely to be on this list -- yet.   It is a small attempt to acknowledge the influence of those coming up in the ranks.   (And actually some of the dinner guests did make the list this year - indicative of change in the wind.) 

Each year I ask leaders from all parts of our sector and all parts of the country to send me their nominations for the most powerful and influential leaders in our field.  The process is anonymous and none of the nominators know the identity of any of the other nominators.   At least 50% of the nominators in a given year are different from the previous year.  All are free to nominate anyone they thought qualified, including themselves - the only caveat being that this was about arts administration and organizational leadership, and so I asked that we leave artists off this list (that’s a whole other listing - see disclaimer above).

Neither I, nor any employee at WESTAF, (which distributes this blog, but in no way has any part whatsoever as the author or originator of this list) was eligible for inclusion on the list.

This year I continue to group those on the list in broad categories - (e.g., National Leaders, Foundation Leaders, Policy Wonks, City Agency leaders, Bloggers, Researchers etc.), in no particular ranking.

For all those on the list, congratulations.  You deserve the recognition.  As I said last year, I wish this came with a trophy, or a cash prize or some dinner in a big city to publicly laud your achievements, but I am, alas, without the means or platform to enact such luxuries. 

And finally:   Don’t shoot me.  I’m just the messenger.

Don’t Quit.

Barry

HERE THEN IS THE 2013 LIST:

National Leaders:

Janet Brown:  President and CEO, Grantmakers in the Arts

Her star can’t get much higher -- or can it?.  She is everyone’s choice as one of the principal people responsible for moving the nation’s philanthropic and government arts funders into new roles and thinking.  Unafraid to tackle such diverse challenges as race and racism, federal funding of arts education, and the need for arts organizations to have adequate capitalization - she remains unassuming and the consummate diplomat.  She has forever changed Grantmakers In the Arts, and probably the field as well.  "Inspiring" is the word one nominator used.

Bob Lynch:  President & CEO, Americans for the Arts

The Godfather of national arts service organizations, he has built one of the largest and most effective arts organization machines in the field, with a major presence in areas ranging from arts education and research, to business and marketing, to emerging leaders, to professional development -- all on the base of local arts agencies.  It is Americans for the Arts that defends and seeks to protect the National Endowment for the Arts budget - and without those efforts the agency might not have made it this far.   Bob refuses to slow down and is on the road as much as anyone in the industry, and he is the default public spokesperson for the field. Few people love their jobs as much as he does his.  

Joan Shigekawa:  Acting Chair of the National Endowment for the Arts

Joan has astutely, competently and professionally filled in as Chair of the Endowment following Rocco’s departure, and has done so with quiet class and grace.  

Aaron Dworkin  President - The Sphinx Organization

Reportedly a serious candidate for the Chair of the Endowment, for whatever reasons he prefers to remain as the highly visible head of one of the country’s most regarded performing arts organizations.  Very adept as using the bully pulpit and working philanthropic and corporate funders, he has made the Sphinx organization a premier training ground for gifted young classical artists of color -- and in the process has become a national figure himself. 

Maria Lopez De Leon - Executive Director, National Association of Latino Arts and Culture

Her influence and cachet grew even more last year with her ongoing place on the National Arts Council and her increased profile as one of the art sector’s foremost leaders of color.  As the Latino community grows, and becomes more active in the field, her influence cannot help but expand.  On people's short list for bigger things?

Jamie Bennett - Chief of Staff / Director of Public Affairs, National Endowment for the Arts

Rocco’s, and now Joan's, Chief of Staff and the Director of the Endowment’s public affairs arm, Jamie is one of the nonprofit arts highly respected rising stars.  He has a huge network of supporters, a razor sharp analytical mind and is unafraid of sharing his thinking.  His fan base has grown substantially over the past year, due in part in appreciation of someone who cuts to the chase.  He appreciates the big picture, while understanding how the details work.  

Mario Garcia Durham - Executive Director, Association of Performing Arts Presenters

He continues to deftly attend to the needs of the nation’s presenters while simultaneously fashioning that field into a more cohesive whole.  Pressure is on as people expect big things from him.

Adam Huttler - Executive Director, Fractured Atlas

Still the most visible and successful of a new generation of arts leaders, Huttler has grown Fractured Atlas into a national influential powerhouse while keeping a “start up” buzz going.  Like others of his niche, he is tireless and refuses to parse his words to placate the past.  Has had significant influence on the way small arts organizations do business.  Future Hall of Famer maybe?

Regional Leaders:

David Fraher - Executive Director, Arts Midwest 

Described as a “savvy, go-to guy on any subject”, Farher runs Arts Midwest - one of the regional arts organizations.  Nearing his 30th year at his post, he is far more than just a survivor.  After a half a lifetime in one gig, there isn’t much he hasn’t seen or about which he can’t say; “Been there, done that.”  That kind of experience is invaluable.  His commitment to support for arts organization infrastructure and the professional development of leadership, and his forging lasting relationships with funders and other partners, coupled with strong programs of artist support have made him a national leader in the field.  

City Agency Leaders:

Jonathan Glus - CEO, Houston Arts Alliance

Awash in funding, Houston's municipal arts agency is the envy of most of the other city agencies in the country, and Jonathan is the one who heads the decision making process as to where to spend a seemingly almost endless money stream.  As the first head of the organization, his exemplary performance has significantly raised Houston’s and his own reputation.  On the way up.

Michele Boone - Commissioner, City of Chicago Department of Cultural Affairs and Special Events

She reportedly has Mayor Rahn Emanuel’s ear, and is using that access to wring increasing city support for the arts, arts education and artists in the windy city.  Named to a handful of most powerful lists, she is seen as one of the “go to” people in the sector for advice and her opinion.

Michael Spring - Director, Miami-Dade County Department of Cultural Affairs

He helms one of the major urban arts agencies in the country and is a major player in the arts advocacy efforts both in Florida and on the national stage with his deep involvement with Americans for the Arts.  Savvy, down to earth, experienced and knowledgable, he is highly esteemed by his colleagues.

Roberto Bedoya - Executive Director, Tucson / Pima Arts Council

Placing himself at the center of last year’s increased dialogue on race and racism (as manifested in the larger arena of the question of equity), he has established himself as someone who must be included in any conversation about the arts as related to people of color.  He asks hard questions adroitly clothed in academic language, and is pushing the envelope.  

Laura Zucker - Executive Director, Los Angeles County Arts Commission

A fixture on this list, she remains the pen ultimate administrator who runs one of the best shops ever.  If something is on her priority list, the chances are that it is on everyone in LA’s list. 

Olga Garay - Executive Director, Los Angeles City Department of Cultural Affairs

Having raised $21 million in additional funding for the Los Angeles Department of Cultural Affairs, she, together with Laura Zucker at the County Arts agency, have put Los Angeles on a solid footing for the future.  She is a politician, knows how the game is played, and has worked well with the Mayor and City Council. 

Research:

Sunil Iyengar - Director, Office of Research and Analysis, National Endowment for the Arts

He has raised the role of, and respect for, the NEA’s research activities, as well as the value of arts research, ten fold in the past year by championing transparency and a greater understanding for research.  

Anne Gadwa Nicodemus - Principal, Metris Arts Consulting

She’s starting to climb out from Ann Markusen’s shadow and shine in her own right, and is increasingly recognized as one of the key, pivotal point people in the world of arts data and research.  

Randy Cohen - Vice-President, Research and Policy, Americans for the Arts

Still the face of arts research and data to the rank and file of the nation’s arts organizations, he criss crosses the country preaching the gospel of the value of arts as confirmed by all kinds of data. Unapologetic chief defender of the importance of the economic argument for arts support.  It works, and hey, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  His easy going style have made him very popular in the field.

Ian David Moss - Director of Research, Fractured Atlas

Through his blog Createquity, he has ramped up understanding and respect for both the value and the process of serious data collection and research.  This year he spearheaded the establishment of an online community - the Cultural Research Network - with other stalwarts in the research community, and it has taken off.  He also has expanded his reputation as project advisor and strategic planner.  As one nominator put it:  “While his blog is a major voice in the field, his work consulting on a number of large-scale community-based strategic planning efforts have helped us envision new models for arts organizations and the way they are embedded into their community.”  Big future in the field.

Advocacy:

Danielle Brazell - Executive Director, Arts for LA

Los Angeles has one of the handful of the country’s best arts advocacy organizations, and Danielle is its heart, soul and brains. She has learned the ins and outs of effective lobbying by being proactive for a long time now, and has raised the visibility of her organization to the point where people across the sector have taken note.  Another rising star.

Nina Ozlu Tunceli - Chief Counsel of Government and Public Affairs - Americans for the Arts and Executive Director Arts Action Fund

Narric Rome - Vice-President, of Government and Public Affairs - Americans for the Arts

Consummate government experts, tireless protectors of the NEA and hearlded teachers and mentors to a generation of arts advocates across the country.  Nobody in the field knows more about the maze of intrigue in the political corridors of Washington D.C. than Nina.  And the Arts Action Fund remains the sector's best foray into real world lobbying.  

Arts Ed:

Yo Yo Ma - Artist

His artistry commands respect and attention, and his passion has made him the champion of the argument that the arts are essential to full growth of every individual in America.  Willing to use his celebrity to further arts education.

Philanthropy:

Darren Walker - President, Ford Foundation

With a solid background in arts philanthropy, and having played a major role in the ArtPlace efforts, his impact and influence on the field, already substantial, is expected to grow in the coming years as he assumes the leadership of the nation’s largest foundation. Since 2010, he has served as vice president for Education, Creativity and Free Expression at the Ford Foundation, where he has shaped more than $140 million in annual grant-making around the world, covering areas as diverse as media and journalism, arts and culture, educational access and opportunity, and religion.  He has been a driving force behind initiatives such as JustFilms, one of the largest documentary film funds in the world. He may walk softly, but he carries a very big stick.  Lots of eyes on him.

Ben Cameron - Program Director, Arts, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation

Still the best public speaker the arts has yet to put forward.  He is a thinking man’s philanthropist with money to spend, and he continues to have major influence on arts philanthropy.

Judith Jennings - Executive Director, Kentucky Foundation for Women (KFW), 

Leading a private, independent philanthropy that supports feminist art advancing social change, Jennings’ championing of women’s issues in the arts, has earned her the growing respect of the philanthropic field.  She continues to show up on more people’s radar screens as a rising voice.

Ruby Lerner - President & Executive Director, Creative Capital

Lerner’s influence on grantmaking to artists continues to expand. She’s been around the block enough to fully understand all the issues in trying to help artists not just survive, but actually "thrive" - and the funding community listens attentively to her opinions.  One nominator described her simply:  "She is a very, very smart lady."

Kary Schulman - Director, Grants-for-the-Arts - San Francisco

Another 30 year veteran, Schulman has navigated the minefield that the SF Arts ecosystem can be with consummate skill, and in the process has helped nurture and incubate scores of what are now model organizations - adhering to the philosophy of sticking with organizations while they grow.  Over her span she has overseen many times tens of millions of dollars in grants, and she has played an important role in protecting the hotel tax revenue stream that funds her organization - Grants-for-the-Arts - from the political machinations of wannabe politicians bent on cutting the funding.  Few San Francisco arts organizations would today still be around were it not for Schulman's funding help at some point.  A remarkable legacy for an unassuming stalwart.

John McGuirk - Program Director, Performing Arts Program, Hewlett Foundation

Having run both Irvine's and Hewlett's arts funding programs, and very involved in GIA, McGuirk continues to be a major voice in the sector, especially in California where Hewlett funds heavily in both arts education and performing arts.  Organizations throughout the greater Bay Area are his constituents, so he wields considerable influence. He's halfway through his tenure, and the next two years will be his legacy.  

Huong Vu Bozarth - The Boeing Company

Huong oversees The Boeing Company's Global Corporate Citizenship Pacific Northwest Region arts, culture, and civic grants portfolio. Previously, she was the senior arts program officer at The Paul G. Allen Family Foundation, guest curator at contemporary performance center On the Boards, director of grants programs at the Association of Performing Arts Presenters, fellow at the National Endowment for the Arts, and organizer of visual arts exhibitions. She is currently an advisory commissioner for the Seattle Arts Commission and a board trustee for the Seattle Parks Foundation, and she sits on the Board of GIA.

Deepa Gupta - The Boeing Company

Gupta is currently the Director of Education Initiatives and Strategy in the global corporate citizenship group at The Boeing Company.  Prior to Boeing, Ms. Gupta served as a program officer for The MacArthur Foundation where she managed its institutional building program called the MacArthur Award for Creative and Effective Institutions, the arts and culture grant program, and internal efforts to define a framework for MacArthur’s programmatic strategy development and impact assessment.  She is a member of the National Council on the Arts.

Because Boeing as a private sector corporation is so heavily involved in support for arts and culture, Huong and Deepa are in great demand as speakers, advisors, and participants in all the policy convenings of the sector.  

Carol Coletta  - former Director, Arts Place.  Now Vice-President, Community and National Initiatives, Knight Foundation
Under her direction, Arts Place became the major arm (and funder) of the Creative PlaceMaking movement, and she was the movement's spokesperson, champion and articulate defender.  Her direct experience with cities helped form her approach, and helped land her the VP position at Knight - where (while she will be once removed from the arts) she is likely to still have impact and sway on arts funding.  

Jeremy Nowak - Interim Director, Arts Place

Carol Coletta’s successor, Nowak is a Non Resident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution as well as a Non Resident Scholar at the University of Pennsylvania’s Institute for Urban Research. He currently serves as the chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia’s board of directors. He was President of the William Penn Foundation from 2011-2012 in a somewhat stormy tenure, and the CEO of The Reinvestment Fund (TRF) in Philadelphia, which he co-founded in 1985. Among his publications is Creativity and Neighborhood Development, a monograph that integrates art and cultural practices within a community development framework.  He certainly has the position and power to accomplish an ambitious agenda.  Time will tell where his priorities lie and how he will helm the PlaceMaking apparatus - and whether or not he has found his niche and a support base.

Josephine Ramirez -   Program Director, Arts - The Irvine Foundation

Foundations change their focus and stated strategic goals all the time, but few shifts have had as much play and influence across the philanthropic sector as Irvine's move to "Engagement" as their operating philosophy.  Whether breaking new ground, or recognizing and smartly reflecting a growing trend, their focus change has had major impact on the field, and Josephine is the one at the epicenter of the whole thing.  She has handled both criticism and applause with professionalism and humility and won a legion of fans in the process.  

Consultants:

Alan Brown - Wolf / Brown Consulting

Perhaps the most widely known and respected of all the arts consultants plying their trade today, Brown’s research and analysis continues to hold great sway over the thinking of the field.  One nominator described his influence thusly:  “He is so adept, and quick, at both recognizing and describing new trends, he holds the rapt attention of the nation’s arts leaders - and particularly the funders."

Russell Willis Taylor - President and CEO, National Arts Strategies

Her Executive training initiatives remain the ‘sterling’ entries in the field - endorsed by scores of participants and funders, and the network of graduates of her programs gives her a huge base of contacts seeking her advice and counsel.  

Policy Wonks:

Bill Ivey - Author, lecturer, former Chair of the NEA and Director of the Curb Center for Art, Enterprise and Public Policy 

Back in the national spotlight this past year with his book: Handmaking America,  Ivey continues his role as one of the pre-eminent thinkers on the importance and workings of creativity in America, and one of the most respected of all our policy mavens.  

Steven Tepper - Associate Director, Curb Center for Art, Enterprise and Public Policy / Associate Professor, Department of Sociology - Vanderbilt University

Widely recognized as one of the leading cultural policy experts in the sector, his involvement with SNAPP (the Strategic National Arts Alumni Project) and its conference this year at Vanderbilt and the release of its report, raised his visibility even higher.           

DISCIPLINE AREAS:

Theatre:

Meiyin Wang - Associate Artistic Producer, Public Theater / Under the Radar Festival

Greatly respected and admired head of the Under the Radar festival and her championing of new, and cutting edge theater, Wang is widely seen as one of the rising voices in the theater community.   

Visual:

Nina Simon -  Executive Director, Santa Cruz Museum of Art & History

Back on the list again this year for her growing leadership of a new generation of museum directors.  Risk taker, thought leader, out of the box experimenter, her blog is not only widely read and discussed, it is widely quoted.  Increasingly regarded as one of the faces of the future of museums because of her bold, innovative community emphasized approach.

Opera:

Marc Scorca - President and CEO, Opera America

Champion of Opera - not just for his membership but Opera everywhere.  He’s been in his post since 1990 and has overseen growth of his membership from 120 opera companies to nearly 2,500 members.  Collaborative style, he’s an effective champion of opera, music and the arts domestically and internationally.  He cares, and people respond to that.  

Music:

Jesse Rosen - President / CEO, League of American Orchestras

When Rosen talks, people listen.  Passionate, well versed in the issues facing all of the arts sector, he continues to speak for and on behalf of the nation’s music sector - bluntly and authoritatively.  

Kristin Thomson - Future of Music Coalition

Accomplished researcher in the area of musicians' revenue streams, she is shining a spotlight on artist survivability in the changing economic marketplace.  She is also a pioneer in helping arts organization’s to better utilize digital technologies.  

Bloggers:

Diane Ragsdale - Jumper

Thought provoking blogger, she champions the artist and the underdog and asks everyone to think.  One nominator noted:  “She challenges us to reconsider our  views about fulfilling the role of arts in community, measuring success, and public obligation.”  Widely read, she has a major influence in certain policy areas.

Andrew Taylor - The Artful Manager

Back in full form as one of the nation’s most widely read bloggers and now settled in as a professor at American University,  he has an uncanny ability to find the small things that make a big difference and provokes his large readership to think outside their own areas of expertise.  Doubtful there is anyone blogging on the arts who is more respected and beloved.  

Thomas Cott - You’ve Cott Mail 

Doug McClellan - Arts Journal

As one nominator put it:  These two are “The kings of arts industry content aggregation. If you’re not following them you’re not in the loop, period.” 

Cott is also an increasingly respected expert in the area of marketing, and McClellan

leads the charge in questioning the role of arts journalism in the wider pantheon of news and commentary from his new post as a member of the USC faculty.  Those who interact with him appreciate his keen insight and his intelligence.

Michael Rushton - For What It’s Worth

Director of the Arts Administration program at Indiana University, Rushton’s no nonsense approach is winning him loyal readers across the field.  Using his economics background, he asks the hard questions,  and questions the basic assumptions of the field, as he debunks common held theories and ideas.  

Rising Voices:

Laura Zabel - Executive Director, Springboard for the Arts

As one nominator described her:  “the it girl for innovation in public community arts organizations”, she is on everyone’s list as an innovator and visionary - particularly in the support of artists.

Richard Evans - President, EmcArts

One of the field’s foremost purveyors of adaptive change for arts organizations, his organization is at the forefront of pushing for innovation in the way the sector thinks and operates.  Skilled at forging new partnerships and collaborations, he is paving new ways to respond to community needs.

Clay Lord - Vice-President Local Arts Advancement - Americans for the Arts

His blog New Beans continues to break ground in the audience development arena thinking, and he is at the forefront of raising the issue of equity in arts support and funding.