This book explores and critiques different aspects of arts leadership within contemporary contexts. While this is an exp
294 59 3MB
English Pages  Year 2018
This book explores and critiques different aspects of arts leadership within contemporary contexts. While this is an exp
185 78 950KB Read more
Drawing on unique multi-arts, multi-city scholarly research, Understanding Audiences for the Contemporary Arts makes a t
205 76 3MB Read more
The Anthropology of Iceland presents the first perspectives on Icelandic anthropology from both Icelandic and foreign an
493 20 20MB Read more
These new essays comprise the first collective study of Lucan and his epic poem that focuses specifically on points of c
403 88 2MB Read more
230 36 2MB Read more
This book traces the history of 'girls' aesthetics,' where adult Japanese women create art works about
340 73 3MB Read more
204 30 2MB Read more
405 65 13MB Read more
Table of contents :
Table of Contents
List of Illustrations
PART 1: Overview
1. Arts and Leadership: An Overview
What Do We Understand by the Arts and Its Place/Role?
The Arts and the Environment
What Is Understood about Leadership?
Leadership and Management
Leadership and Context
Leadership: A Positive or Negative Force?
Shared Leadership Models
Other Ways of Framing Leadership
2. Culture and Arts Leadership
Leadership and Culture
Arts, Cultural Diplomacy and Cultural Policy
Culture and the Future
3. Women and Arts Leadership
Leadership and Gender
Women in the Arts
Women and Literature
Women and Film
PART 2: The Application of Arts Leadership
4. Artforms, Arts Organizations and Arts Leadership
The Governance of Arts Organizations
The Leadership and Management of Arts Organizations
Artists and Artforms
Artforms and Leadership
5. The Individual and Arts Leadership
The Power of Art and Artists
Arts Leaders and Leadership
Contemporary Approaches to Arts Leadership
Do Artists See Themselves as Leaders?
Other Ways of Seeing Arts Leadership
Can Arts Leadership Be Seen to Have a Broader Influence?
6. Collaborative Approaches and Arts Leadership
Understandings of Collaborative Leadership
Collaborative Leadership and Art Organizations
Artistic Leadership and Artistic Collaboration
Artistic Collaboration and the Audience
PART 3: Other Influencers and Changes
7. Stakeholders and Arts Leadership
What Is a Stakeholder?
Stakeholders in the Arts
Stakeholders and Competing Needs in the Arts
Governments as Stakeholders
The Audience and the Broader Community as Stakeholders
8. New Framings and Arts Leadership
New Technologies and Arts Practice
Copyright, Intellectual Property and New Framings
Networks and Arts Leadership
Creativity and Arts Leadership
Industry Framings and Arts Leadership
Entrepreneurship and Arts Leadership
9. Arts Leadership and Future Challenges
Diversity and Difference
Commerce and Art
Enabling Everyone to Experience Arts Practice
Arts Leadership in Contemporary Contexts
This book explores and critiques diﬀerent aspects of arts leadership within contemporary contexts. While this is an exploration of ways arts leadership is understood, interpreted and practiced, it is also an acknowledgment of a changing cultural and economic paradigm. Understanding the broader environment for the arts is therefore part of the leadership imperative. This book examines aspects such as individual versus collective leadership, gender, creativity and the inﬂuences of stakeholders and culture. While the book provides a theoretical and critical understanding of arts leadership, it also gives examples of arts leadership in practice. Josephine Caust is Principal Fellow in Arts and Cultural Management in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Melbourne, Australia.
Routledge Advances in Art and Visual Studies
This series is our home for innovative research in the ﬁelds of art and visual studies. It includes monographs and targeted edited collections that provide new insights into visual culture and art practice, theory, and research. The Aesthetics of Scientiﬁc Data Representation More than Pretty Pictures Edited by Lotte Philipsen and Rikke Schmidt Kjærgaard Art: Process: Change Inside a Socially Situated Practice Loraine Leeson Visualizing War Emotions, Technologies, Communities Edited by Anders Engberg-Pedersen and Kathrin Maurer Perception and Agency in Shared Spaces of Contemporary Art Edited by Cristina Albu and Dawna Schuld Contemporary British Ceramics and the Inﬂuence of Sculpture Iconoclasm, Monument, and Multiples Laura Gray Contemporary Citizenship, Art, and Visual Culture Making and Being Made Edited by Corey Dzenko and Theresa Avila The Evolution of the Image Political Action and the Digital Self Edited by Marco Bohr and Basia Sliwinska Artistic Visions of the Anthropocene North Edited by Gry Hedin and Ann-Soﬁe N. Gremaud Contemporary Artists Working Outside the City Creative Retreat Sarah Lowndes For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/art/series/RRAR
Arts Leadership in Contemporary Contexts
First published 2018 by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2018 Taylor & Francis The right of Josephine Caust to be identiﬁed as the author of this work has been asserted by her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identiﬁcation and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Names: Caust, Jo, author. Title: Arts leadership in contemporary contexts / Josephine Caust. Description: New York : Routledge, 2017. | Series: Routledge advances in art and visual studies | Includes index. Identiﬁers: LCCN 2017039763 | ISBN 9781138677319 (hardback) Subjects: LCSH: Arts--Management. | Leadership. Classiﬁcation: LCC NX760 .C38 2017 | DDC 706.8--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017039763 ISBN: 978-1-138-67731-9 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-55959-9 (ebk) Typeset in Sabon by Taylor & Francis Books
This book is dedicated to my parents, Tess and David Caust. They always encouraged me to ask questions and not accept easy answers.
This page intentionally left blank
List of Illustrations Acknowledgments Introduction
viii ix x
Arts and Leadership: An Overview
Culture and Arts Leadership
Women and Arts Leadership
The Application of Arts Leadership
Artforms, Arts Organizations and Arts Leadership
The Individual and Arts Leadership
Collaborative Approaches and Arts Leadership
Other Inﬂuencers and Changes
Stakeholders and Arts Leadership
New Framings and Arts Leadership
Arts Leadership and Future Challenges
Figures 2.1 7.1 7.2 7.3
Meyer’s Spectrum of Leading by Culture A Dance Work and Stakeholders A Dance Work with Quality of the Art as Its Focus A Dance Work with an Audience Focus
31 133 134 134
Tables 2.1 3.1 3.2
Hofstede’s Table: Ten Diﬀerences between Collectivist and Individualist Societies Breakdown by Gender of Senior Leadership Roles of Major International Arts Institutions in New York, London and Sydney Totals in Each Category by City
30 44 44
Boxes Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case
Study 2.1 Study 2.2 Study 2.3 Study 3.1 Study 3.2 Study 3.3 Study 4.1 study 4.2 Study 4.3 Study 5.1 Study 5.2 Study 5.3 Study 6.1 Study 6.2 Study 6.3 Study 7.1 Study 7.2 Study 8.1 Study 8.2 Study 8.3
26 29 34 45 48 53 74 80 82 91 95 101 111 115 121 131 140 149 153 160
A writing and research journey is never accomplished alone. There are many people behind who are helping, supporting and commenting to make the journey possible. Thank you most of all to Dr. Max Lees who has been there throughout, contributing insight and commentary. In addition, I am most grateful to Dr. Martin Caust, Dr. Lesley Stonehouse and Dr. Jula Szuster for giving their time and thought into reading and giving feedback on various drafts of this book. I want to thank the Australian visual artist Annette Bezor who generously allowed me to use her beautiful painting on the front cover of this book. I would also like to thank my fellow researchers from around the world who have helped me shape arguments and understand more about the theory and practice. I would like to thank in particular the artists and arts organizations who have provided many of the stories that are included here, and contributed to my understanding of the arts and arts leadership more generally. Finally, I would like to thank Felisa Salvago-Keyes, Christina Kowalski, Jenny Guildford and everyone from Routledge for making this book a reality.
When I began working in the arts sector as a young woman just out of university, I realized early on that the environment of the arts was a lot more complicated than I had thought. While I was passionate about theater, I had no understanding of how work was programmed, who got funding and what mattered. I learned quickly that other forces that I did not understand inﬂuenced decision-making. I began a journey then to try to understand how the ‘arts’ worked, who made decisions and what inﬂuenced that decisionmaking. I cannot say that through the journey all my questions have been answered, but I understand more now about the arts sector and the complexities that exist within it. I am still passionate about the arts and grateful that I have always been able to work in various roles that are directly connected with that passion. This book is part of my lifelong exploration of trying to understand the arts and the leadership within. Arts and leadership are both complex and layered, and the focus of much attention, conversation, debate and controversy. A Google search of ‘leadership’ yields the astonishing number of 771,000,000 hits, while the term ‘art’ gets even more at 6,120,000,000. Framing arts and leadership together might be seen as a rather foolhardy or brave undertaking, but that is what this book attempts to do.
Art The philosopher A. C. Grayling asks his readers to imagine a world without art. A world that is grey, homogenous, devoid of decoration and humor; in other words, a society that is boring and meaningless (Grayling 2015). Just by doing this, he encapsulates how important art is to society. Nevertheless, ‘art’ may be an impossible concept to deﬁne. Everyone has their own opinion of what art is. When I think of art, I think about the way it aﬀects me – it heightens my senses and makes me think about issues in a diﬀerent way. The making of art is an activity that has existed from earliest human times, occurs globally and is a way our world is interpreted, reﬂected, celebrated and critiqued. Artists talk about art from diﬀerent perspectives. For example: The only valid thing in art is that which cannot be explained . . . If there is no mystery then there is no ‘poetry’, the quality I value above all else in art. (Painter Georges Braque) or: Art is about paying attention. (Musician and composer Laurie Anderson)
Art as deﬁned by artists can be from somewhere unknown, is a mysterious phenomenon, a way an artist expresses their feelings, a means of communicating with others or a process for observing and interpreting the world. Art is not one thing – it is both simple and complex, and it has multiple meanings for the artist as well as the observer. ‘Art’ has been evident in human society for more than 35,000 years (Morwood 2002). Certainly, Stone Age societies drew representations of their environment which have lasted to the present day, but the concept of ‘art’ as something distinct is relatively recent. Tracing the use of the word ‘art’ in English, the cultural theorist Raymond Williams (1976) noted that it only came into common usage in the nineteenth century. John Carey (2005) has argued more recently that in fact ‘art’, as such, no longer exists. Understandings of art, and even whether art exists at all, are the subject of diﬀerent views, interpretations and contestations. While we may all go on experiencing ‘art’ as we understand it, in some quarters ‘creative industries’ are said to have taken the place of ‘art’. Not everybody subscribes to this view. The British musician Brian Eno says that the challenge of the creative industries model is that it is trying to measure everything by numbers. This, he says, is the antithesis of art, which he describes as ‘adult play’. Eno says that ‘art’ is perceived as everything you don’t have to do – I think we are going to be doing much more art. Thus art will become the central thing we do. (Eno 2015) This notion of ‘art’ being at the centre of life, rather than consigned to its periphery, is interesting in a world focused on economic issues.
Leadership in the Context of the Arts Leadership is another concept that is diﬃcult to deﬁne and subject to diﬀerent interpretations. We have all experienced the process of leadership, if not the impact of leadership, and many of us have aspired to be leaders or believe we are natural leaders. As with art, deﬁning both the meaning and the practice of leadership is contestable and is inﬂuenced by factors such as philosophy, culture, gender, experience, values and environment, and even time. So wanting to understand what leadership is, how and why leadership is practiced, whether leadership is a necessary condition in particular situations and how the practice of leadership could be improved are all areas that continually need to be revisited. In this book, the focus of leadership is in a particular context, that of the arts. While some think that leadership and management are processes or skills that can be applied to any setting, I believe the context makes a diﬀerence, and that is the argument I make in this book. Leadership within the arts is seen here as particular and diﬀerent, and requires certain knowledge and understandings. The type of leadership now demanded in the arts is changing as the environment changes (Hewison 2004). Models of leadership that have been associated with the arts historically may no longer have any validity in a post-modern, post-colonial, digital and globalized world. Likewise, structures and organizational models of the past may no longer have relevance in the twenty-ﬁrst century. The need to pursue many directions in a changing environment is critical. The book begins with a discussion of the arts and leadership in general terms, and then various aspects of leadership in the arts are explored, including the importance of culture
and gender, arts leadership in diﬀerent art forms and within organizations, leadership as the action of an individual, collaborative forms of leadership and the inﬂuence of stakeholders on leadership. New framings in the arts are then addressed, including the inﬂuence of technology, leadership as it relates to creativity and to industry models and the development of entrepreneurial approaches. Case studies are included throughout the book to demonstrate particular examples. The ﬁnal chapter considers future challenges for arts leadership. It should be noted that the terms ‘arts’ and ‘leadership’ are used here. They could be replaced by ‘culture’ and ‘management’ in terms of common usage, but I have chosen to use ‘art’ and ‘leadership’ because they are more speciﬁc in terms of the arguments I wish to make. While many are now using the term ‘cultural’ leadership, they are often talking about ‘arts’ leadership. The reverse can apply too, of course. But the term ‘culture’ has a broader meaning than ‘art’, and the focus of this discussion is on arts leadership, not necessarily cultural leadership, although aspects of what might be deﬁned as cultural leadership will be included in the discussion. I have used the term ‘leadership’ here rather than ‘management’. There are many excellent texts about arts management or arts administration, but this book is not focusing on the technicalities of arts management. This is a broader conversation about leadership in the arts. But, again, arts management – or, if you prefer, arts administration – will be part of the discussion. Gowing and Langdon (2016) talk about ‘thinking the unthinkable’ as a way of seeing possible futures. The world is moving very fast and the changes that occur are making it impossible for individuals to keep pace. Leaders and the act of leadership have been seen as the panacea for taking the world forward. In this new age, however, leadership may come from those least expected to be doing the leading. For example, a characteristic of the arts is that it can see ‘change’ before it occurs and forecast possibilities that no one thought possible. Think of George Orwell’s 1984 or Leonardo da Vinci’s ﬂying machines. Artists play a major role in society in forecasting or recognizing change and then interpreting it, before everyone else. The economist Ngaire Woods observes: [L]ook for who the social commentators in a society actually are. The artist, the ﬁlmmakers – whatever – are usually telling you about something that you’re not seeing through the eyes of government analysts and advisors and academics and social scientists and such like. (Woods quoted in Gowing & Langdon 2016: 48) Artists – and art itself – are essential to the understanding of the human condition and in reﬂecting the world in which we all live. Artists are leaders, and their leadership, then, is critical to our understandings of both leadership generally and the practice of art in particular. Therefore, talking about leadership in the context of the arts has extraordinary importance at a time of unparalleled change. As part of the process of developing this book, I searched for interesting examples of arts and cultural practice connecting with arts leadership from across the globe. My research limitation in this process was my own language: if I could not access information in English, I was unable to present it. This means, of course, that there are many other cases of outstanding arts leadership and amazing arts practice that are not mentioned here, for which I apologize in advance. An argument that addresses art and leadership, as well as related issues such as culture, is not ﬁnite or complete. It is an ongoing exercise that continues to be interesting and
engaging from many diﬀerent perspectives. This book presents some arguments, theories and examples that exist around these two important subjects. It cannot be comprehensive, but if it stimulates discussion, actions or further thinking, then it has achieved its intent. It is hoped most of all that the content will prove interesting and stimulating to the reader.
References Carey, John (2005) What Good Are the Arts? London: Faber and Faber. Eno, Brian (2015) “Brian Eno’s John Peel Lecture on The Music Show with Andrew Ford on RN.” Reported on 20 December 2015, accessed at: https://radio.abc.net.au/programitem/pgoWGzkQN6 Gowing, Nik & Langdon, Chris (2016) Thinking the Unthinkable: A New Imperative for Leadership in the Digital Age. London: Chartered Institute of Management Accountants, accessed at: http://thinkunthinkable.org/downloads/Thinking-The-Unthinkable-Report.pdf Grayling A. C. (2015) The Challenge of Things. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Hewison, Robert (2004) “The Crisis of Cultural Leadership in Britain.” International Journal of Cultural Policy 10 (2), 157–66. Morwood, M. J. (2002) Visions from the Past: The Archaeology of Australian Aboriginal Art. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen and Unwin. Williams, Raymond (1976) Keywords. Glasgow: Fontana Press.
This page intentionally left blank
This page intentionally left blank
Arts and Leadership: An Overview
The practice of art can be revelatory and inspiring as well as powerful and threatening, especially in a modern environment where culture and ethnicity, gender and technology have more impact than ever before. There are many forms of art and there are many forms of leadership, and both are changing to suit a diverse and dynamic environment. That is why a discussion about the leadership of the arts is so important. From recognizing the role that arts practice has had in the development of humankind to how we frame contemporary arts practice, this ﬁrst chapter considers the role of art and artists and the way that the arts have been framed over the last century. It takes into consideration the latest critical perspectives, drawing into the conversation how the arts are framed and viewed into the 21st century. Historical approaches to the study of leadership set the scene for understanding a speciﬁc context for leadership – that is, the arts. This chapter addresses the way leadership is seen and understood, and includes diﬀerent models and approaches to leadership such as heroic, transactional, transformational, charismatic, participative, collaborative and shared. Examples of how these models are manifested in the arts sector are considered. There are also new directions and contributions from the critical leadership literature about leadership and space, aesthetic and embodied leadership and entrepreneurial leadership.
What Do We Understand by the Arts and Its Place/Role? Arts practice has been recorded as being part of the human condition for thousands of years since the revelation of cave paintings. The earliest examples of cave art are traced back over 35,000 years and are believed to be located in Indonesia (Marchant 2016). Over centuries, people have recorded their existence, described their practices, honored their gods and heroes, and developed ways of celebrating their lives through arts and cultural practices in their many diﬀerent forms. Arts and cultural practices were seen in older societies as the way they honored their forefathers or as a means of teaching the young about the nature of life. French prehistorian Jean Clottes observes that “the sparks of artistic creativity can be traced back to our earliest ancestors … Wherever you ﬁnd modern humans … you’ll ﬁnd art” (Clottes quoted by Marchant 2016). The Australian Aborigines, for example, use dance, story-telling, music, artefacts and pictures to pass on their heritage from one generation to another, explaining the meaning of life along the way (Horne 1986). Similarly, in many Asian societies arts and cultural practices are still part of everyday life and there is no disconnect between the practice of art and the lived experience. In relation to diﬀerent societies in Asia, de Leon notes:
Arts and Leadership: An Overview From ritual vessels to hunting tools, textiles to masks, and epic poetry to rhythmic dances we witness a plethora of patterns and designs, an endless variety of expressive forms … the infusion of everyday life, phenomena and activities with sacred values, the integration of use and function in everyday objects and activities, the oral transmission of knowledge, or non-linear – particularly polychromic – concepts of time. (de Leon 2016: 37)
Art and cultural practices are integrated with the survival and development of humanity and have enormous signiﬁcance for the participants and the observers. They present a rich picture of how a society is integrated with its culture and art-making. In Western culture, though, the commodiﬁcation and separation of art from mainstream society over the past hundred years has produced a gap between the production of art and many people’s experience of it. The making of art and its place in Western society has attracted theorists from many diﬀerent disciplines across both the social sciences and the humanities. An interdisciplinary approach can present quite diﬀerent perspectives on what art is, who makes it and how it is valued in society. Linking concepts around art and leadership is also doing this, as it is an exercise in connecting diﬀerent disciplines of thought and practice which at times may conﬂict with each other. There are views here about art that come from economic, political, psychological, sociological and historical perspectives. The art historian John Berger, referencing the work of philosopher Walter Benjamin, notes how ‘art’ in Western society is the preserve of those in power, whether it be the Church, the ruling classes or, in contemporary society, the corporation and the state (Berger 1972: 32). In the Western model, there may be a tendency to frame arts practice into an elevated position and make it special and superior. Thus, arts practice is seen in an elitist context and the organizations that are involved with it then reﬂect this notion (e.g. opera houses, art museums). Arts infrastructure is expensive to build and often expensive to visit. The political theorist Karl Marx notes: Production therefore creates the consumer… . An object d’art creates a public that has artistic taste and is able to enjoy beauty – and the same can be said of any other product. Production accordingly produces not only an object for the subject, but also a subject for the object. (Marx 1857 translated by Ryazanskaya 1971) This locating of art-making with the buyer of that art, seeing it as interconnected, frames arts practice into an economic transaction and sees it both as a commodity and as an object of beauty. Janet Woolf, working from a sociological model, sees art practice as a ‘social construct’ reﬂecting the values of the world and society it exists in, rather than being the production of a one-oﬀ genius (Woolf 1993). She argues that all art has to be interpreted in terms of the world it came from, rather than separate or apart from it. Pierre Bourdieu, a sociologist and philosopher, argues that an understanding and appreciation of art relates to an individual’s class, values and education (Bourdieu 1993: 217–27). He notes that educated people have been given the equipment to decode particular works of art, whereas those who have not been educated in a similar manner experience the challenges of dealing with a diﬀerent culture when approaching the same work of art (Bourdieu 1993: 217). In addition, diﬀerences in gender, race, ethnicity, age and culture could be added to this list of challenges for the appreciation and understanding of a work
Arts and Leadership: An Overview
of art. In this understanding, the nature of ‘art’ is not value-free but is associated with what the observer brings to the transaction, and with the values (beliefs, education, class, etc.) of the artist who is presenting it. If both ‘art’ and the ‘artist’ are products of society, the making of art itself becomes an activity that is neither objective nor value-free. A separation from cultural participation and art-making may explain why a society primarily focused on economic outcomes may not access deeper meanings and understandings of life. This can then mean that members of that society do not connect with deeper social and cultural issues, given their preoccupation with money-making as the prime social driver. The role of art and of artists is an ongoing discussion, and the value and meaning placed on it is inﬂuenced by one’s own understandings and philosophical position. Edgar Schein, a management theorist, talking about the relationship between artists and society, notes that art and artists stimulate us to see more, hear more and experience more of what is going on within us and around as … Art does and should disturb, provoke, shock, and inspire … the role of the arts and artists is to stimulate and legitimize our own aesthetic sense … (Schein 2001: 81–2) Schein sees the role of art, and that of artists, as something that essentially has the power to educate us as well as being an agent for change. In this context, ‘art’ is seen as transformational, thereby taking the audience/consumer to somewhere new and diﬀerent. Thus, art, like leadership, is something that invokes many diﬀerent views and responses. Nancy Adler, an artist and leadership scholar, observes: Art oﬀers a unique perspective with which to confront the chaos and unpredictability that surround us. (Adler 2015: 481) In this reading, the practice of art provides meaning when there is confusion and chaos.
The Arts and the Environment There is, however, a major disparity between what arts practice may be trying to achieve and how the arts are located within the broader environment. In terms of the performing arts, many of the structures that house performances have been expensive to build and represent another form of value to the city in which they are located, in addition to their actual cultural role (Caust 2015). For example, having its own opera house/performing arts center gives a city status and signiﬁes both wealth and sophistication. Opera houses began to be built in Europe from the 17th century and proliferated into the 19th century. Although opera was a popular artform in Italy, particularly in the 18th and 19th centuries, in modern times it represents in many cases the most expensive of the so-called ‘high’ arts. Opera is seen as the highest of the artforms because it combines music with theater and design and melds them into one distinct form. Both the theater building that opera is presented in and the needs for its production are generally very expensive. This in turn makes the ticket prices high and means that usually only the wealthiest in any society can attend. Yet throughout the world much of a state’s cultural resources is spent on the producing of opera (Bereson 2002).
Arts and Leadership: An Overview
In a way, opera presents the conundrum that the arts ﬁnd themselves in at the beginning of the 21st century. From the 15th century, various European nations colonized much of the rest of the world. In that process, they took their preferred arts and cultural practices with them on their journey and then replicated them in their colonies. This meant that as countries threw oﬀ their colonial shackles and became new nations, they frequently inherited a preference for the European models of art practice. Hence opera houses and theaters were built throughout South America and North America, and in many parts of Asia, Oceania and Africa, ﬁrst by the colonial masters and then later to indicate the coming of age of that nation. Ironically, this pattern of ediﬁce building has also now taken place in China as it asserts its power and independence internationally. There has been a huge building program of large performing arts centers at great cost over the past few years throughout China (Qiao 2015). Wherever they are located globally, these centers are very expensive to maintain and demand a distinct kind of arts practice to occur in them. This arts practice may not be relevant to the local people where the arts center is built, but nevertheless precious arts dollars continue to be spent on these ediﬁces. In the visual arts world in the 20th century, art galleries and museums have become the new churches and are seen as places to visit throughout the world. Galleries such as the Tate, the Louvre and the Guggenheim have become little empires that have many branches – in the Guggenheim’s case, it is a brand that can be seen as a way to market a city (e.g. Bilbao) guaranteeing visitors who would not otherwise have it on their itinerary. While galleries and museums have a role in preserving and presenting art, they are also now seen as tourism destinations that generate enormous economic beneﬁts for themselves and their location. They are seen as part of the ‘creative’ city framing where artists, and creative practitioners more generally, have a direct impact on the image and attraction of a city to visit or live in (Florida 2005; Landry & Hyams 2012). The funding of arts practice has been framed in diﬀerent ways over the past 50 years. It is noted that state policies towards the arts reﬂect the ideologies and values of the government in power (Ridley 1987). If you take the example of the United Kingdom for instance, when John Maynard Keynes and his colleagues founded the Arts Council of Great Britain in 1946, the principles for its creation were located around the need to encourage arts activity that was not dependent on the marketplace to survive, to keep arts funding at a distance from the politics of government and to provide access to arts activity for a broader mix of the population (Upchurch 2004). As the ideologies driving governments changed, their relationship with arts funding also changed. From the 1970s to late 1990s, the rationale for arts funding became more located around the ‘instrumental’ beneﬁts that the arts could provide for society (Belﬁore 2004; Gray 2007). For example, the arts were seen as contributing to positive social outcomes (Matarasso 1997). The arts were also associated with educational outcomes and seen as a method for increasing a student’s aptitude, in maths, say, through learning music, or providing a pathway to academic achievement through engagement with the arts (Catterall 2009; Cornett 1999; Robinson 1999). From the late 1990s, the arts were framed more as an ‘industry’ and were seen as contributing to national economic success. ‘Creative Britain’ is an example of this thinking (Hesmondhalgh & Pratt 2005; Myerscough 1998). The arts were also conﬂated with culture or creativity, making them part of the cultural or creative industries, instead of just the arts industry or sector (Galloway & Dunlop 2007; Gray 2007). Various ways of recording the economic impact of arts events, such as festivals, were introduced (Brown et al. 2015; Williams & Bowdin 2007). This means that arts practice on its own is not seen as necessarily achieving anything if it cannot be reﬂected in a series of numbers (Meyrick
Arts and Leadership: An Overview
2015). In the context of an economic framing of society, the support by government of any activity must be justiﬁed by evidence that there is some measurable return on the money invested (Caust 2003; Klamer 2002). Thus, an argument of funding of ‘arts for art’s sake’ has not been popular politically because there are no obvious outcomes generated that can be measured quantitatively (Hansen 1995; Throsby 1999). More recently, it has been acknowledged that qualitative and intangible outcomes from arts practice have importance too (Brown 2006). From a government perspective, though, this is still expected to be balanced by tangible or measurable outcomes (Burgan 2009; Gray 2007). There are also approaches to arts funding that are located around controlling what people think or do. Totalitarian states are well known for using arts and culture as a means of instilling the belief systems which they wish to purvey (Groys 1992; Ingerson 1987; Mills 2013). This then means that the arts practice produced may be heavily censored and controlled. Arts practice that does not conform to the required agenda is not supported and may in fact be banned. This was well demonstrated during the years of the Nazi regime when contemporary visual art was framed as ‘degenerate’ and then destroyed (Grosshans 1993; Laqueur 1996). Books that did not follow the Nazi party line were burned in public bonﬁres to illustrate the danger they represented to the state. Artists and intellectuals were seen as a threat to the state and imprisoned or killed in the Nazi death camps (Laqueur 1996; Lehmann-Haupt 1973). The context of the arts is also seen as a site of political and social controversy in the modern capitalist state. From the 1980s onward in the USA, there have been several incidents where the funding of institutions and arts practice have become sites of major dispute. While much of this has been centered around religion, it has also been located around identity and free expression of ideas (Tepper 2011). For example, exhibition of artwork that focuses on issues of sexuality has been condemned (e.g. Robert Mapplethorpe’s photographic exhibition), as has work that considers diﬀerent readings of religious mores or challenges to the way art is presented (e.g. Sensation at the Brooklyn Museum). This reaction to the power of art and artists has been framed within the loose title of the ‘cultural wars’ (Bolton 1992; Hunter 1991). In this conversation, artists and their work have been demonized and denigrated. Funding for work has been withdrawn and the spaces that exhibit work have been subject to attack, forced closure or public shaming. It is noted here that the arts are seen as “a punching bag for politicians” (Tepper 2011: 34). Another framing of the arts in the modern capitalist state proposes that the arts should not receive any government support (Shockley 2011; Tepper 2011). This is justiﬁed by a belief system that the government should not be playing any interventionist role in supporting the arts, as it might mean that the state is then dictating what people see or do. Further, it may also mean that if a government is providing arts funding, it may be going to support an arts practice that the state does not support philosophically. There are many who are concerned that the funding of arts practice as a means of encouraging alternative views about society to thrive. For example the state may be comfortable with the ballet or the opera as it does not question its belief system, but it is less comfortable with contemporary arts practice as it presents a diﬀerent world view to its own. Some arts practice then represents a power that the state ﬁnds hard to control and so it resists it in whatever way it can. There are also views that within a political system based on the vagaries of the marketplace, government funding for arts practice is inconsistent with this philosophy (Cowan 2000; Wu 2003). Thus, it is argued that an arts practice should be self-supporting and not rely on the largesse of government or whomever (Cowan 2000). If the arts are to exist in
Arts and Leadership: An Overview
this model, then they should be supported by private benefactors or be commercially viable in the marketplace. Hypercapitalism1 for example is now frequently seen as a core tenet of the social framing which then applies pressure to commodify every aspect of human existence. A hyper capitalist approach to the framing of arts practice has been popular in the United States context and has led to the de-funding or reduction of public funding mechanisms such as the National Endowment for the Arts (Knochel 2017; Shockley 2011). While the focus of this book is more located around art as practice/culture, art as commerce is another major inﬂuence in art-making. One manifestation of this is witnessed in the visual arts with the role of art fairs, auction houses and private galleries. Art fairs bring together thousands of people to exhibit, look at, buy and sell art. Art fairs are “both a market place and a meeting point” (Schultheis et al. 2015: 33). Art as commodity is at the core of a fair, but art fairs also show who is powerful in the sector, whether it be the rich collector or the successful gallerist or the popular artist. What this all means is that there is often a major disconnect between the making of art, the funding of it and the consumption of it. While arts practitioners often struggle to exist to do their work, others in the name of art reap huge beneﬁts or spend large amounts of state money on activities that may not really be about the making of art. Perhaps a major issue for the 21st century is to diﬀerentiate between art as commerce and art as practice/culture. Perhaps the pendulum is shifting too far, and a need will emerge to ﬁnd deeper meanings again, by connecting everyone to essential issues that arise from arts practice. This is a challenge for arts leadership in the future.
What Is Understood about Leadership? The subject of leadership is large and it can be framed from many diﬀerent perspectives. It is a topic that has been written about for hundreds of years. Views about leadership are extensive and are inﬂuenced by cultures, behavioral norms, social and political movements, gender and so on. In this discussion a subtextual question through the text is this: is arts leadership diﬀerent to the generic models of leadership, and, if so, why and how? These questions then need to be lurking when considering how leadership has been framed and discussed, both historically and in contemporary settings, in the literature. For many centuries, the ‘heroic’ model of leadership was seen as the norm. This was frequently connected to military examples. Much historical leadership literature describes this model: one that is tough, uncompromising and ‘macho’ (e.g. Machiavelli, Plato, Sun Tzu). This style of leadership is usually authoritarian and relies on punishment and reward systems to achieve results. The ‘heroic’ model was also usually seen as ‘male’ and located leadership as a characteristic that people were born with. From the late 19th century into the 21st century, diﬀerent ways of framing or seeing leadership emerged. Some of these framings include the following:
Trait Theory focuses on the most common individual attributes of leaders, such as intelligence or decisiveness (Galton 1869). Critics of this approach believe it to be too narrow and self-fulﬁlling in terms of the kind of leaders who emerge (e.g. gender-, class- and ethnic-speciﬁc) and support a view that leadership skills are innate rather than an outcome of development and training (Stogdill 1950). Behavior Theory focuses on the way a leader needs to behave as a leader or the skills required for eﬀective leadership (Bowers & Seashore 1966; Hemphill & Coons 1957;
Arts and Leadership: An Overview
Likert 1961). This approach was particularly important for recognizing that leadership is not necessarily innate. The major feature of this approach is the recognition that leadership can be divided into two main areas: task and relationship. This has led to various methods of measuring an individual’s preference in terms of leadership style, and is expressed as a preference by a leader for either task achievement or relationship-building. Three main leadership styles of ‘authoritarian’, ‘democratic’ and ‘laissez-faire’ were identiﬁed in this discussion. Contingency Theory, which builds on Behavior Theory, was developed to ﬁll the gap between an understanding of leadership behavior and its integration with approaches to achieving the task successfully (Fielder 1976; Hersey & Blanchard 1977; House 1971). In this model, it is argued that diﬀerent situations need diﬀerent styles of leadership, depending on the readiness/skill base/understanding of the followers and the problem being addressed. There was an implicit conclusion that the right solution was available for the leader, if the leader’s diagnosis of the problem was correct. Thus, the role of leadership was perceived as more complex than developing ‘good’ leadership behaviors. Theoretical models, which correlated the type of leadership needed for a particular situation, were then developed (e.g. Contingency Model, Path– Goal Theory, Vertical Dyad Linkage Model and Situational Leadership Model).
Both Behavior and Contingency models of leadership are also known as transactional models of leadership because they involve the follower receiving some form of tangible reward for doing what the leader expects. In his seminal book Leadership, James McGregor Burns (1978) introduced the idea that there were two major approaches to leadership: a ‘transactional’ model of leadership, which was primarily instrumental and about task achievement, and a ‘transformational’ model of leadership, which raised both leaders and followers to a higher order (i.e. focusing more on relationships). This second approach was less focused on tangible rewards and more focused on achieving a vision that was owned by both leaders and followers. [T]he transforming leader looks for potential motives in followers, seeks to satisfy higher needs, and engages the full person of the follower. The result of transforming leadership is a relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation that converts followers into leaders and may convert leaders into moral agents. (Burns 1978: 4) Burns’s work led to literature that focused on considering how transformational theories might work. In this model, the leader inspires the followers to work together to achieve a shared vision (Bass & Avolio 1997: 203). Bass and Avolio (1997: 199–210), integrating the work of both Burns and Hersey and Blanchard, developed what they described as the ‘transformational model’ for organizational studies. Thus, rather than provide the direction to which the follower must go, the transformational leader is required to engage the follower to own the outcome and be committed equally to the achievement of the desired goal. This is a change in emphasis from the previous transactional models because the follower is ideally equally involved in the process and the outcome. Further, Bass and Avolio (1997) developed a tool to measure the ability of the leader to be transformational in his/her style which they called the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. This lists four factors that they believe aﬀect the ability of the leader to be transformational and which they describe as the four I’s: “idealized inﬂuence or
Arts and Leadership: An Overview
charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration” (Bass & Avolio 1997: 203). Other variations on a transformational approach include the recognition that leaders and followers are interconnected. For example, DePree (1989) notes that a leader requires followers in order to be seen as a leader. So in his view a leader cannot function as a leader unless there are others who are prepared to be led. Adair (1989) refers to leaders as people who get things done through other people. Hence, a prerequisite for leadership is the presence of potential followers. But followers can only be followers if they are prepared to accept the leadership on oﬀer. Leadership in this interpretation might be seen then as a ‘given’ rather than ‘taken’ (Yukl 2002). Leadership can be seen as a process of inﬂuence where others are guided to achieve a particular goal. Researchers observe what they see and then frame it into a particular approach to leadership, or alternatively they develop an ideal model of leadership from their own values. In the end, the practice of leadership is determined by many factors and may in fact embrace diﬀerent aspects of the theoretical models discussed. This may mean that not just one approach is used all the time, although a set of cohesive values may frame the overall approach. Further, the desired outcomes of leadership also need to be considered. For instance, leadership literature that is based on mainstream organizational studies can be framed within the context of ﬁnding a leadership model that maximizes the economic return of the organization. Can leadership models from this context be transposed to other contexts where making money is not the ultimate objective? This is an important question in the context of the arts practice which may be framed within a ‘not for proﬁt’ model or is located around other goals that are not related to making money.
Leadership and Management An organization may require diﬀerent outcomes from diﬀerent leaders within it – for example, the nexus between, say, positional leaders and managers. In an organizational context, the manager may play the transactional role in leadership while the leader plays the transformational role. Thus, the leader is seen as the visionary with a focus on relationships, whereas the manager is the implementer with a focus on tasks (Lowe et al. 1996). This variation in roles or ways of seeing the two constructs of leadership and management are frequently discussed in the literature (Kotter 1988; Mintzberg 1998). Daft notes: Whereas management calls for keeping an eye on the bottom line and short-term results, leadership means keeping any eye on the horizon and the long-term future. (Daft 1999: 39) So the action of leadership is seen as ‘looking ahead’ and ‘planning for the future’, while the action of management is focused on the ‘day-to-day’ role of keeping the organization or activity functioning eﬃciently and eﬀectively. It is also noted that the two roles are frequently conﬂated (Gronn 2002). Managers can be leaders and leaders can be managers, so seeing them as being separate roles is then in question. In the context of arts organizations, there is often a separation of roles between the artist/artistic leader and the administrator/general manager. In this context, one (the manager) runs the organization and the other (the artist) provides the artistic leadership. However, the acknowledged positional leader can vary; sometimes it is the artistic leader and sometimes it is the general manager. In other arts organizations, both roles are
Arts and Leadership: An Overview
combined into one: the leader is both the artistic leader and the administrator. Further, there are concerns that ‘management’ in the context of the arts presents a conundrum. This relates to whether the practice of ‘art’ can be ‘managed’ or if this is a ‘reductionist’ approach to the organizing of arts practice and another form of ‘top-down’ control. The perceived tension between management and leadership in the arts is discussed further in Chapter 4 which looks at leadership in arts organizations and Chapter 5 which addresses arts leadership and the individual.
Leadership and Context What is also important to recognize is that diﬀerent cultures, contexts, situations and individuals support particular models of leadership. This includes both organizational models and working contexts. So while one culture may prefer an egalitarian approach to leadership, another culture might prefer a more authoritarian or hierarchical approach. Culture and arts leadership are considered in more detail in Chapter 2. In addition, various leadership studies focusing on diﬀerent kinds of organizations suggest that leadership approaches are more common to some organizations than others. For example, in organizations that rely on rules being followed and allow little space for divergence, a transactional style of leadership is likely to be dominant. Organizations that want to bring about change, particularly on a macro level, are more likely to encourage a transformational model of leadership. This can correlate (although not necessarily) with public or private sector models where public sector models might prefer a transactional model and private sector models might encourage a transformational model (Lowe et al. 1996). There are several factors that inﬂuence leadership per se. If leadership is dependent on the position one holds in an organization, and the organization is hierarchal with many rules and regulations, then the leader will be associated with those rules and expectations. So followers may be employees who do what they are told to do and no more or no less. It is accepted then that the followers have no choice but to be followers, especially if there is a punishment/reward system in place that demands obedience from the follower. In contemporary contexts, there are still many organizations and models that depend on this transactional approach – certainly most military organizations and service organizations, such as the police or ﬁre brigade, usually operate within a strict hierarchical model. This means that their leaders are given their designation by the position they hold and the followers know that they must obey the designated leader. There are other kinds of organizations (e.g. the Catholic Church) that also depend on a strict hierarchy where speaking up against the designated leader is not encouraged or valued. In these organizations, the leadership may be dependent on position rather than personal power or personal attributes. In the context of the arts, diﬀerent approaches to leadership occur depending on artforms as the arts are not homogenous in the way they are structured or led. High arts institutions such as opera companies and art museums have generally been designed around a formal hierarchy whereas smaller organizations tend to have ﬂatter structures. Further discussion about this occurs in Chapter 4 which addresses arts organizations and leadership.
Leadership: A Positive or Negative Force? As Kotter (1988) has observed, having a leadership position does not mean that the holder of the position is a leader. Leadership as a construct is seen by many observers as
Arts and Leadership: An Overview
something not necessarily connected to position, although it can be. Leadership is seen as a combination of things that convey that leadership is being exercised or that an individual is a leader. It is important then to explore what the expectations of a leader are or what is meant by the term ‘leadership’. There are ways of describing attributes required for leadership. For example:
Leadership is often about change, so a leader might be someone who is capable of leading others through a process of change. Leadership requires self-knowledge so that the leader can understand both themselves and those being led. Leadership is inﬂuenced by values, trust and ethical behavior, so a leader’s behavior must be consistent with the actions that are expected from their leadership. Leadership is visible and transparent, so a leader must recognize that they are always being observed and frequently modeled. Leadership requires a vision, so leaders must be able to take others with them on a journey of discovery. Kotter notes, however: Good leadership moves people in a direction that is genuinely in their real long-term best interests. (Kotter 1988: 17)
The qualiﬁcation that Kotter makes here is the use of the term ‘good’. This indicates that there are diﬀerent manifestations of leadership, not all of which are admirable in terms of the actions of the leader or the impact of the leadership on the followers. Drucker notes that leaders have to demonstrate leadership repeatedly through their actions (Drucker 1990: xiv). He highlights the necessity for transparency in actions because followers are always watching the leader, so the leader must ensure there is consistency between rhetoric and behavior (Drucker 1990: xiv). Thus, the leader has a responsibility to the followers in assisting them to realise their potential in the process of undertaking the task. Goleman, emphasizing the importance of emotional intelligence in the make-up of a successful leader, notes that leadership relies on good people skills: People seem to know intuitively that leaders need to manage relationships eﬀectively; no leader is an island. After all, the leader’s task is to get the work done through other people, and social skills makes [sic] that possible. (Goleman 1998: 102) The attitude or beliefs of the followers must also be considered. It is observed, for instance, that many people do not want to be led, although there may be an acknowledgment that leadership is needed (Witzel 2016). For example, followers who are experts in their ﬁeld (e.g. scientists) may resist being told what to do or how to work in an environment that they believe does not necessarily respect their knowledge base. It is argued that highly skilled and knowledgeable workers respond to inspiration not supervision (Mintzberg 1998: 140). Other ways a positional leader can encourage mutual respect with followers have been explored in the literature. Greenleaf (1991) talks about ‘servant’ leadership where the
Arts and Leadership: An Overview
leader is there to ‘serve’ ﬁrst and lead after; this is a reversal of the leader being seen as there to control and dominate, but instead is there to empower those who are being led. Avolio and Gardner (2005) talk about ‘authentic’ leadership. Authentic leadership is described as a construct consistent of three dimensions … self-awareness, self-regulation, and positive modelling. (Ceˇ rne et al. 2013: 65) In both examples of ‘servant’ leadership and ‘authentic’ leadership, there is an expectation that the leader is a role model who leads by example and is consistent in their behavior so that they engender trust and respect from their followers. A model of authentic leadership is also argued as important for creativity to ﬂourish in a work environment (Ceˇ rne et al. 2013: 79). An opposite approach to a model of authentic leadership might be described as charismatic or narcissistic leadership where the leader puts their own needs above everyone else’s, and then expects the followers to commit themselves unquestioningly to their vision (Conger & Kanungo 1994). This can be illustrated by leaders who “construct an organizational vision that is essentially a monument to themselves” (Conger 1990: 44). This leadership behavior can be personally harmful to those working with the leader, and often harmful to an organization that is being led in this way. Conger says: The leader’s vision, in essense [sic], becomes a vehicle for his or her own needs for attention and visibility. (Conger 1990: 50) Another outcome of this leadership style can be a ‘group think’ mentality by the followers, as the followers try to please and agree with the leader rather than give honest feedback. This can cause major mistakes to occur that damage the whole organization, sometimes beyond repair (Conger & Kanungo 1994; Conger 1990). The use of the term ‘charismatic’ is interesting because in the literature about transformational leadership the term ‘charismatic’ is seen as one of the four I’s (idealized inﬂuence or charisma) and is used as a deﬁning characteristic of transformational leaders in the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Bass & Avolio 1997; Lowe et al. 1996). In the transformational model of leadership, it is argued that idealized charisma can be a positive transformational force, but it becomes negatively framed when it is connected with narcissism (Conger & Kanungo 1994; Conger 1990). The arts environment is known for charismatic leaders and frequently artistic leaders name the company that they lead after themselves, particularly, say, in dance (e.g. Alvin Ailey Dance Company, Martha Graham Company). Although this practice may not reﬂect a narcissist personality, it is often about the personality and vision of the individual leader. This can also be seen as a marketing strategy. It is argued, though, that a form of charismatic, and sometimes authoritarian, leadership is necessary in the arts to achieve artistic outcomes (Fitzgibbon 2001). It is also noted that charismatic arts leadership can have a broad positive impact on both their followers and stakeholders (Nisbett & Walmsley 2016). Further, it is proposed that the arts are an exception, in terms of seeing charismatic leaders as important and signiﬁcant forces in the cultural context (Nisbett & Walmsley 2016). Nisbett and Walmsley note:
Arts and Leadership: An Overview These insights paint a picture of a sector that extols charismatic leaders. … Arts workers displayed a strong attraction towards and, at times, a misplaced idolization of popular arts leaders. (Nisbett & Walmsley 2016: 8–9)
It is argued here that the use of the term ‘charismatic’ in an arts context is referring to an exceptional individual who is charming, erudite and a little iconoclastic, thereby framing it within a Weberian2 model, rather than within a more negative leadership construct connected with narcissism (Nisbett & Walmsley 2016). Nevertheless, there is an implication in the quotation above that this approach to arts leadership may be more romantic than rational and may subsequently be unhealthy for the followers (Nisbett & Walmsley 2016). Individual approaches to arts leadership are explored further in Chapter 5. As is noted above, the followers in the context of the arts are not just the people who work with an artist or artists, but they are also those who are inﬂuenced or are impacted by them. This can be the audience, the patrons, the government, the sponsors and any other player inﬂuenced or aﬀected by the art. So the notion of arts leadership takes on a broader role when it has such a broad responsibility and inﬂuence. Arts leaders need to be mindful of this responsibility in their actions. The impact of arts leadership on the many stakeholders that exist in the arts sector and the impact of stakeholders on arts leadership are considered at length in Chapter 7.
Shared Leadership Models Collaborative, participative, team, shared and co-leadership models have become more frequent in the literature over the past few years and they again have a particular application in the context of the arts. In whichever form, a shared leadership model contrasts with the model of the heroic individual leader. It sees the process of leadership related more to knowledge than position and is thereby able to maximize the input of all participants. Shared leadership can accommodate workplaces that rely on multiple sources of knowledge and experience for decision-making (Gronn 2002). It is further argued that the reality of workplace labor divisions usually reﬂects a broad base of/for leadership, and thus the perception that there is an individual leader responsible for all decision-making is unrealistic (Gronn 2002). Waldman and Balven (2015), referencing Pearce and Conger (2002), note: [S]hared leadership reﬂects the notion that there are social actors in an organization who all play a part in the process of leading one another toward productive outcomes. (Waldman & Balven 2015: 22) This approach to leadership, seeing it as being a distributed action rather than a hierarchal position, is relevant to the ways many artists work, especially in collaborative artforms such as music, dance and theater. In addition, artists working collaboratively are also seen as templates for understanding eﬀective collaborative approaches to leadership. This approach to leadership in the arts is explored more in Chapter 6 which addresses collaborative leadership. A simple variation on individual leadership is co-leadership, or a couple sharing the executive function but playing diﬀerent roles within it (Gronn 2002). This is common in
Arts and Leadership: An Overview
many arts organizations with the leadership separation usually reﬂecting an arts focus and a management focus (Reid 2013; Reid & Karambayya 2009; Reynolds et al. 2017). The couple model in the arts is explored further in Chapter 4 with regard to arts organizations and in Chapter 6 which considers diﬀerent models of collaborative leadership.
Other Ways of Framing Leadership More recent approaches to leadership include seeing it as more of an ‘art’ than a ‘science’. Dobson describes a paradigm shift where leadership is seen as aesthetics-based art rather than a reason-based science (Dobson 1999: 13). The view that leadership is an ‘art’ has also been described by DePree (1989), Handy (1998) and Vaill (1989). Grint, interpreting leadership as an ‘art’, suggests that ‘leadership’ is not about rules but about relationships (Grint 2000). Several contemporary writers on leadership have stressed a changing paradigm in which leadership is concerned with collaboration and relationships, rather than power and rules (Goleman 1998; Grint 2000; Mintzberg 1998; Senge 1992; Wheatley 1999). Wheatley, critiquing ‘task’-based leadership models, notes: Designers were so focused on engineering eﬃcient systems that they completely discounted the human beings who were doing the work. (Wheatley 1999: 159) Wheatley is arguing that management theorists tended to come from an engineering perspective, seeing the role as one that organizes objects, rather than locating leadership within ‘systems’ theory3 where everything is interconnected. In systems theory, the actions of any one player inﬂuence every other player. Rather than seeing leadership in a transactional model and task-focused, a systems approach locates leadership as part of a holistic process embracing all the players. Other writers have also moved away from a logical, deductive transactional approach to leadership, and instead see that it has other qualities and expectations because it is essentially about working with people (Goleman 1998; Grint 2000; Senge 1992; Taormina 2010). Getting people to achieve a task is not necessarily a simple process, given that humans are not ‘widgets’. Taormina (2010) notes how leadership is described mostly in terms of being a ‘process’, but he sees it instead as a ‘quality’. Again, Taormina describes leadership as an ‘art’ and places most importance on the individual leader’s capacity for emotional intelligence, referencing Goleman (1998). Taormina emphasizes that this approach to leadership is even more critical in contemporary contexts and especially in the arts (Taormina 2010). This facet of arts leadership is explored more in Chapter 5 addressing individual arts leadership. This framing of leadership as an ‘art’ has been further developed when considering an ‘aesthetic’ model of leadership. In this context, leadership is seen as ‘embodied’ and part of the process of leading. The aesthetic approach to leadership and space explores the symbolic meanings and inherent power issues which spaces and places produce. (Ropo et al. 2013: 381) The process of leadership takes on an aesthetic form which is located around the actions of both leaders and followers. Further, this approach to leadership takes on other
Arts and Leadership: An Overview
qualities and characteristics that see leadership through actions, space, body language and the imagination. In much the same way as a musical performance is embodied, we consider leadership as an embodied practice that occurs in community and is exercised through gestures. (Bathurst & Cain 2013: 359) It is argued, too, that leadership can be framed as a ‘dance’ which recognizes the physical embodiment of leadership as an action, as well as the nature of the journey of leadership involving movement and change (Ehrich & English 2013). There are many metaphors from the arts that are used when talking about leadership, and several of them are mentioned in the literature, including the conductor, the dancer, the story-teller, the actor, the director and the circus master (Bathurst & Cain 2013; Ehrich & English 2013; Handy 1998; Mintzberg 1998; Pruetipibultham & Mclean 2010; Ropo & Sauer 2008; Wetlaufer 1999). There are other framings of leadership that have relevance to the arts. These include leadership that promotes innovation and leadership that supports entrepreneurialism. While these two notions of leadership can also be interconnected – that is, innovative leadership can be directly connected with entrepreneurial outcomes (Drucker 1985; García-Morales et al. 2006) – we will ﬁrst consider leadership and its relationship with innovation. Van de Ven says: The process of innovation is deﬁned as the development and implementation of new ideas by people who over time engage in transactions with others within an institutional context. (Van de Ven 1986: 591) Thus, the important emphasis here in relation to understanding innovation is that it is about the development of new ideas, but Van de Ven has also included a context – that is, an institution. He is talking here about ways of encouraging new ideas to occur within a setting that may, by its nature, be ﬁxed and rigid. He adds that the key to innovation is “creating an infrastructure that is conducive to innovation” (Van de Ven 1986: 591). That is, the environment must be encouraging to innovation. Further, there is an added idea that the process of innovation occurs among a group of people; it is not the inspiration of one individual leader (Van de Ven 1986: 601). He too notes that the role of the leader in encouraging an environment that supports innovation is critical (Van de Ven 1986: 601). Senge (1992) talks about innovation and creativity requiring an environment where mistakes and experiments are encouraged by the leadership, as the way of learning. The terms ‘creativity’ and ‘innovation’ are frequently conﬂated in this discussion. Mintzberg, in fact, describes creative organizations as ‘innovative organizations’ (Mintzberg 1998: 196). In Mintzberg’s model, there is less separation between diﬀerent functions because everyone is involved in the cycle of ‘creating’. Bilton and Leary (2002), embracing a ‘systems’ view, argue that the encouragement of a few individuals to be creative does not mean there will be creative outcomes. Reinforcing Mintzberg’s view, they argue that the whole organization should be framed in such a way that it supports creativity for creativity to ﬂourish (Bilton & Leary 2002). Thus, risk-taking, allowing for failure and providing autonomy are all characteristics of an environment that supports innovation and creativity (Amabile 2001).
Arts and Leadership: An Overview
This is also where the arts can enter the discussion. The arts are often focused on encouraging new ideas. They also might be about reinterpreting old ideas, or clarifying ideas, or provoking a response, etc., and they have to do this frequently within what might be described as ‘institutional settings’. Arts organizations have a mission to produce or exhibit ‘art’ and they therefore need to structure their organization (or institution) as an environment that supports this and provide the leadership that encourages it. Bilton and Leary say that if they are doing their jobs properly, the artist and the manager are not so far removed as they at ﬁrst appear. … If there is a distinction to be made between managers and artists, it is primarily one of scale; while artists tend to broker these exchanges internally, within their own thought process, managers broker the external relationships between artists, audiences and investors. (Bilton & Leary 2002: 61) So artists and arts leaders and managers all need to be focused on developing an environment that supports creative, innovative and artistic outcomes for themselves, their organization, their audience and their stakeholders. Innovation is the process of creating something new – hence, there is a connection between innovation and entrepreneurialism. In the context of business, entrepreneurialism is located around the creation of new products or diﬀerent outcomes that then make money (Drucker 1985; Van de Ven 1986). It is noted that [e]ntrepreneurship is a way of thinking and behaving that has opportunity as its heart. Entrepreneurs recognise, create, engage and exploit opportunities. Creativity and innovation are fundamental. (Thompson & Doherty 2006: 361) As creativity and innovation are at the heart of entrepreneurialism, it is no surprise, then, that artists are often framed as skilled entrepreneurs (Daum 2005). Artists as entrepreneurs may be more about social entrepreneurialism, though, than what might be called the ‘free market’ version (Caust & Glow 2011). Social entrepreneurs generally use a business approach to get social outcomes that beneﬁt the community (Thompson & Doherty 2006). In the context of the arts, being focused on the arts purely from a money-making perspective is not a common model (Becker 2007; Griﬃn 2003). It is noted, however, that entrepreneurialism and innovation can be directly connected to an outcome of increasing income for an arts organization (Rentschler 2002). Becker sees entrepreneurialism in relation to the arts as a way of creating new work, new sources of income and new contacts (Becker 2007).
Final Comment Arts leaders, then, need to critically engage with the process of leadership as well as the process of arts making as both ﬁelds are complex, challenging and subject to change. Glow observes about arts management: It is not enough for the task of arts management to be seen simply as the eﬃcient and eﬀective management of things, but rather as a process of critical engagement with ideas in a complex ﬁeld of activity. (Glow 2010: 591)
Arts and Leadership: An Overview
This is an argument that eﬀective arts leadership demands a deep and critical engagement both with the arts and with the act of leadership. In the following chapters, many aspects of arts and leadership that have been touched upon here are explored in much greater depth. At times, it is a complex picture but ideally one that will stimulate and provoke the reader to see diﬀerent pathways and ask interesting questions.
Notes 1 Hypercapitalism is seen as an extreme form of capitalism so that every aspect of society is dominated by the demands of the marketplace (Vujnovic 2012). 2 The German sociologist Max Weber posited three sources of authority: legal, traditional and charismatic. Charismatic authority was exercised by individuals with outstanding personal characteristics that meant that others followed them (see Waters & Waters 2015). 3 Systems theory arose out of scientiﬁc studies (e.g. the web of relationships in biology) but has been used in many diﬀerent disciplines subsequently. It frames an organization, for instance, as an open system rather than a closed one, where everything within the system is interdependent and interrelated (see Senge 1992; Wheatley 1999).
References Adair, John (1989) Not Bosses, But Leaders. Guildford: Talbot Adair Press. Adler, Nancy (2015) “Finding beauty in a fractured world: Art inspires leaders – leaders change the world.” Academy of Management Review 40 (3), 480–494. Amabile, Teresa (2001) “How to Kill Creativity.” In: Henry, Jane (ed.) Creative Management. London: SAGE Publications, pp. 4–10. Avolio, B. J. & Gardner, W. L. (2005) “Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership.” The Leadership Quarterly 16 (3), 315–338. Bass, Bernard & Avolio, Bruce J. (1997) “Shatter the Glass Ceiling: Women May Make Better Managers.” In: Grint, Keith (ed.) Leadership. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 199–210. Bathurst, Ralph & Cain, Trudie (2013) “Embodied leadership: The aesthetics of gesture.” Leadership 9 (3), 358–377. Becker, G. D. (2007) “Adventuring arts entrepreneurship curricula in higher education: An examination of present eﬀorts, obstacles, and best practices.” Journal of Arts Management, Law and Society 37 (2), 87–112. Belﬁore, Eleonora (2004) “Auditing culture.” International Journal of Cultural Policy 10 (2), 183–202. Bereson, Ruth (2002) The Operatic State: Cultural Policy and the Opera House. London: Routledge. Berger, John (1972) Ways of Seeing. London: British Broadcasting Corporation and Penguin Books. Bilton, C. & Leary, R. (2002) “What can managers do for creativity? Brokering creativity in the creative industries.” The International Journal of Cultural Policy 8 (1), 49–64. Bolton, Richard (1992) Culture Wars: Documents from Recent Controversies in the Arts. New York: New Press. Bourdieu, Pierre (1993) The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature, ed. and intro. by Johnson, Randal. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bowers, D. G. & Seashore, S. E. (1966) “Predicting organizational eﬀectiveness with a four factor theory of leadership.” Administrative Science Quarterly 11, 238–263. Brown, Alan (2006) “An architecture of value.” Grantmakers in the Arts Reader 17 (1), 18–25. Brown, Steve, Getz, Donald, Pettersson, Robert & Wallstam, Martin (2015) “Event evaluation: deﬁnitions, concepts and a state of the art review.” International Journal of Event and Festival Management 6 (2), 135–157.
Arts and Leadership: An Overview
Burgan, Barry (2009) “Arts, culture and the economy: A review of the practice as to how the arts and the economy are understood to interact.” Asia Paciﬁc Journal of Arts and Cultural Management 8 (2), 457–470. Burns, J. M. (1978) Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. Catterall, J. (2009) Doing Well and Doing Good by Doing Art: The Long Term Eﬀects of Sustained Involvement in the Visual and Performing Arts during High School. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Imagination Group. Caust, J. (2015) “Diﬀerent cultures but similar contexts: leadership of major performing arts centres in the Asia Paciﬁc Region.” In: Caust, Josephine (ed.) Arts and Cultural Leadership in Asia. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 148–162. Caust, J. (2003) “Putting the arts back into arts policy making: How arts policy has been ‘captured’ by the economists and marketers.” International Journal of Cultural Policy 9 (1), 51–63. Caust, J. & Glow, H. (2011) “Festivals, artists and entrepreneurialism: The role of the Adelaide Fringe Festival.” International Journal of Event Management Research 6 (2), 1–14. Ceˇ rne, Matej, Jaklicˇ, Marko & Škerlavaj, Miha (2013) “Authentic leadership, creativity, and innovation: A multilevel perspective.” Leadership 9 (1), 63–85. Conger, J. A. (1990) “The dark side of leadership.” Organizational Dynamics 19 (2), 44–55. Conger, J. A. & Kanungo, R. N. (1994) “Charismatic leadership in organizations: Perceived behavioral attributes and their measurement.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 15, 439–445. Cornett, C. (1999) The Arts as Meaning Makers: Integrating Literature and the Arts Throughout the Curriculum. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Cowan, Tyler (2000) In Praise of Commercial Culture. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. Daft, R. L. (1999) Leadership Theory and Practice. Fort Worth, TX: Dryden Press. Daum, K. (2005) “Entrepreneurs: The artists of the business world.” Journal of Business Strategy 26 (5), 53–57. de LeonJr., Felipe M. (2016) “The Imperatives of Cultural Leadership in Asia: Revitalizing Communal Creativity for a Sustainable Future.” In: Okvall, Meredith (ed.) (2016) Report of 7th World Summit on Arts & Culture Valletta Malta 2016. Valletta, Malta: IFACCA, pp. 33–50. DePree, Max (1989) Leadership Is an Art. New York: Doubleday. Dobson, J. (1999) The Art of Management and the Aesthetic Manager. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Drucker, Peter (1990) Managing the Non-Proﬁt Organization. New York: HarperCollins. Drucker, Peter (1985) Entrepreneurship and Innovation: Practice and Principles. New York: Harper Business. Ehrich, Lisa Catherine & English, Fenwick W. (2013) “Leadership as dance: A consideration of the applicability of the ‘mother’ of all arts as the basis for establishing connoisseurship.” International Journal of Leadership in Education 16 (4), 454–481. Fielder, Fred E. (1976) “Situational Control and a dynamic Theory of Leadership.” In: Grint, Keith (ed.) (1997) Leadership. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 126–154. Fitzgibbon, M. (2001) Managing Innovation in the Arts. London: Quorum Books. Florida, Richard (2005) Cities and the Creative Class. New York: Routledge. Galloway, Susan & Dunlop, Stewart (2007) “A critique of deﬁnitions of the cultural and creative industries in public policy.” International Journal of Cultural Policy 13 (1), 17–31. Galton, Francis (1869) Hereditary Genius: An Inquiry into its Laws and Consequences. London: MacMillan; republished 1978, London: J. Friedmann. García-Morales, Víctor J., Llorens-Montes, Francisco J. & Verdú-Jover, Antonio J. (2006) “Antecedents and consequences of organizational innovation and organizational learning in entrepreneurship.” Industrial Management & Data Systems 106 (1), 21–42. Glow, Hilary (2010) “Taking a critical approach to arts management.” Asia Paciﬁc Journal of Arts and Cultural Management 7 (2), 585–594. Goleman, Daniel (1998) “What makes a leader?” Harvard Business Review, November– December, 93–102.
Arts and Leadership: An Overview
Gray, Clive (2007) “Commodiﬁcation and instrumentality in cultural policy.” International Journal of Cultural Policy 13 (2), 203–215. Greenleaf, R. K. (1991) Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness. New York: Paulist Press. Griﬃn, Des (2003) “Leaders in museums: Entrepreneurs or role models.” The International Journal of Arts Management 5 (2), 4–14. Grint, Keith (2000) The Art of Leadership. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gronn, Peter (2002) “Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis.” The Leadership Quarterly 13, 423–451. Grosshans, Henry (1993) Hitler and the Artists. New York: Holmes & Meyer. Groys, Boris (1992) The Total Art of Stalinism: Avant-Garde, Aesthetic Dictatorship, and Beyond. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Handy, Charles (1998) The Hungry Spirit. London: Random House. Hansen, T. B. (1995) “Measuring the value of culture.” International Journal of Cultural Policy 1 (2), 309–322. Hemphill, J. K. & Coons, A. E. (1957) “Development of the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire.” In: Stogdill, R. M. & Coons, A. E. (eds.) Leader Behavior: Its Description And Measurement. Columbus, OH: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University, pp. 6–38. Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K. H. (1977) Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources. Englewood Cliﬀs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hesmondhalgh, David & Pratt, Andy C. (2005) “Cultural industries and cultural policy.” International Journal of Cultural Policy 11 (1). 1–13. Horne, Donald (1986) The Public Culture: The Triumph of Industrialism. London: Pluto Press. House, R. J. (1971) “A path goal theory of leader eﬀectiveness.” Administrative Science Quarterly 16, 321–339. Hunter, James (1991) Culture Wars: The Struggle to Deﬁne America. New York: Basic Books. Ingerson, A. E. (1987) “The Politics of Culture in Portugal, 1945–1985: From Dictatorship to Revolution to Marketplace.” In: CummingsJr, Milton C. & Katz, S. Richard (1987) The Patron State. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 199–224. Klamer, A. (2002) “Accounting for social and cultural values.” The Economist 150 (4), 453–473. Knochel, Aaron D. (2017) “Why do conservatives want the government to defund the arts?” The Conversation, February 6, 2017, accessed at: https://theconversation.com/why-do-conserva tives-want-the-government-to-defund-the-arts-71866 Kotter, John (1988) The Leadership Factor. New York: Free Press. Landry, Charles & Hyams, Jonathon (2012) The Creative City Index: Measuring the Pulse of the City. Stroud: Comedia. Laqueur, Walter (1996) Fascism: Past, Present, Future. New York: Oxford University Press. Lehmann-Haupt, Hellmut (1973) Art under a Dictatorship. New York: Oxford University Press. Likert, R. (1961) New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G. & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996) “Eﬀectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature.” The Leadership Quarterly 7 (3), 385–415. Marchant, Jo (2016) “A journey to the oldest cave paintings in the world.” Smithsonian Magazine, January 2016, accessed at: www.smithsonianmag.com/history/journey-oldest-cave-paintingsworld-180957685 Marx, Karl (1857) A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, trans. from the German by Ryazanskaya, S. W. (1971) Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. London: Lawrence & Wishart, accessed at: www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/criti que-pol-economy/appx1.htm#production Matarasso, F. (1997) The Social Impact of the Arts: Evaluating Arts Programmes. Stroud: Comedia. Meyrick, Julian (2015) “Numbers, schnumbers.” International Journal of Event and Festival Management 6 (2), 99–110.
Arts and Leadership: An Overview
Mills, Tyler Christian (2013) “The Eﬀects of Totalitarian Regimes and the Individual on Russian and Soviet Music.” Syracuse University Honors Program Capstone Projects. Paper 48, accessed at: http://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1044&context=honors_capstone Mintzberg, Henry (1998) “Covert leadership: Notes on managing professionals.” Harvard Business Review, November–December, 140–147. Myerscough, J. (1988) The Economic Importance of the Arts in Britain. London: Policy Studies Institute. Nahavandi, A. (2003) The Art and Science of Leadership. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Nisbett, Melissa & Walmsley, Ben (2016) “The romanticization of charismatic leadership in the arts.” The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 46, 2–12. Pearce, Craig L. & Conger, Jay Alden(eds.) (2002) Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and Whys of Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Pruetipibultham, Oranuch (Jued) & Mclean, Gary N. (2010) “The role of the arts in organizational settings.” Human Resource Development Review 9 (1), 3–25. Qiao, Luqiang (2015) “Re-Negotiating the Arts in China: Creating a New Space.” In: Caust, Josephine (ed.) Arts and Cultural Leadership in Asia. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 26–38. Reid, Wendy (2013) “Dual Executive Leadership in the Arts – Remi Brousseau, Pierre Rousseau and Le Théâtre Denise-Pelletier.” In: Caust, Josephine (ed.) (2013) Arts Leadership: International Case Studies. Melbourne: Tilde University Press, pp. 96–111. Reid, W. & Karambayya, R. (2009) “Impact of dual executive leadership dynamics in creative organizations.” Human Relations 62 (7), 1073–1112. Rentschler, Ruth (2002) The Entrepreneurial Arts Leader. Brisbane: University of Queensland Press. Reynolds, Sarah, Tonks, Ann & MacNeill, Kate (2017) “Collaborative leadership in the arts as a unique form of dual leadership.” The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 47 (2), 89–104. Ridley, F. F. (1987) “Tradition, Change, and Crisis in Great Britain.” In: Cummings, Jr., Milton C. & Katz, Richard S. (1987) The Patron State. New York: Oxford University Press. Robinson, K. (1999) All Our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education. Report to the National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education. London: National Advisory Committee on Creative & Cultural Education. Ropo, Arja, Sauer, Erika & Salovaara, Perttu (2013) “Embodiment of leadership through material place.” Leadership 9 (3), 378–395. Ropo, A. & Sauer, E. (2008) “Dances of leadership: Bridging theory and practice through an aesthetic approach.” Journal of Management & Organization 14, 560–572. Ryazanskaya, S. W. (1971) Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. London: Lawrence & Wishart, accessed at: www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/criti que-pol-economy/appx1.htm#production Schein, E. H. (2001) “The role of art and the artist.” Reﬂections 2 (4), 81–83. Schultheis, Franz, Single, Erwin, Egger, Stephan & Mazurrana, Thomas (2015) When Art Meets Money: Encounters at the Basel Art Fair, trans. by Fearns, James. Cologne: Verlag der Buchhandlung Walther König. Senge, Peter (1992) The Fifth Discipline. Melbourne: Random House. Shockley, Gordon E. (2011) “Political environment and policy change: The National Endowment for the Arts in the 1990s.” Journal of Arts Management, Law & Society 4 (41), 267–284. Stogdill, R. M. (1950) “Leadership, Membership and Organization.” In: Grint, K. (ed.) Leadership. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 112–125. Taormina, Robert J. (2010) “The art of leadership: an evolutionary perspective.” International Journal of Arts Management 13 (1), 41–55. Tepper, Steven J. (2011) Not Here, Not Now, Not That. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Thompson, J. & Doherty, B. (2006) “The diverse world of social enterprise: A collection of social enterprise stories.” International Journal of Social Economics 33 (5/6), 361–375. Throsby, D. (1999) “Cultural capital.” Journal of Cultural Economics 23, 3–12.
Arts and Leadership: An Overview
Upchurch, Anna (2004) “John Maynard Keynes, the Bloomsbury Group and the origins of the Arts Council Movement.” International Journal of Cultural Policy 10 (2), 203–217. Vaill, P. B. (1989) Managing as a Performing Art. New York: Jossey-Bass. Van de Ven, A. H. (1986) “Central problems in the management of innovation.” Management Science 32, 590–607. Vujnovic, M. (2012) “Hypercapitalism.” In: The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Globalization, accessed at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470670590.wbeog278/abstract Waldman, David A. & Balven, Rachel M. (2015) “Responsible leadership: Theoretical issues and research directions.” The Academy of Management Perspectives 3015 (1), 19–29. Waters, Tony & Waters, Dagmar (eds. & trans.) (2015) Weber’s Rationalism and Modern Society. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Wetlaufer, S. (1999) “Under the big top.” Harvard Business Review, September–October 1999. Wheatley, Margaret (1999) Leadership and the New Science. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Williams, M. & Bowdin, G. A. J. (2007) “Festival evaluation: An exploration of seven UK arts festivals.” Managing Leisure 12 (2), 187–203. Witzel, M. (2016) “The First Paradox of Leadership Is – Leadership.” In: Bolden, R., Witzel, M. & Linacre, N. (2016) Leadership Paradoxes: Rethinking Leadership for an Uncertain World. Abingdon: Routledge. Woolf, Janet (1993) The Social Production of Art. New York: NYU Press. Wu, Chin-Tao (2003) Privatising Culture. London: Verso. Yukl, G. E. (2002) Leadership in Organizations, 5th ed.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Culture and Arts Leadership
An aspect of leadership that is becoming more widely recognized and understood is that leadership is culturally deﬁned. Leadership is itself a contextual construct, so seeing it also as being culturally deﬁned is consistent with this. This means that what is seen as ‘leadership’ in one culture may be seen in a diﬀerent way in another culture. This is also aﬀected by the framing of culture where one culture may be seen as more signiﬁcant than another. It is common, in fact, to frame any discussion around leadership within a Western framework using Western leadership theories, and therefore seeing all leadership models and behavior from a Western cultural perspective. The dominance of one culture over another can aﬀect the respect, appreciation, valuing, making and practice of the other culture’s art. Leadership understandings and structures diﬀer in diﬀerent cultures and this has an impact in terms of both arts leadership and arts practice. Exploring diﬀerent cultures and cultural framings in relation to arts leadership is critical for seeing how cultural diﬀerence inﬂuences both practices and potential outcomes. Hence, the importance of exploring issues around arts leadership and culture is both necessary and relevant. As noted in Chapter 1, ‘leadership’ is a complex term and so is ‘culture’, and when they are conjoined the conversation becomes more complex and challenging.
Culture Culture and arts practices are frequently seen as intertwined. In relation to the arts, ‘culture’ plays a hugely important role and often the two terms of ‘art’ and ‘culture’ are conﬂated to mean the same thing. It is common to link all artforms together (visual, performing, media, literary) and then describe them as the ‘culture’ of a country. Alternatively, a person can be described as ‘cultured’ because they are well educated in the arts. Further, it is argued that witnessing the arts practice of another culture gives the viewer an insight and greater understanding of that culture (Leuthold 2011). In an Australian audience participation survey conducted in 2016, 64% of the Australian population believed that through exposure to the arts practice of other cultures, they gained a better understanding of the other’s culture (Australia Council 2017: 47). The very term ‘culture’ is understood diﬀerently in diﬀerent contexts and framings. As Hesmondhalgh and Saha note, “culture is complex, ambivalent, and contested” (2013: 188). Often, as mentioned already, it is used to describe just the arts. At other times, it encompasses all the ways we communicate with each other or what we believe or how we behave. It can be used to describe simply how we are conditioned or what is
Culture and Arts Leadership
particular to ourselves as individuals, or it can be used to describe the mores of a particular group such as teenagers. The British cultural theorist Raymond Williams emphasizes how the term ‘culture’ is complex in both its meaning and use. He observes that ‘culture’ began as a noun of process – the culture (cultivation) of crops or (rearing and breeding) of animals, and by extension the culture (active cultivation) of the human mind – it became in the late eighteenth century, especially in German and English, a noun of conﬁguration or generalization of the “spirit” which informed the “whole way of life” of a distinct people. (Williams 1981: 10) The meaning of ‘culture’ is broad, complex, contested and changeable. There are cultures within cultures, so that there may be national characteristics that are particular in a culture – for example, the US – and then sub-groups within the mainstream culture that have diﬀerent characteristics again. In the example of the US, there are urban communities, such as those who live in New York, and there are rural communities, such as those who live in the Midwest. Although both communities may share many cultural values or beliefs, they may also have quite diﬀerent values to each other in relation to particular issues – for example, a rural community is likely to be more community-minded and less individually focused than an urban community; on the other hand, an urban community is likely to have less conservative social values than a rural community. In this context, it might mean that a rural community has some values more similar to communities who live in a rural area in another country than to people who live in an urban area in their own country. Culture, then, is not ﬁxed and is constantly inﬂuenced by internal and external forces. Holden (2015) talks about the ‘ecology’ of culture and argues that this term is more appropriate than framing it in economic terms. Holden describes the term ‘culture’ as a “temporary phenomena with deep roots and complex enabling factors” (Holden 2015: 3). He is mindful of the way new technologies and new forms of culture are developing all the time, as well as the preferences of diﬀerent age groups, so that culture and cultural norms are always in a state of ﬂux. He says: Culture in the future is more likely to be described in terms of ﬂuid movements and startling shifts: someone who creates followers through one activity might follow it up not with a similar activity, but a diﬀerent activity with the same followership. (Holden 2015: 4) This constant state of ﬂux means that new connections are being made and then replaced by others. In 2008, Holden developed a way of describing culture as a three-dimensional entity or three spheres that were constantly interacting with each other. He describes these spheres as Publicly Funded, Homemade and Commercial. He describes publicly funded as “where the production or maximisation of public goods is assisted by support directly from the state or from philanthropists”. Holden’s homemade culture is “where people make culture for themselves and fund it themselves”, and
Culture and Arts Leadership
commercial culture is “one that operates through the marketplace” (Holden 2015: 7). Holden notes, though, that these descriptors, in a sense, deﬁne culture from predominantly a ﬁnancial or market perspective. Although these three spheres of culture are interrelated, they also have distinct characteristics. For example, Holden describes publicly funded culture as having a role as the ‘research and development’ part. While homemade culture is deﬁned by the fact that people do not get paid, it also represents most people involved in cultural activities. The commercial culture is deﬁned as the ﬁeld where there is public investment and people within it are trying to make a proﬁt from their endeavors. However, all the spheres are interrelated, so that activity can start in one sphere such as homemade, then move to publicly funded and ﬁnally end up in the commercial sphere. Examples of this movement between spheres are theater shows that begin in, say, a small space with everyone providing their labor either for free or for a share of the box oﬃce; then the show is seen in a large publicly funded theater where it is reproduced in a more lavish form; and ﬁnally, because of its popular appeal, transfers to the commercial sector such as the West End or Broadway or even into another medium such as ﬁlm. Further, it is noted that “culture exists within a wider political, social and economic environment” (Holden 2015: 22) so that aspects of that environment will impact on its culture and vice versa. This again relates back to the notion of the ecosystem where everything aﬀects everything else, but it also allows for the cycle of regeneration. A healthy ecosystem might be measured by the health of its participants, but while some cannot adapt to a diﬀerent environment, others emerge who thrive in the same situation. Culture plays an important and crucial role in deﬁning a society. But this can lead to the framing of another culture as the ‘exotic’ or the ‘diﬀerent’. Said (1978) discusses this when referring to the concept of the ‘oriental’ (or ‘orientalism’), arguing that the West has framed the East as the ‘other’. This framing ensures that other cultures are ‘lesser’ or ‘strange’ in relation to one’s own. Believing that your ‘culture’ is more important than another’s may objectively seem a strange position to take, but many of us integrate this from our earliest years. Singh (2010) notes that ‘power’ is directly connected with the need for ‘cultural validation’, and unless all cultures get suitable acknowledgment and recognition, they then receive a lower status and by default have less inﬂuence. A power diﬀerential can be further played out by the impact of colonization by one country on the culture of another. Hall (2002:77) talks about the centrality of culture and its relationship with ‘identity’. Societies that have been colonized experience a change of signs and places that have formerly represented their cultural identity, becoming transformed to represent the culture of the colonizing power. Çelik (2002) discusses the desire of the French colonizers to change the major markers of Algerian cultural and religious life by the creation of a central plaza and the removal of the oldest mosque and kasbah. The colonizers usually change the rules to suit themselves so that language, rituals, religion, social mores and structures are reframed into the colonizer’s point of reference. The colonizer may in fact consciously attempt to destroy the original culture and language of those colonized so that the power of the colonizer is unchallenged (evident in the destruction of indigenous cultures). Although we know that ‘diﬀerence’ is just that, and that it is neither better nor worse, ‘diﬀerence’ can be framed consciously or unconsciously as being better, more informed, tasteful or beautiful, and so on.
Culture and Arts Leadership Case Study 2.1 Cloud Gate Dance Theatre Cloud Gate Dance Theatre is based in Taiwan and was founded by Lin Hwai-min in 1973. He says: When I set up Cloud Gate [named after an ancient Chinese dance] we were the ﬁrst professional dance company. We felt part of a movement in search of its roots. In one respect the mission of the company was to explore what it is to be Taiwanese, as we knew so little about our own home. (Lin quoted in Wroe 2016) Taiwan had a difﬁcult time over the 20th century when it had been occupied by the Japanese for a long time and then became the retreat for Chiang Kai-shek after World War II. Finding a sense of a Taiwanese identity was challenging because of the mix of Chinese and Japanese cultural inﬂuences. Cloud Gate has represented one pathway of discovering a cultural framing for being Taiwanese. It is observed that Cloud Gate has been so successful in the heart of the Taiwanese that their summer outdoor shows now attract audiences of around 40,000. Mr Lin, its founder, is also seen as a national treasure and is recognized throughout the country. Cloud Gate’s signature piece, Songs of the Wanderers, ﬁrst created in 1994, is mesmerizing and life-changing. [It] came out of a trip Lin took to Bodh Gaya in India, the place where the Buddha attained his enlightenment. (Wroe 2016) The stillness of the piece and the imagery of the rice falling down on to the head of the Buddhist monk is something that stays with you for ever. This piece also demonstrates the uniqueness of the Cloud Gate style. There is a merging of Western and Eastern inﬂuences creating something else again. There are elements of meditation, qigong, martial arts and contemporary dance all melded together. The company employs dancers ranging in age from their early 20s to their late 50s, again showing that it represents all parts of the human spectrum. Lin encourages people to stay with the company over their lifetime because he says that as people mature they bring other qualities to their dance. Cloud Gate has seen itself as a company that is part of the people that it comes from. It has always tried to perform in Taiwan in places where ordinary people go, so that they can see the work. It does not want to be separated from the culture that it represents, and therefore it continues to enjoy enormous respect and local popularity in Taiwan. Lin says: We don’t have big grants. It is a people’s company and a people’s theatre. (Lin quoted in Wroe 2016) Cloud Gate website: http://site.cloudgate.org.tw/eng/CG1/index.html
Culture and Arts Leadership
Further, within societies there can be various cultural identities, so that a former resident of one country who goes to live in a second country can embrace the adopted culture, as well as continuing to identify with the former culture. Alternatively, someone can live in one country but identify with the culture of another. So geographical location does not necessarily deﬁne culture. There are cultures within cultures. From a geographical point of view the sense of belonging to a certain culture is not necessarily limited by a nation state (e.g. French culture) but can also comprise a certain region (e.g. Arabic culture) or even within parts of several nations (e.g. Curdish [sic] culture) because the oﬃcial borders don’t correspond with the prevalence of a certain culture. (Mandel 2017: 24) Another aspect of culture and arts practice is the appropriation by the colonizer, or oppressor, of the arts and cultural practices of the oppressed, whereby the arts practice then becomes associated with the colonizer and not the original producer of the arts practice. For example, various writers on arts practices have noted that particular artforms such as jazz music or dance practices have come from somewhere else and then been seen as representative of the national culture of the dominant group (Hesmondhalgh & Saha 2013). In the reality of a global world, this can also be seen from a diﬀerent perspective where the pervasive culture of the US (say hip hop) can then become the dominant culture of young people around the world. As noted in Chapter 1, Bourdieu argues that an understanding and appreciation of art relates to an individual’s class, values and education. He suggests that educated people have been given the equipment to decode particular works of art. Those who have not been educated in a similar manner experience the challenges of dealing with a diﬀerent culture when approaching the same work of art (Bourdieu 1993: 217). Thus, there are other factors that come into play in terms of the appreciation of cultural production. Hesmondhalgh and Saha assert that Cultural production in the modern world cannot be adequately understood without taking account of race and ethnicity, and their relation to oppression. (Hesmondhalgh & Saha 2013: 180) This acknowledgment of race, ethnicity and their relationship to oppression is signiﬁcant when paired with cultural production because there are many layers around power and equity that need to be considered. The reality of “unequal access to the means of cultural production” (Hesmondhalgh & Saha 2013: 183) inﬂuences everything that is made, seen and appreciated. Related to issues of power and equity, access to the means of cultural production is critical if a participant wants to engage in cultural practice. One major impact of the growth of technology and its inﬂuence internationally is the capacity it gives for anyone to create work with a tool such as a cell phone. A cell phone can enable the making of a movie as well as provide access to search engines such as Google. This is evidenced by the extraordinary growth of, say, YouTube. If the individual has a mobile phone and/or access to the internet, then in theory they are able to create work. This connects with Holden’s notion of homemade culture. He notes: “Technology has placed the tools of cultural production, communication and monetisation in the hands of everyone” (Holden 2015: 23). However, access to technology is still an economic issue because it is not free, and while many now have that access, many more do not.
Culture and Arts Leadership
Smiers (2003) has argued that in the age of globalization protecting cultural diversity and allowing for equality of access are basic human rights. He notes: From the cultural perspective, it should be a basic right that countries and regions can take measures to promote the growth of real diversity in the production, distribution and promotion of all forms of the arts. (Smiers 2003: 190) With the capacity through the media to spread forms of culture internationally, the impact of American culture in particular has been signiﬁcant. Much of this is to do with the American dominance of the popular media, controlling its production, distribution and promotion. Smiers (2003) argues that all nations and cultures should have access to the means of production as well as the distribution and promotion. The signiﬁcance of cultural inﬂuence is noted here as it creates its own market and demand for goods as an outcome. The challenge is that if you are part of a dominant or dominating group/culture, your insight into the impact of that dominance can be limited or non-existent. Indeed, self-interest is usually the main driver in any society that emphasizes individual needs rather than a more collective approach. The classic example might be the position of white, heterosexual, middle-aged Western males – in many scenarios, this group would be perceived as having a dominant political, social and economic position. Although many members of that group have developed a greater understanding of their impact/inﬂuence over the past few years, and are therefore less inclined to make assumptions about how life should be as an outcome, there are still many members of that group/culture who have no insight or interest in the impact of their dominance and may instead work hard to maintain the position of their group. The ‘angry, white male’ is presented as a modern phenomenon, for example. No doubt it is harder to understand what it feels like being the ‘other’ when you are part of the dominant or ‘chosen’ group. But for success in leadership and in other aspects of life it is essential to recognize that other worlds exist outside of one’s own, and that there is a need for considerable work by the individual to understand how to connect with the ‘other’ rather than always assume that one’s version of the world is the correct or best one. There are many diﬀerences between cultures that, if not recognized, can at the least cause misunderstandings and, in more extreme circumstances, distrust and disrespect. Carroll (2015) talks, for example, about understandings of ‘time’ and ‘space’ as two key important areas that need unpacking between cultures. She cites the examples of Buddhist and Hindu culture where each frames time in a circular manner – seeing everything in a repeated continuum. The Western Christian framing of time is seen more as a spectrum rather than a circle – so events follow each other in an ordered, predictable manner. Australian Aboriginal people see time in relation to their ancestors, so they refer back all the time and pay respect to the stories and understandings of their living elders and those who went before. It is also noted elsewhere that a polychromic concept of time (as compared with the monochromic model of the West) is common in diﬀerent parts of Asia (de Leon 2016: 37). In relation to conceptions of ‘space’ too, there are immediate diﬀerences where an observer from one culture might focus on the detail while an observer from another might focus on the whole (Carroll 2015). Thus, the way an arts practice is viewed and understood can be altered by the way it is seen and the way it is displayed. Understanding this context is critical, for example, in the case of a curator of a museum that displays work from another culture. Cultural and social expectations are diﬀerent, and thus ways of forming relationships and undertaking tasks are inﬂuenced by understandings of time and space.
Culture and Arts Leadership
These diﬀerent approaches to time and space can mean that the way events take place, and the response by participants within them, can diﬀer according to the cultural framing they have inherited. When two or more cultures come together – say, to work on a joint project – these diﬀerent perceptions can cause problems if they are not recognized by both parties and integrated into their thinking, behavior and understanding. For example, artwork from a diﬀerent cultural framing may need a particular approach for display that is not common or known in the culture in which it is being seen. Artists working together from diﬀerent cultures on a group project might need to recognize the diﬀering expectations that each artist might have and how this might be accommodated in terms of doing the work. The process of creating a work can diﬀer. For example, some cultures place more emphasis on the group’s view and getting everyone to work together harmoniously. Other cultures take a more individualist approach and believe conﬂict and competition are healthy. Some cultures defer to their elders and always wait for them to take the lead in any work process. Others see everyone as having a more equal status and less notice is taken of seniority. Thus, working in a cross-cultural context takes considerable time and care so that ‘privileging’ one culture over another is avoided, and there is mutual respect paid to another’s cultural expectations. Case Study 2.2 Terra Nova Terra Nova is based in Northern Ireland but works across the globe. Their mission is: To create excellent theatre where different cultures meet, people explore and the world is changed. Terra Nova was founded by Andrea Montgomery in 2007 and is based in East Belfast. The focus of their work is to work interculturally. This means that they do work that reﬂects different cultures as well as across cultures to create unique performances. In 2016, they undertook a production of Shakespeare’s The Tempest, calling it The Belfast Tempest. The show was created over a ten-month period with 750 people from the local community coming from many different cultural groups as well as 45 professional performers. Another project undertaken by the company is Arrivals, a trilogy project that has gone on over several years in different forms. They note: The Arrivals project originated from a strong feeling that the main stages of Northern Ireland were resolutely closed to stories that did not originate in the dominant culture. Since at least 11% of the population of Northern Ireland is foreign-born, they perceived a need to reﬂect the experiences of those coming to Northern Ireland from somewhere else. By working with different communities and hearing their stories, they developed a series of plays for professional actors from a mixture of Northern Irish, Hong Kong Chinese, Romanian and British Asian background. By the time they arrived
Culture and Arts Leadership at their production of Arrivals 3, they were working bilingually and giving the audience an immersive experience so that they were part of the performance. The company has also undertaken projects in Macau, Palestine and Iran, and is presently doing work in Lebanon and Egypt which they hope will culminate in a production focusing on the Arab world in 2017. Terra Nova’s website: www.terranovaproductions.net
Leadership and Culture Shifting the discussion to one that is more focused on connecting leadership and culture invites consideration of several studies that theorize how culture impacts on leadership, and how culture is both practiced and understood. While the focus here is not speciﬁcally about the context of the arts, the impact of the research has many ramiﬁcations in terms of arts practice and arts leadership. Many recent studies on leadership and culture have been inﬂuenced by the work of Geert Hofstede. After undertaking research in several countries, Hofstede developed a framework for describing cultural diﬀerences (Hofstede 1980). Hofstede maintains that while the original data is from one large multinational company, IBM, the results are consistent for other sectors (Hofstede 2011). He then developed a tool called ‘Cultural Dimensions’ to describe what are the main characteristics of diﬀerent cultures. The six pairs he describes are: Power/Distance, Uncertainty/Avoidance, Individualism/Collectivism, Masculinity/Femininity, Long/Short Term Orientation, and Indulgence/Restraint (Hofstede 2011). He notes that ‘culture’ is what is shared between groups, not what is not shared; or, alternatively, culture is what is distinct about one group from another (Hofstede 2011). An example of how he applies Cultural Dimensions in relation to his third characteristic of Individualism/Collectivism is presented below in Table 2.1. These two opposing framings are then considered in relation to particular national groups. Table 2.1 Hofstede’s Table: Ten Diﬀerences between Collectivist and Individualist Societies Individualism
Everyone is supposed to take care of him- or herself and his or her immediate family only “I” – consciousness Right of privacy Speaking one’s mind is healthy Others classiﬁed as individuals Personal opinion expected: one person one vote Transgression of norms leads to guilt feelings Languages in which the word “I” is indispensable Purpose of education is learning how to learn Task prevails over relationship
People are born into extended families or clans which protect them in exchange for loyalty “We” – consciousness Stress on belonging Harmony should always be maintained Others classiﬁed as in-group or out-group Opinions and votes predetermined by in-group Transgression of norms leads to shame feelings Languages in which the word “I” is avoided Purpose of education is learning how to do Relationship prevails over task
Geert Hofstede, Gert Jan Hofstede, Michael Minkov (2010) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, Third Revised Edition, McGrawHill, ISBN 0-07-166418-1. © Geert Hofstede B.V. Quoted with permission.
Culture and Arts Leadership
Hofstede then argues that individualist societies are more represented in the West and collectivist societies are more represented in the East, with countries such as Japan lying somewhere in between (Hofstede 2011: 12). An important factor here might be the inﬂuence, say, of religious and cultural inﬂuences that bring about the cultural values of the group. For example, in the table above it is noted that ‘Harmony should always be maintained’ is a characteristic of a collectivist society. The internalized values of a culture will inﬂuence the expectations of both individuals and groups from that culture, as well as the expectations of leadership and how it is understood and practiced. Using Hofstede’s model, Meyer (2014: 125) developed a framing of leadership qualities or traits, presenting them in relation to diﬀerent cultures. She then demonstrated diﬀerent approaches to leadership by placing countries on a spectrum according to her perception of where they sit, using ‘egalitarian’ and ‘hierarchical’ as the two extremes of the spectrum. Meyer deﬁnes the term ‘egalitarian’ as meaning that the distance between a boss and a subordinate is low, whereas the term ‘hierarchical’ implies a high distance between the two (Meyer 2014: 125). This framing of Meyer’s is interesting because it also demonstrates that countries can diﬀer within larger groupings (such as the West or the East) and so each country needs to be understood in terms of where they sit, rather than relying on more generalized conclusions about, say, Scandinavian, Asiatic or European cultures. For example, in Meyer’s spectrum Finland, generally classiﬁed as part of Scandinavia but also seen as having cultural connections with Slavic countries nearby, is located more towards the middle of the spectrum than, say, Sweden or Denmark, indicating that it is less egalitarian in leadership expectations than its neighbors. Meyer then frames the two terms of ‘egalitarian’ and ‘hierarchical’ into a table tht describes behavior traits that may be consistent with these notions in these countries (Meyer 2014: 131). This provides examples of various behaviors that are consistent with the two extremes. For example, egalitarian behavior is represented by “It’s okay to disagree with the boss openly in front of others”, whereas hierarchical behavior is illustrated by “An eﬀort is made to defer to the boss’s opinion especially in public” (Meyer 2014: 131). In addition, how a leader is expected to behave and how followers also behave can diﬀer dramatically in diﬀerent cultures. For example, a leader in Norway might be expected to be friendly, collegiate and accessible. In Japan however, a leader might be expected to be formal, hierarchical and distant. Thus the way a leader behaves in Norway might be interpreted in Japan as demonstrating weakness, lack of conﬁdence and lacking authority. However, the way a leader behaves in Japan might be seen in Norway as authoritarian, disinterested and rigid. Similarly, followers in Norway would be expected to have a point of view and share it with others including the designated leader. In Japan this Denmark
France Poland Germany Italy Brazil
Figure 2.1 Meyer’s Spectrum of Leading by Culture
Russia India Mexico Peru
Culture and Arts Leadership
behaviour by the followers might be interpreted as being rude, impolite and disrespectful to the leader. Followers in Japan might be expected to be courteous, respectful and polite and only share their views when asked directly by the leader to do so. In Norway followers taking the Japanese approach might be seen as timid, overly reserved or lacking commitment. It should be noted though that this comparison of behaviour traits by Meyer may not be consistent across these countries or within diﬀerent workplaces in these countries. Some workplaces, while located within a more egalitarian culture, can be quite hierarchical in their cultural framing. Similarly some workplaces within so called hierarchal countries can be more egalitarian than described here. A major international study under the leadership of Robert House involving 54 researchers from 38 countries worked together from 1994 to gather data about the cultural framing of leadership (House et al. 2001). This was known as the Globe Study and it concluded that each society has culturally endorsed leadership behaviors and belief systems that demonstrate that leader eﬀectiveness is contextual. It noted that cultures can be similar or diﬀerent, which then informs what is valued or not. Hence, what are seen as desirable traits for successful leadership vary depending on the country and culture. This is expanded further by Perkins (2009) who argues that current Western leadership theories are limited by several cultural constraints. Perkins notes that “the values, ideas, and beliefs of a culture or culture cluster determine its conception of eﬀective leadership” (Perkins 2009: 73). She further notes that theoretical models of leadership, as presented in many standard texts on leadership, demonstrate both an American and Western bias (Perkins 2009: 73). She describes these constraints as the Leader-Centered model, a MaleDominated assumption, the emphasis on Universal Traits, an expectation of a Task– Relationship Balance, the capacity for Quantiﬁable Performance and an Individualistic approach (Perkins 2009: 80). Thus, Perkins is asserting that discussion about successful leadership models is occurring within one main cultural framing that then sets the terms of reference for deﬁning what leadership is, how it should be performed and what criteria should be used to evaluate it. It is important to recognize, then, that the leadership models being used are based on a cultural understanding, may be context-driven, assume a particular outcome and are framed within a perception that the same rules can apply to everyone. It is further observed that transplanting one’s cultural framings and processes to another culture does not mean that what worked in one culture will work in the other (Zein 2016). In fact, the opposite can occur – a successful approach in one culture can be a disaster in another. So recognizing cultural diﬀerence is critical for success. Zein (2016: 195–211) proposes a six-step process for developing the capacity for working in cross-cultural settings. These six steps are: Awareness (you are part of the problem), Observation (free from prejudice), Association (link to the cultural dimensions), Validation (test your speculation), Strategy (plan your approach) and Act (tune, implement, support). Recognizing that there is a cultural diﬀerence, then, is the ﬁrst step to being able to work successfully in another culture. Acting on this recognition, though, requires several steps to then be able to manage and work within diﬀerent cultural expectations and with people from diﬀerent cultural backgrounds. Most importantly, it requires an acceptance that your own cultural framing is not necessarily the best or the only method for solving a problem and that none of us are valuefree. Once there is that recognition, there is a necessity to be able to observe the other in a non-judgmental fashion and recognize what the preferences of others might be. This needs to be further enhanced by knowledge or recognition of what cultural values might be associated with diﬀerent behaviors.
Culture and Arts Leadership
Another aspect of leadership diﬀerence and culture is the framing of leadership terms and how they are understood or interpreted in diﬀerent cultures. For example, Wu (2010) points out, referring to understandings of what is meant by ‘transformational’ leadership, that there may be diﬀerent cultural interpretations. She notes: In American culture, a highly individualistic culture, transformational leadership is deﬁned by transforming subordinates’ performance to a higher level or encouraging exceptional individual performance. However, the results of this study demonstrate that in Taiwan, a collectivistic culture, transformational leadership is deﬁned by transforming organizational performance to a higher level … The way in which transformational leadership is expected and deﬁned is culturespeciﬁc. (Wu 2010: 44) Hence, there is not a homogeneity of meaning when talking about a particular leadership model, in this case a transformational style, across diﬀerent cultures. Expectations may be diﬀerent for both the followers and the leaders, according to the cultural and social mores of the group/society. This may mean further that in speciﬁc ﬁelds there may be diﬀerent expectations of leadership according to the country or culture of origin. In Wu’s study (2010: 45), for example, she shows that in the ﬁeld of public relations there is a preference for a transactional leadership style within the more collectivist society of Taiwan, whereas in the United States, which has a more individualistic society, there is a preference for a more transformational style.
Arts, Cultural Diplomacy and Cultural Policy In this discussion, there are issues that need to be recognized in the context of the arts. In the arts and cultural sector, this may mean that in diﬀerent cultures there is a preference for a diﬀerent style of leadership or a diﬀerent expectation of arts and cultural leadership, depending on the distinct culture of the group. In the African context, for example, cultural and arts leadership is seen as having an important role in the community, connecting it with social development and social cohesion through the undertaking of concerts and festivals (Wangusa 2016: 19). This can mean that “the cultural leader is an agent of change who contributes to cultural development in their country, region or continent” (Wangusa 2016: 20–1). In the Paciﬁc island context, it is noted that a cultural leader in the community is seen to have responsibility for the welfare of the community (Huﬀer 2016: 53). Further, traditional cultural leaders “are expected to master sophisticated oratory and genealogies, and to display contextual historical knowledge while exhibiting appropriate humility” (Huﬀer 2016: 54). The role of cultural leader is, then, very important in a traditional Paciﬁc island community and has enormous responsibility for maintaining their distinct cultural tradition. In many Asian societies, it is noted: Artistic creation is not just for a few élite specialists but for every human being … there is a long tradition of artistic creativity as communal, rather than the individual specialist called artist, and in many Asian societies there is no word for artist … (de Leon 2016: 39–40)
Culture and Arts Leadership
Hence, the Western framing of the individual artist as an outstanding individual is not necessarily understood or valued in an Asian context if everyone is expected to be artistic and pursue artistic activity. However, it appears the impact of Western culture is inﬂuencing this traditional model and there is a move towards greater specialization as a result (de Leon 2016: 38).
Case Study 2.3 Ubud Writers and Readers Festival This festival began in Ubud in Bali, Indonesia, in 2003. Since its creation, it has grown into a four-day event in October of each year that includes readings, conversations and performances. In 2016, the Ubud Writers and Readers Festival welcomed more than 170 authors, artists, thinkers and performers from 23 countries around the world. The program is conducted in both English and Bahasa Indonesian. The festival depends on a large team of volunteers who come from all over Indonesia as well from around the world. The festival was founded by Janet DeNeefe, an Australian woman who has lived in Bali for many years. She conceived it as a way of healing for the local community as well as for the community in general after the Bali bombings of 2002. The festival is now a project of the Mudra Swari Saraswati Foundation which was founded in 2004 and is an independent, non-proﬁt, non-government organization. The mission of the foundation is to improve the lives of young Indonesians through literature and the arts. “Supporting young Indonesians to pursue a career in literature and the arts, and to take pride in Indonesian arts and culture, has been at the heart of the Yayasan Mudra Swari Sarawati for over 14 years,” said Founder and Director, Janet DeNeefe. The festival has spawned another satellite event called the Emerging Writers/Voices Festival which is conducted in Bahasa Indonesian. This festival comprises a series of panels, discussions, workshops and performances spanning four key areas of the arts: writing, design, music and ﬁlm. DeNeefe comments: Through Emerging Voices, we hope to instill conﬁdence in participants and their families that, despite the challenges, a career in the arts is not only viable, but respectable. It’s something to be nourished and celebrate. As part of the program to encourage new writing in the Indonesian Archipelago, each year the foundation publishes a bi-lingual anthology of new writing in conjunction with the Emerging Writer/Voices Festival. The writers selected for the anthology are then ﬂown by the foundation to Bali to participate in the festival. In 2017, the foundation received 900 submissions from throughout Indonesia for the anthology. It is noted by the foundation that the Emerging Writers Anthology Series has grown to become one of Indonesia’s most wide-reaching literary achievements, representing work from Aceh, Medan, Makassar, Palembang, Padang, Lampung, West Timor, Papua, Bali and Java. Azri Zakkiyah, a successful writer selected for the anthology in 2017, said:
Culture and Arts Leadership
UWRF was like the ﬁrst link in my international writing journey. It makes me feel like I am a true international author. I made friends with many international writers when in Ubud and still keep in touch with them … My most rewarding experience at UWRF16 was that I saw real diversity and unity. I saw everyone respect me as who I am, whatever my appearance. See www.ubudwritersfestival.com
Once there is a recognition of cultural diversity, there is a need for artists and arts leaders to acknowledge this and act upon it. Further, mutual respect and validation are necessary if a real dialogue is to take place. Privileging one culture over another, and therefore its arts practices, is a culturally imperialist position that shows no respect for the ‘other’. While we may recognize that we all have much to learn from each other, to engage in a learning process involves listening as well as talking. One of the challenges of this need for dialogue – as compared with a monologue, for example – is a hangover from the colonial mindset of spreading one’s culture internationally as a way of gaining power and inﬂuence – for instance, the role of ‘cultural diplomacy’. What is cultural diplomacy and what is its purpose? Cultural diplomacy has come under recent examination because it seems to oﬀer something that is very seductive, but it may actually be another form of cultural dominance and oppression. Singh deﬁnes cultural diplomacy as the projection of soft-power to persuade people in other countries to appreciate one’s cultural values through exhibiting cultural products … Cultural diplomacy is an explicit cultural-policy instrument. (Singh 2010: 12) Singh makes the point that cultural diplomacy is an instrument of spreading ‘cultural policy’ which may or may not have a sinister undertone. There are two aspects here: the action of cultural diplomacy and the meaning of cultural policy. Both aspects are critical in understanding cultural leadership approaches internationally. Actors of cultural diplomacy are national agencies such as Alliance Française or the British Council which may oﬀer funding and services to locals, but also have a mandate to spread the culture of their homeland. For example, the website of the British Council says: The British Council is the United Kingdom’s international organisation for cultural relations and educational opportunities. We create friendly knowledge and understanding between the people of the UK and other countries. We do this by making a positive contribution to the UK and the countries we work with – changing lives by creating opportunities, building connections and engendering trust. We work with over 100 countries across the world in the ﬁelds of arts and culture, English language, education and civil society. Each year we reach over 20 million people face-to-face and more than 500 million people online, via broadcasts. (British Council Website 2016) There is an emphasis here on the importance of arts and culture in the services provided by the Council. Although this may result in support for local arts and cultural activity in the
Culture and Arts Leadership
country of location, it is more likely to mean using British arts and cultural practices as a vehicle for disseminating British culture. The role of the British Council and similar agencies may be helpful where limited national resources are available, but they may also disguise another agenda. It is noted that cultural diplomacy can be aimed at the promotion of mutual understanding among states, but this should not be regarded as its ﬁnal goal, but only a means of realising its ﬁnal objectives – foreign policy interests … (Pajtinka 2014: 100) In Pajtinka’s assessment, the ‘soft power’ of cultural diplomacy does hide in fact the intrusion of one country’s policies into another country. This focus on ‘soft power’ as described originally by Nye (1990) is seen as a way government can win favors or improve international relations by providing services or sharing knowledge, rather than trying to dominate through military intervention or by instituting a trade war. There are also views that cultural diplomacy should be seen in a more positive framing which is not about the projecting of another’s national interests. It is argued that there are in fact many more players in cultural diplomacy now than nations themselves, all of whom have diﬀerent agendas. [G]overnment-driven cultural diplomacy is only one strand of cultural ﬂow in the web of intersecting cultural relations being spun incessantly by myriad small and large players between nation-states and across the globe. (Ang et al. 2015: 372) Understandings and meanings around cultural policy are also part of this conversation. Governments around the world can take a keen interest in cultural policy as it can be used and understood in a myriad of ways. The practice of cultural policy can be seen simply as the manner in which a government provides arts funding or it can be seen as embracing every aspect of culture that a government might engage in. Governments diﬀer, though, in their approach to funding and managing arts and culture. This relates to their own histories and cultures and the level of economic development that exists. (Mandel 2017: 37–8). For instance, Bell and Oakley talk about the role of arts funding as a manifestation of a state’s cultural policy and as “state spending on public goods” (Bell & Oakley 2015: 6). So providing arts funding is interpreted here as a demonstration of ‘cultural policy’ by the government concerned. The priorities for that spending then become the manifestation of the cultural policy. So if the government is spending the majority of its arts money on, say, community arts practice, then the assumption might be that it believes that the role of the state should be to encourage arts practice by all of its citizens. In the more likely scenario that it is spending the majority of its funding on ‘high’ artforms such as opera and ballet, then the assumption would follow that this is how it sees and understand the arts and what it believes is important to support. Discussing cultural policy, Kidd says; The two major branches of cultural policy are regulation and subsidy. (Kidd 2012: 12)
Culture and Arts Leadership
While a lot of attention is given to arts funding, the other important part of cultural policy in practice is located around regulation. This may involve providing a license, say, for theater to be performed or it may involve direct acts of censorship by the state. In countries with histories of autocratic government, the concept of cultural policy can be framed quite negatively as the government purveyors of cultural policy may have dark or sinister motives in their role. That is, they may see their role as controllers and censors of any view that is diﬀerent from that of the government’s. The degree of regulation by the state can have an enormous impact in controlling or restricting arts practice. It can also be a mechanism, however, for facilitating arts practice – for example, taxation measures, trade policies, copyright legislation. In this context, it can be a means for providing ‘charity’ status to an arts organization, enabling it to be a beneﬁciary of tax concessions and donations. The relationships around culture, diﬀerent nations and diﬀerent players are becoming increasingly complex and unclear in terms of boundaries and interests. Where this will eventually lead remains somewhat of a mystery, but the ﬁnal word here will be given over to considering ‘culture’ as a potential powerful force for good internationally.
Culture and the Future Considering the spreading of culture and cultural practices in a positive light, D. Paul Schafer argues that ‘culture’ will be the cornerstone of all societies over the next millennium, replacing the economy as the binding global framework. He argues that the world has become more complex with more problems to address in order to ensure the survival of both humanity and the planet. He believes this is why ‘a cultural age’ will ﬂourish. He notes that culture “has the potential to explain an enormous amount about all the complexity and diversity that exists in the world” (Schafer 2015: 236). He sees culture as the missing link to deal with the present complexity because it possesses capacity to move horizontally as well as vertically – in breadth as well as in depth – across the vast spectrum of activities that exist in the world, from the human to the non-human, the simple to the complex, the individual to the collective, the local to the global, the public to the private, and the mundane to the profound. (Schafer 2015: 236) It is challenging to see how a cultural framework would work in a world that is presently pragmatic and driven by short-terms goals. Nevertheless, Schafer observes that the role culture plays in terms of the arts (and the humanities more generally) allows and enables greater understanding between diﬀerent cultures, thereby providing a positive way forward. He then argues that in the future the arts and arts practice more generally will be central to improving and enriching lives. Perhaps this is an idealistic way of seeing the future, but acknowledging the importance of culture would seem to be a positive framing. Holden (2009) argues that the interrelationships between three spheres of culture (public, homemade and commercial) has placed culture in the center of the world rather than at its periphery. He believes the importance and power of culture, and by association arts practice, is much greater than previously. However, he thinks one of the challenges is that governments (and political parties therefore) have yet to recognize how culture has changed both in terms of its representation and its signiﬁcance (Holden 2009: 453).
Culture and Arts Leadership
Holden’s thesis is that the inﬂuence of culture and cultural activity is becoming central to a global future rather than being seen as purely peripheral. It is also acknowledging that a shift is taking place in terms of sources and locations of power and inﬂuence. This connects with Schafer’s proposition that ‘culture’ is now the driver of the world and not the ‘economy’ (Schafer 2015). Art, artists and culture can be seen therefore as providing leadership for this new age. While their leadership may not be overt, it is ever-present and active.
Final Comment Culture is a powerful player in the way the world is reﬂected and understood. This has an impact on how leadership is interpreted and how it is understood. In connecting culture with the arts, there are further layers around meaning and practices that inﬂuence what is valued and what is understood as art. The connecting of leadership and art is therefore likely to be diﬀerently understood and interpreted, dependent on its cultural framing.
References Ang, Ien, Isar, Yudhishthir, Raj & Mar, Phillip (2015) “Cultural diplomacy: Beyond the national interest?” International Journal of Cultural Policy 21 (4), 365–381. Australia Council (2017) Connecting Australians: The Results of the National Arts Participation Report, A series by the Australia Council for the Arts. Sydney: Australia Council. Bell, David & Oakley, Kate (2015) Cultural Policy. Abingdon: Routledge. Bourdieu, Pierre (1993) The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature, ed. and intro. by Johnson, Randal. Cambridge: Polity Press. British Council, website accessed at: www.britishcouncil.org/organisation Carroll, Alison (2015) “Ways of Thinking Culturally in Asia Today.” In: Caust, Josephine (ed.) (2015) Arts and Cultural Leadership in Asia. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 192–200. Çelik, Z. (2002) “Colonial/Postcolonial Intersections.” In: Araeen, R., Cubitt, S. & Sarder, Z. (2002) The Third Text Reader on Art, Culture and Theory. London: Continuum. de LeonJr., Felipe M. (2016) “The Imperatives of Cultural Leadership in Asia: Revitalizing Communal Creativity for a Sustainable Future.” In: Okvall, Meredith (ed.) Report of 7th World Summit on Arts & Culture Valletta Malta 2016. Valletta, Malta: IFACCA, pp. 33–50. Hall, Stuart (2002) “Whose Heritage? Un-settling the Heritage, Re-imagining the Post-Nation.” In: Araeen, R., Cubitt, S. & Sarder, Z. (eds.) The Third Text Reader on Art, Culture and Theory. London: Continuum. Hesmondhalgh, David & Saha, Anamik (2013) “Race, ethnicity, and cultural production.” Popular Communication 11, 179–195. Hofstede, G. (2011) “Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context.” Online Readings in Psychology and Culture 2 (1), accessed at: http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014 Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s Consequences: International Diﬀerences in Work-Related Values. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications. Holden, J. (2015) The Ecology of Culture. A Report commissioned by the Arts and Humanities Research Council’s Cultural Value Project, Published by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, Wiltshire, England, accessed at: www.ahrc.ac.uk/documents/project-reports-and-re views/the-ecology-of-culture/ Holden, John (2009) “How we value arts and culture.” Asia Paciﬁc Journal of Arts and Cultural Management 6 (2), 447–456. Holden, J. (2008) Democratic Culture. London: Demos. House, R. J., Javidan, M. & Dorfman, P. (2001) “The GLOBE Project.” Applied Psychology: An International Review 50 (4), 489–505.
Culture and Arts Leadership
Huﬀer, Elise (2016) “Cultural Leadership in the Paciﬁc.” In: Okvall, Meredith (ed.) Report of 7th World Summit on Arts & Culture Valletta Malta 2016. Valletta, Malta: IFACCA, pp. 50–56. Kidd, Dustin (2012) “Public culture in America: A review of cultural policy debates.” The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 42, 11–21. Leuthold, Steven M. (2011) Cross-Cultural Issues in Art: Frames for Understanding. New York: Routledge. Mandel, Birgit (2017) Arts/Cultural Management in International Contexts. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag. Meyer, Erin (2014) The Culture Map. New York: Public Aﬀairs. Nye, Jr., Joseph S. (1990) “Soft power.” Foreign Policy 80, 153–171. Pajtinka, Erik (2014) “Cultural diplomacy in theory and practice of contemporary international relations.” Political Sciences/Politické Vedy 17 (4), 95–108. Perkins, A. W. (2009) “Global Leadership Study: A theoretical framework.” Journal of Leadership Education 8 (2), 72–86. Said, Edward (1978) Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books. Schafer, D. Paul (2015) The Secrets of Culture. Oakville, Canada: Rock’s Mill Press. Singh, J. P. (ed.) (2010) International Cultural Policies and Power. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Smiers, Joorst (2003) Arts under Pressure: Promoting Cultural Diversity in an Age of Globalisation. London: Zed Books. Wangusa, Ayeta Anne (2016) “Cultural Leadership from an African Perspective.” In: Okvall, Meredith (ed.) Report of 7th World Summit on Arts & Culture Valletta Malta 2016. Valletta, Malta: IFACCA, pp. 12–19. Williams, Raymond (1981) Culture. London: Fontana Press. Wroe, Nicholas (2016) “Cloud Gate: Making dance out of martial arts and meditation.” The Guardian, April 23, 2016, accessed at: www.theguardian.com/stage/2016/apr/23/cloud-gate-taiwa n-dance-song-wanderers Wu, Ming-Yi (2010) “Gender and cultural inﬂuences on expected leadership styles.” China Media Research 6 (1), 37–46. Zein, Omar (2016) Culture and Project Management: Managing Diversity in Multicultural Projects. Abingdon: Routledge.
Women and Arts Leadership
An ongoing reality, even in the early 21st century, is the ‘gendering’ of arts leadership and of arts practice. For both men and women, gender frames the way their artwork and leadership is received and experienced. Women are the major consumers of most arts practices, yet they are generally less visible than men in arts leadership roles. Many major arts organizations still tend to be led by men and, with a few exceptions, the artistic leadership of many artforms is still dominated by men. Female artists in most artforms are still not seen as equal to male artists. Over the past 30 years, there has been more recognition and acknowledgment of women in the arts, but it is still an uphill climb. In this chapter, the issues and challenges around women in the arts and in arts leadership are explored in diﬀerent artforms.
Leadership and Gender Issues around leadership and gender have been discussed extensively in mainstream journals over the past 20 years. Leadership scholars Bernard Bass and Bruce Avolio undertook research in the early 1990s to compare how men and women were perceived as leaders in various contexts. They concluded: Women managers on average, were judged more eﬀective and satisfying to work for and more likely to generate extra eﬀort from their people … [W]omen leaders were rated as having more idealized inﬂuence or charisma, being inspirational and individually considerate than were their male counterparts. (Bass & Avolio 1997: 205) However, negative attitudes to women in leadership roles continue despite this conclusion. There is a perception that female leaders do not have the right ‘characteristics’ for successful leadership (Herrera et al. 2012). If eﬀective leadership characteristics are deﬁned as a strong, autocratic, transactional style of leadership, it is possible that this may be the case. Many studies have suggested that the leadership style of women tends to be orientated towards working in a more participative manner. For example: Studies have shown that women are more transformational – that is, they are able to create a positive change in followers with the end goal of developing followers
Women and Arts Leadership
into leaders, and they have a more collaborative and consensus-building leadership style. (Herrera et al. 2012: 37) A participative and inclusive leadership style is very popular in current leadership literature as it is seen as particularly relevant to specialized knowledge workers (Ceˇ rne et al. 2013; Mintzberg 1998). But the reality of preferred leadership styles in workplaces can be very diﬀerent. If women try to mimic a masculinist style of leadership to conform to a dominant masculine culture, they are also likely to be seen as unsuccessful as they exhibit characteristics that are not accepted as ‘female’. The challenge is that whichever style a female leader exhibits, they are still likely to be perceived as ‘ineﬀective’ or ‘wrong’ (Herrera et al. 2012). Another facet is that men and women have diﬀerent perceptions of what constitutes eﬀective leadership. Whereas men might see competitive and hierarchical behavior as important, women might believe that achieving a consensus is better (Herrera et al. 2012). Thus, the leadership context will have an impact on what is seen as eﬀective leadership. Another approach to understanding gender and leadership is to consider what the followers might perceive as successful leadership. In a study conducted with a focus on followers working in the public sector in Greece, using much of the framing of the GLOBE project,1 it was concluded that followers consider people orientation as the most important behaviour to be displayed by leaders, whereas change orientation as the least important … A leader that is eﬀective and gets the job done is regarded equally important by individuals, regardless of gender. (Bellou 2011: 2827) In this study, the outcome achieved might be seen as the critical issue rather than the means of getting there, although the need to have a leader who exhibits more peopleorientated skills is seen as critical. Many studies on leadership and gender talk about the need to consider the values of the workplace, the male/female ratio of the followers and the culture of the country concerned, as all of these factors inﬂuence how leadership is perceived (Bass & Avolio 1997; Bellou 2011; Herrera et al. 2012). Like the issues raised in the previous chapter on culture, the ‘context’ in which that leadership is being exercised is critical to how leadership is received (House et al. 2001). Rosener argues that the expectations of women and men in the workplace are different because of long-term social conditioning. She asserts that “women are not seen in terms of leadership potential: they don’t exhibit male attributes” (Rosener 1997: 214). She notes further: “It’s not only that men prefer a command and control style but that it deﬁnes leadership for them” (Rosener 1997: 216). As men have traditionally deﬁned the workplace, she argues that the culture of the workplace is still predominantly male and the expectations of leadership are deﬁned by this. For women to be accepted as leaders, Rosener asserts that there is a need to unpack everyone’s expectations about both the values of the workplace and expectations of leadership, so that women’s culture is included too. Thus, the challenge for female leaders is complex; they are dealing with entrenched attitudes from both men and women around understandings of leadership, given that the workplace has historically been deﬁned by a male culture.
Women and Arts Leadership
Another aspect of leadership and gender is the relationship between leadership, gender and diﬀerent cultures. In her study of leadership and gender in the public relations ﬁeld, Wu (2010) noted that there are diﬀerent preferences of leadership between females in diﬀerent cultures because of diﬀerent cultural expectations. If there is a conscious desire to change an existing homogenous model of leadership, then attention needs to be paid to ensure that diﬀerent values and cultures are represented in any selection process (Eagleson et al. 2000). As noted in the Chapter 2, what is understood by leadership is diﬀerent depending on the cultural framing of the participants. Hence, this diﬀerence can be further pronounced when the leader is female.
Women in the Arts Since the early 20th century, it has been reported that in Australia many more women than men have applied to go into arts training in most artforms, but their numbers as professional practitioners tend to decline over time (Appleton 1983). While statistics are not available internationally on how many women apply to go into arts training, it is likely that in many Western countries there is a similar picture. The more limited presence of women as senior professional artists and arts workers then reduces their chances to take on leadership roles. In addition, the dominance of men in arts leadership roles self-perpetuates: as they control the agenda, they are more likely to see a leadership position in a particular framing initially deﬁned by their own gender. Although there are many examples of women occupying senior arts leadership positions, the position of women vis-à-vis men in the arts is still a contested and contradictory domain. Exploring issues around gender and arts leadership is important because it relates to cultural, economic and social issues connected with both art and society. It is noted that in the Paciﬁc Islands women have historically been cultural leaders but this is rarely recorded. Elise Huﬀer notes that this “may be due to much of written history being recorded by men and missionaries, most of whom had little interest in highlighting the achievements of women, particularly during the colonial period” (Huﬀer 2016: 55). Thus, whoever writes history determines how culture is understood and deﬁned. When women reach senior leadership roles in the arts sectors, it seems likely that their salaries will be diﬀerent from those of their male colleagues. A recent Australian study found women in senior roles in the arts earned 38% less than their male colleagues who were occupying similar positions (Taylor & Ting 2016). This compares with a wage diﬀerence of 18% between men and women in similar roles in the general community in Australia (Taylor & Ting 2016). It is also observed that in the creative industries women receive considerably less reimbursement (Leung 2016). Hollywood female ﬁlm actors went public on their wage diﬀerentials in 2015, with some receiving only a tenth of what their male colleagues received for the same ﬁlm (Berg 2015). In July 2017, it was revealed that there is a sizeable gap (in many cases four times less) in the wages of women employed at the BBC, even though they may be doing the same work as men (Duncan 2017). The invisibility of women as leaders in the arts is evidenced by who are recognized as the leaders of arts practice and the leaders of major arts institutions across the globe. Who are recognized as the major artists in a country? Who is the chair of the arts board? Who is running the arts funding agency? Who is the artistic director? Who is the
Women and Arts Leadership
leader of the arts gallery, the theater company or the dance company? Who is the leader of the arts center or the art museum? If the answer is that they are mostly male, then there is a problem in a sector that has such a large female presence. Women are certainly visible as leaders of small to medium arts organizations in various artforms, but as the organizations become bigger or more important, the presence of women at the top diminishes. Leadership of art institutions, for example, is usually determined by a board of governors or management. If the chair of the board and many of its members are male, then they may be less likely to associate leadership with a woman. They might be more likely to choose a candidate who reﬂects the values that they believe in or exemplify, even if a male candidate is less qualiﬁed or less experienced than the female equivalent. Various studies have long demonstrated that selection panels choose candidates who reﬂect their own values and belief systems (Chatman 1991; Eagleson et al. 2000). Although they may not be accused of overt sexism in their employment process, a selection panel’s lack of awareness about their own values or any recognition of the ‘other’2 means that they will tend to always feel more conﬁdent about someone who is like themselves – in the West, this is usually likely to be a white male. It was recently noted that of the top 12 museums in the world in 2016 all were led by men, although the percentage of female curators within these museums hovers around 70% (Stanﬁll 2016). It is likely this will change in the next decade with so many women waiting in the wings, but at this point a ‘glass ceiling’ is clearly present. This author studied the gender breakdown across similar arts organizations in three diﬀerent cities – New York, London and Sydney – in September 2016, thereby providing a snapshot of each organization at that time. In each city, a major orchestra, a major performing arts center and a major contemporary art museum were considered. The orchestras are the New York Philharmonic (NYP), the London Symphony Orchestra (LSO) and the Sydney Symphony Orchestra (SSO). The performing arts centers considered are the Lincoln Center in New York, the Royal Opera House in London and the Sydney Opera House. The art museums are the Museum of Modern Art in New York, the Tate in London and the Museum for Contemporary Art in Sydney. By examining the proﬁle of their chairs, directors/CEOs and senior staﬀ on their websites,3 it is possible to get information about the major players in each organization. The gender breakdown of the chair, the director of each organization and members of the senior staﬀ are considered. This is presented in Table 3.1 below. Although there is a predominance of male chairs with only one female chair among the nine organizations, there are ﬁve men and three women who are CEOs/directors of the organizations and the overall gender balance is approximately equal. If the totals are then considered by city (Table 3.2), the data shows a diﬀerent story. As per the data, the only female chair out of nine is in New York. However, if the male:female ratio is considered in relation to the senior staﬀ, then in New York it is almost 2:1 favoring men, with a majority of men in senior positions. In London, it is in the reverse ratio, whereas Sydney has an even balance. A further breakdown of the three orchestras in the study shows that the gender of their resident conductors is overwhelmingly male. There are three designated conductors at the NYP (all male), seven designated conductors at the LSO (six out of seven are male) and two principal conductors at the SSO (both male). The one female conductor represented in any of the orchestras is a trainee conductor attached to the LSO. Female conductors are still the rare exception.
Women and Arts Leadership
Table 3.1 Breakdown by Gender of Senior Leadership Roles of Major International Arts Institutions in New York, London and Sydney Institution
New York Philharmonic Orchestra
Lincoln Center, New York
MOMA, New York
Senior staﬀ (This number includes the director)
Senior staﬀ gender (This breakdown includes the director)
Royal Opera House Covent Garden
Sydney Symphony Orchestra
Sydney Opera House
Museum of Contemporary Art, Sydney
5M/3F + 1 vacant
Table 3.2 Totals in Each Category by City Institution
Total New York
Total London Total Sydney
2M +1 vacant 2M/1F 1M/2F 5M/3F + 1 vacant
Senior staﬀ (This includes the director)
Senior staﬀ gender (This includes the director)
Music In the music world, women could be singers but not conductors, band leaders or even instrumentalists. In deﬁning the attributes of a conductor, for example, the American music writer Schonberg said in 1967:
Women and Arts Leadership
He is many things: musician, administrator, executive, minister, psychologist, technician, philosopher and dispenser … Above all he is a leader of men … a father … The Teacher who knows all. (Schonberg quoted in Maddocks 2013; emphasis added) In this description, there is no question about the gender or the attributes of the ideal conductor. It is not surprising, then, that women have had many challenges to become conductors or musical directors when the nature of the role is deﬁned as male. Even in 2013, a young Russian conductor, Vasily Petrenko, who was leader of the English Youth Orchestra at the time, is quoted as saying that orchestras “react better when they have a man in front of them” and that “a cute girl on a podium means that musicians think about other things” (Petrenko quoted in Higgins 2013). There is an assumption by Petrenko that most musicians are still male, and it would seem from this statement that sexist attitudes towards women in leadership roles continue in the classical music world. Case Study 3.1 Simone Young Simone Young started her career in 1983 as a repetiteur for the Australian Opera Company. She made her debut at the Sydney Opera House conducting The Mikado and The Little Mermaid at the age of 24 (Taylor 2015). When she was appointed a conductor with the company in 1986, she was the youngest person to be given that role and the ﬁrst woman. Over the next few years, she worked with various companies in Europe, including the Cologne Opera, the Bayreuth Festival, the Berlin State Opera, the Bergen Philharmonic Orchestra and the Hamburg State Opera. In 2000, Young was appointed as the ﬁrst female musical director of the Australian Opera Company on a three-year contract. However, it was announced two years into her term that Young was not going to be reappointed because the board of the company said her vision was too expensive to fulﬁl (Gill & Shmith 2002). Young went on to become the intendant of the Hamburg Opera and music director of that city’s Philharmonic Orchestra for ten years. The impression left in Australia, though, was that she had failed in the job at the Australian Opera. She was seen as being too ‘demanding’, language that is unlikely to be used about a male director (Gill & Shmith 2002). It suggests that a woman in a leadership role of a large company, such as the Australian Opera Company, should still do what she is told and not take the ‘lead’ as such. However, Young noted: A lot of what we view as resistance to women on the podium is actually nothing to do with musicians. It’s a perception of the people viewing it from outside, be they management, board or audience, envisaging what the problems might be … (Young quoted in Walker 2002) Here, Young is implying that the resistance to women as leaders comes from the management and the board and even the audience, more than from the other musicians. Over her ten years at the helm in Hamburg, Young conducted 500 performances in the opera house, created about 50 new productions and oversaw more than 30 different operas each year. She worked with an orchestra of 128 musicians, a 70-voice chorus and an ensemble of 20 full-time singers as well as many guest performers (Taylor
Women and Arts Leadership 2015). Young was the ﬁrst woman to conduct Wagner’s Ring Cycle and has recorded the Cycle as well as the complete works of both Bruckner and Brahms. Young was the ﬁrst woman to conduct the Vienna State Opera in 1993 and the second woman to conduct the Vienna Philharmonic in 2005. (The ﬁrst woman to conduct the Vienna Philharmonic was Carmen Studer-Weingartner in 1935.) The Vienna Philharmonic has had a notorious reputation for not allowing women musicians into their ranks (Service 2013) and has not invited any female conductor to conduct the orchestra since Young’s debut with them in 2005. As one of the few women in the world who has been allowed to conduct any of the major orchestras, Young observes: Unfortunately yes, I’m still one of the odd ones out. There are a couple of us now but we’re really few and far between. (Young quoted in Taylor 2015)
Women as both professional musicians and as conductors have had a challenging journey in the classical music world. The Vienna Philharmonic only admitted its ﬁrst female member to the orchestra, a harpist, in 1997 (Herman 1998). This meant there were 148 male members of the orchestra and one female member (Herman 1998). By 2013 (more than 15 years later), the number of female musicians in the Vienna Philharmonic had increased to six (Service 2013). The ﬁrst woman to conduct the Berlin Philharmonic was Antonia Brico in 1930 and she went on to be the ﬁrst woman to conduct a major opera production in New York (Kozinn 1989). Despite her recognized skills, however, she was unable to get a full-time position as a conductor with an orchestra and so founded her own orchestra in the US in 1935 (Kozinn 1989). When a woman, Marin Alsop, was appointed conductor and music director of a major American orchestra, the Baltimore Symphony in 2005, there were protests by some of the male musicians and a male member of the board. They were quoted as saying that she did not have enough ‘musical depth’ to be in the job (Wakin 2005). However, Alsop had already been the principal conductor of the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra in the United Kingdom, as well as the guest conductor in many other orchestras; still her suitability for the position was challenged. Alsop has now been at the helm of the Baltimore Symphony for more than ten years and in 2013 became the ﬁrst woman to conduct the Last Night of the Proms in London (Maddocks 2013). Alsop is also the Chief Conductor of the São Paulo Symphony Orchestra, Conductor Emeritus of the Bournemouth Symphony, Conductor Laureate of the Colorado Symphony and Music Director of the Cabrillo Festival. Commenting on the position of women in orchestras, Alsop says: The orchestral landscape changed almost overnight when auditions started being held behind screens. (Alsop quoted in Maddocks 2013) In other words, once the recognized gender of the musician was removed by the placement of screens in front of them, the selection of musicians for positions in orchestras was directly related to their skill and not their gender. It is noted elsewhere that the success rate for female musicians more than doubles with the use of ‘blind’ auditions (Herman 1998). It is recorded that ‘blind’ auditions in the United States of America are said to have led to 50% of symphony orchestra members now being female (Kraus 2016). It is also observed that given
Women and Arts Leadership
the increasing number of women in orchestras as an outcome of ‘blind’ auditions, there is less resistance to the presence of female conductors (Kraus 2016). But conductors cannot be tested behind a screen, so their gender is always going to be on display. A study about women as musicians has also noted that another challenge for women musicians is that the contemporary music world is framed as a business and as musicians they are expected to market and promote themselves as businesses (Scharﬀ 2015). But this expectation conﬂicts with both notions of the role of the artist and the socialization of women (Scharﬀ 2015). Women are trained to be modest and humble, so promoting the ‘self’ can be challenging. Further, they are already identiﬁed as diﬀerent to their male counterparts, so it is argued that having to sell themselves as musicians can seem to be another form of self-degradation (Scharﬀ 2015).
Visual Arts Gender is both in the eye of the beholder and the art maker. Leuthold notes, for example: Gender aﬀects how one understands and tells the story of art; thus it impacts art history and criticism as well as the production of art. (Leuthold 2011: 205) When control and power are skewed towards one gender perspective, that of the male, then everything that is made and then critiqued will reﬂect that imbalance of power. The invisibility of women visual artists has been a long-term reality (Greer 1979; Heller 1987; Nochlin 1974). Nochlin asked in 1974, referring to visual artists, “Why have there been no great women artists?” The answers she found related to many issues: the invisibility of women as practicing artists, their exclusion from training that gave them the skills, their exclusion from academies that nurtured artists, their inability to attract a patron to support their work except in a few rare cases, and the social and economic expectations placed on women up to the middle of the 20th century and, in many cases, beyond. For example, she noted that women who were learning to draw were not allowed to draw the naked human form until the early 20th century. Instead, they had to make do with drawing animals. If women did practice art at a high level, their work was not displayed in the public arena. Women who actually were ‘great’ artists were invisible to the public. Leadership as an artist is directly connected to the status of an artist – if they have low public visibility, then they are regarded also of low status or importance. It is also noted that when women achieved some status as artists, their work was then framed as being derivative of the work of another more important male artist (Deepwell 1995). Only recently have galleries and museums started to acknowledge that there is an issue around gender. Initially, the invisibility of work by female artists was framed by curators and museum directors with the argument that female artists were not as good as male artists. It was argued that women artists did not belong in the canon of great artists, either in the past or in the present. Therefore, they did not justify a place on the walls of important galleries. Since the 1970s (in particular), many scholars, artists, curators and arts activists have been showing that these beliefs are incorrect. For example, Germaine Greer’s The Obstacle Race (1979) traced the role of women in Western visual arts detailing their achievements and body of work. The Guerrilla Girls in New York (initially a group of seven anonymous female artists), wearing gorilla masks to keep their anonymity, have staged several interventions to draw
Women and Arts Leadership
public attention to the position of women artists.4 When the Guerrilla Girls began their activist program in 1985, they asked: “Is the only way women can be visible in major galleries and museums, is if they are naked?” This action was in response to a major retrospective of contemporary art at the Museum of Modern Art in New York in 1985 that featured a total of 169 artists, only 13 (or 8%) of whom were women. In October 2016, the Guerrilla Girls opened an exhibition at the Whitechapel Gallery in London. The exhibition was titled Guerrilla Girls: Is it even worse in Europe? As part of the preparation for this exhibition, they conducted a survey of museums in Europe to see which showed the work of women artists. Of the 400 museums who were contacted from 29 diﬀerent countries, only 101 responded. It is then noted: [O]f the 101 participating museums, just two have 40 percent or more women artists in their collections. And in 21 museums, women artists account for less than 20 percent of the collections; seven of those are in Spain. (Fullerton 2016) The best-performing country was Poland which also had the highest number of women museum directors. It seems therefore that there might be a correlation between women in arts leadership roles and the number of women artists represented in their collections (Jansen 2016). Other leadership and inﬂuential roles for women in the visual arts are those of curator, gallery director, art lecturer or art critic. In a list of the most inﬂuential curators internationally of 2016, 12 are female and 11 are male (ARTSY 2016). One commentator, while acknowledging the power of the curator in the art world, notes that women curators often must deal with more diﬃcult behavior from male artists because of their gender (MacGregor 1995). She asserts that male artists revert to sexist stereotypes when dealing with female curators, treating them as conﬁdants and nurturers, and expecting comfort and reassurance from them; this does not occur when the roles are reversed (MacGregor 1995). There are many nuances to the gender challenges, and while the presence of women in leadership roles in the visual arts is beginning to be well established, there are still many issues needing to be addressed. Case Study 3.2 Maria Balshaw and the Tate In January 2017, the appointment of the ﬁrst woman to lead the Tate Gallery in England was announced. This was Maria Balshaw who had previously been the Director of the Whitworth Gallery in Manchester. The appointment of a woman to this prestigious position was seen as a breakthrough for women aspiring for arts leadership roles. It was seen also as recognition of the successful changes Balshaw had undertaken in Manchester. She had been lauded there for undertaking a major building redevelopment of the Whitworth and for leading a well-regarded exhibition program. In addition, the Whitworth had increased its visitor numbers signiﬁcantly. This resulted in the Whitworth being named Museum of the Year in Great Britain in 2015. Balshaw essentially had two jobs in Manchester as she also ran the City Art Gallery. She also played a leadership role in cultural matters for Manchester City Council.
Women and Arts Leadership
An unusual characteristic of Balshaw in relation to the visual arts world was that she did not come from a curatorial background. She would be regarded as more of a general arts administrator, having previously worked in academia and in arts funding. However, she had been at the Whitworth for ten years before her appointment to the Tate. The author Jeanette Winterson said about Balshaw: She is high art but she’s democratic. There’s no dumbing down, there’s no apologies but she is also saying this is for everybody. That’s why I love her … it’s that all-inclusive, forward thinking but no compromises … When she comes to the Tate she will bring in a different approach. She’ll bring in more women of course, which is what’s needed, it will be new. (Winterson quoted in Brown & Pidd 2017) The Tate is not one gallery but several: Tate Modern, Tate Britain, Tate Liverpool and Tate St Ives. Thus, it plays an important role in the cultural life of England. Balshaw said: I am tremendously excited to be leading Tate in the next chapter of its life. I look forward to developing Tate’s reputation as the most artistically adventurous and culturally inclusive gallery in the world. (Balshaw quoted in Brown 2017) This comment by Balshaw indicates that she is likely to make changes to both acquisition and exhibition programs at the Tate, which, like other major arts galleries around the world, is dominated by the work of Anglo male artists.
Dance The position of women as arts leaders in dance mirrors many of the other artforms. While the percentage of the overall female population who study dance as young girls is very high (in the UK it is recorded as 43% of girls aged 5–105), the number of female dance artistic directors and choreographers is very low. Women have played a signiﬁcant role in establishing ballet companies in several countries: women such as Ninette de Valois in the United Kingdom, Agnes de Mille in the United States and Peggy Van Praagh in Australia. Nevertheless, it is observed: When it comes to choreography, at least at most major companies, ballet remains overwhelmingly a man’s world. (Cooper 2016) This fact seems odd given the number of women who enter the profession of dance. For example, the Royal Ballet in the UK did not commission a work from a female choreographer for their main stage between 1999 and 2016 (Moss 2016). It is also noted that the New York Ballet has not premiered a new work by female choreographer since 2011 (Cooper 2016). The English National Ballet Company appointed a female Artistic Director, Tamara Rojo, in 2012. But overall the number of women artistic directors of ballet companies is very low, especially given that most dancers in ballet are female (Meglin & Brooks 2012).
Women and Arts Leadership
In contemporary dance, there are more examples of women choreographers, but even there the number of women leaders versus the number of women who go into dance is completely out of balance. Historically, women have played a major inﬂuential role in contemporary dance – artists such as Martha Graham, Trisha Brown, Twyla Tharp and Pina Bausch. Despite this heritage, the number of female artistic directors and choreographers in contemporary dance is still very low. Women have taken on leadership roles despite the gender barriers, but sometimes this occurs by chance. For example, when Alvin Ailey died prematurely in 1989, the company’s lead dancer and choreographer Judith Jamison was given the responsibility of running the company. She remained the Artistic Director of Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater from 1989 to 2011. There was no time to be afraid of running the company … people from the whole world working together … [W]e are still thriving, that is my legacy, we are still here. There is no money in it … But we were dancing because we wanted to reﬂect our culture. (Jamison 2012) It is argued that there are many reasons why there are so few women artistic directors and choreographers in both ballet and dance (Cooper 2016; Kourlas 2016; Meglin & Brooks 2012; Moss 2016; Wright 2013). These arguments are summarized as follows. Male dancers receive a great deal more personal attention because there are fewer of them and they therefore attract more scholarships and funding, even when they have less experience. Female dancers are traditionally treated as children even when they are mature adults. They are told what to do constantly so they ﬁnd it diﬃcult to think independently. Female dancers in ballet companies are expected to conform and be like everyone else, so that they don’t stand out. Female dancers in ballet companies have a greater work load so the time available to them to think about choreography is more limited. Female choreographers are subject to harsher criticism because they are in such a minority and therefore stand out. For the situation to change in dance, clearly artistic directors, dancers and funders will need to address the various inequities and cultural issues that exist, so that women are encouraged to consider leadership roles.
Theater In the theater milieu, there is an ongoing gender imbalance both in its artistic leadership and in arts practice. In classical Western theater, there are many fewer parts for women and the major creative roles of director and writer are usually taken by males. Although women are generally well represented on the administrative side, the artistic side is still dominated by men. This is in the context that most theater audiences are female and those graduating from drama schools and university theater programs are predominantly female. When the author was an intern with the Royal Shakespeare Company in London in the early 1980s, she was told by a colleague that women playwrights and women directors were not employed by the company because they did not exist. This was said despite the presence of some outstanding women playwrights such as Caryl Churchill, Timberlake Wertenbaker and Pam Gems. Sadly, more than 30 years later there is still a major disparity in the employment of women in the British theater.
Women and Arts Leadership 6
In 2012, a survey of women in British theater, conducted by The Guardian in conjunction with theater director Elizabeth Freestone, noted that men were employed at the rate of 2:1 for every woman (Higgins 2012). The survey looked at the employment of men and women in the theater sector in various roles from 1997 to 2010. With a focus on ten of the major UK theater companies (including the National, the Royal Shakespeare Company and the Royal Court), women represented 38% of the number employed as actors and 24% as directors. Women playwrights receive a lower number of commissions, and if they got a production of their work, they were predominantly shown in the smaller spaces (Higgins 2012). They note that one theater in the British study, Chichester, employed no women directors or writers over the period of the study (Higgins 2012). The National Theatre of Great Britain, which receives the largest amount of government subsidy overall, employed 34% female actors during the period of the study. Only two women playwrights have received mainstage productions in the 50-year history of the National Theatre (Higgins 2012). Over the period of the study (1997–2010), it was noted that women represented more than 60% of the audience at any one time. It is argued in this study that the problem begins at the top, with only 33% of board members surveyed being female (Higgins 2012). It is also argued that directors need to redeﬁne the gender of roles, given the predominance of parts for men, particularly in classical plays (Higgins 2012). A survey of women involved in theater companies in Ireland7 again shows a signiﬁcant disparity in the employment of women directors, actors, designers and playwrights over a ten-year period from 2006 to 2016 (Donohue et al. 2016). This survey was prompted by a campaign begun late in 2015 called “Waking the Feminists” to draw attention to the situation of women in Irish theater. It was noted that the major companies generally performed worst, with the four highest-funded companies recording the lowest employment of women (Donohue et al. 2016). The worst examples were the Gate Theatre where women represented only 8% of both directors and playwrights employed and the Abbey Theatre where women represented 17% of the playwrights and 20% of directors employed (Donohue et al. 2016). Generally, in all the categories of director, playwright, designer and cast, less than 40% of those employed were women (Donohue et al. 2016). In Australia since the 1980s, various surveys have been undertaken to measure the participation of women in various artforms (Appleton 1983; Australia Council 1984; Lally & Millar 2012). In the case of theater, it is noted in the most recent survey (2012) that many of the issues facing women in the theater in the early 1980s are still present. For example, over the ten-year period 2001–2011 the percentage of women theater directors employed by the major theater companies averaged 25% and the proportion of plays by women was 21% (Lally & Millar 2012: 17). However, the smaller theater companies showed better results, with 37% of plays written by women and 37% of productions directed by women (Lally & Millar 2012: 20). In addition, women tend to be over-represented in administrative roles in theater companies and under-represented in creative roles (Lally & Millar 2012: 21). In the US, there is evidence that it is less likely for women to have their plays produced than men. Emily Glassberg Sands, a Princeton economics student, undertook a study to see if women are discriminated against in the theater. Her results demonstrated that they were and it is noted that “plays that feature women – which are more commonly written by women – are also less likely to be produced” (Sands quoted by Cohen 2009). Further, Sands notes in her thesis that in the season 2008–2009 only 12.6% of plays produced on Broadway were written by female writers. She notes that 100 years previously in 1908–1909 the percentage of work staged on Broadway and written by women
Women and Arts Leadership
was 12.8%. It would seem that nothing much has changed for women writers after over 100 years of Broadway theater productions (Sands 2009: 1). Similarly, in Canada there is data that women represent only 25% of produced playwrights and the triumvirate of artistic leadership represented by the artistic director/director/writer in the theatre has weighed heavily in the same proportion for more than 30 years – that is, 70% of men to 30% of women (MacArthur 2015: 6). Women working in theater in Western countries have a considerable way to go before achieving any sort of parity with men in arts/creative leadership roles. This disparity in employment is further emphasized for women who are non-Anglo, non-white and/or come from other ethnic groups.
Women and Literature Women have found more of a home in literature, particularly from the 19th century onwards if they were from the educated middle and upper classes. This might be because the artform itself enabled women to do it in the privacy of their home. It did not require extensive technical equipment and could be undertaken in whatever spare time was available to them. Nevertheless, many women writers published (and still publish) under a male pseudonym (e.g. the English writers George Eliot and the Brontë Sisters, the French writer George Sand, the Danish writer Karen Blixen and the American writer Louisa May Alcott) to get published and accepted as equals. If their gender was known, they were often seen as producing ‘women’s books’ rather than being acknowledged for producing literature. Prejudice against women writers still exists. In 2011, the Nobel prizewinning author V. S. Naipaul asserted that there were no women writers equal to himself (including Jane Austen) and that the work of women writers demonstrated ‘a sentimental and narrow view of the world’ (Naipaul quoted in Fallon 2011). In 2011, the North American Organization VIDA (Women in Literary Arts)8 produced a survey by gender of the number of books and publications reviewed by leading journals and newspapers as well as a survey of the gender of reviewers. The results were salutary. For example, in 2010 the London Review of Books reviewed a total of 263 books, only 26% (or 68) of which written by women. Of the reviewers employed by the London Review of Books in 2010, 22% were female. VIDA has continued to produce annual statistics to discover whether there is any change or improvement. The count for the London Review of Books published in 2015 shows that, in 2014, of the 250 writers reviewed, 58 were female or 23%, so the numbers have not improved and in fact have slightly declined (VIDA 2015). The results for The New York Review of Books is a little more encouraging. Of the authors reviewed in 2010, 16% were women (306 men compared with 59 women), and of the reviewers, 16% were women (200 men, 39 women) (VIDA 2011). But by 2014 there was some improvement: 32% of the books reviewed were by women writers (164 women and 354 men) and 19% of the reviewers were women (227 men and 54 women), but the gender disparity remains overall. These ﬁgures become even more extreme when the representation of non-white women writers is considered (VIDA 2015). On the other hand, it is observed that [w]omen write about half the books published. … Women make up 80 per cent of ﬁction readers. And according to British research they buy almost twice as many books of all kinds as men do. (Sullivan 2012)
Women and Arts Leadership
Although women represent the majority of readers, the books that get reviewed are mostly written by men, compounded by the number of reviewers who are male compared with female. In addition, as in other areas of the arts, senior roles in publishing tend to be occupied by men, although women are as prevalent in publishing as they are in other artforms. For women to be seen as leaders in literature, they need both acknowledgment and recognition. At present, there are several barriers to this occurring and there is still not a level playing ﬁeld. Case Study 3.3 Toni Morrison Toni Morrison was the ﬁrst black woman (and one of 14 women out of a total of 109 winners) to win the Noble Prize for Literature in 1993. Apart from her work as a writer, she has also been an outstanding role model for women. After completing her university education, she taught in universities and then took a job in publishing. As an editor, she championed the work of several black writers, ensuring their voice was heard on a broader plane, not just in their own country or region – people such as Gayl Jones, Toni Cade Bambara and Angela Davis, as well as Wole Sokinya and Athol Fugard (Als 2003). As a single parent, she also had responsibility for the upbringing of her two children, and talks about needing to get up at 2am to write, before dealing with the demands of the day. From her late 30s, Morrison’s own work was increasingly recognized and acknowledged internationally. The focus of much of her work is the journey of black women who must deal with both racism and patriarchy to survive. Her most famous book, Beloved, which was part of a trio, was published in 1987. She won the Pulitzer Prize for Beloved in 1988 although it was not recognized by either the National Book Awards or the National Critics Circles Awards in 1987. She had previously won the National Critics Circles Award for Song of Solomon in 1977. In 2006, Beloved was selected by a group of prominent writers, editors and critics for The New York Times as the best book of ﬁction published in the US over the previous 25 years. Over her lifetime, Morrison has published 11 novels as well as four children’s books, two plays and seven non-ﬁction books. In her Nobel speech, Morrison observes: The systematic looting of language can be recognized by the tendency of its users to forgo its nuanced, complex, mid-wifery properties for menace and subjugation. Oppressive language does more than represent violence; it is violence; does more than represent the limits of knowledge; it limits knowledge. (Morrison 1993) “Toni Morrison –Nobel Lecture”:www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/ 1993/morrison-lecture.html
Women and Film The position of women in ﬁlm in leadership and creative roles is also the subject of comment and review. For the past 18 years, in her publication The Celluloid Ceiling,
Women and Arts Leadership
Martha Lauzen has tracked the employment of women in the American ﬁlm industry. She observes: In 2015, women comprised 19% of all directors, writers, producers, executive producers, editors, and cinematographers working on the top 250 domestic grossing ﬁlms … Women accounted for 9% of directors, up 2 percentage points from 2014, and even with their representation in 1998. (Lauzen 2016: 1) Over the period of her tracking, the position of women working as directors stayed the same, the percentage of women working as script writers declined, and the percentages of women as executive producers, producers, editors and cinematographers increased (Lauzen 2016: 2). It seems that although women have increased their presence in the organizing and technical areas of ﬁlmmaking, overall women have a way to go in being given creative leadership roles in the American ﬁlm industry. Turner (2015) talks about the challenges women leaders have and the way they are treated when they break social mores. In this case, he traces the work of American ﬁlm and stage director Julie Taymor who, having gained critical success with several projects, received very negative critical responses to her production of The Tempest (where the character of Prospero was played by a woman). She was then sacked as the director of a Spider-Man sequel for challenging the accepted conventions of the male action hero genre. Turner argues that Taymor’s negative treatment was because she “exposed and challenged masculinist assumptions, creating aesthetic products at odds with the hegemonic masculinity dominating the cultural and entertainment marketplace” (Turner 2015: 690). Turner argues further that the American ﬁlm industry is unable to accept diﬀerent portrayals of heroes, as oﬀered by Taymor, because the ﬁlm industry’s views are still locked in a particular cultural and social milieu. Hence, a female ﬁlm director cannot aﬀord to take a diﬀerent approach to the expectations of the mainstream culture without being cruciﬁed for it, especially if she doesn’t obviously succeed at a commercial level. Turner is arguing that the room for failure is much more limited for women in a leadership role and that this will not change until many more women are allowed to be leaders (Turner 2015). Wreyford (2015) discusses networks and their inﬂuence on employment in the ﬁlm sector by observing: While white, middle- to upper-class men still dominate decision-making positions in the ﬁlm industry, this in turn upholds the status quo and these powerful men are able to draw on the established discourses discussed here to present exclusionary practices as logical, understandable and indeed, good business practice. (Wreyford 2015: 93) This conﬁrmation of an élite that reinforces itself is related to the development of ‘trust’ through working and knowing each other over a long period of time, which is then reinforced by more contact and experience together. Anyone outside of that group is the subject of ‘distrust’ and so not welcomed or included in the group. In October 2017 revelations emerged of systemic sexual harassment against women in the US ﬁlm sector (Kantor and Twohey 2017). Over several weeks more stories emerged about the way young women in particular (and sometimes young men) are subject to
Women and Arts Leadership
predatory and exploitative behavior by powerful and inﬂuential ﬁgures in the ﬁlm sector (Dean 2017; Rreslin 2017). While action is being taken against some of the named perpetrators of this behavior, it is noted that systemic change will only occur when there is less power imbalance and greater gender equity across the sector (Duthie 2017). In Australia, Screen Australia (the national ﬁlm-funding body) undertook a study in 2015 to record the breakdown by gender in terms of employment in ﬁlms produced from 1970 to 2014. It noted that a gender imbalance “is most notable in traditional ﬁlm, with women accounting for 32% of producers, 23% of writers and only 16% of directors” (Screen Australia 2017). To address the gender disparity, particularly in relation to the roles of directors and writers in feature ﬁlms, Screen Australia has initiated various funding programs, as well gender ratios, that must accompany any project that receives funding (Screen Australia 2017). It is argued that this positive discrimination approach has been initiated because, despite various interventions since the 1970s to increase women’s role in ﬁlmmaking, similar ratios in terms of their employment in ﬁlm continue to exist (Screen Australia 2017). This policy has received criticism from male ﬁlmmakers who argue that they are losing work to women in order for the ﬁlm to get funding (O’Neill 2017). However, similar policies have been adopted by other ﬁlm-funding agencies throughout the world. It is noted that in the case of Sweden, the outcome has been that within four years of the policy being introduced, gender parity has been achieved in ﬁlmmaking (O’Neill 2017). In the broader model of the creative or cultural industries, Leung (2016) talks about the sidelining of women and ‘others’. The ‘others’ in this context, besides women, are ethnic minorities and the working classes. In relation to ﬁlm, and citing statistics from the US, Australia and the UK, she argues that as ﬁlm directors, scriptwriters and producers women represent, at the most, only a quarter of the participants compared with men (Leung 2016). It is noted that role segregation based on gender is widespread in many of the cultural industries (Hesmondhalgh & Baker 2015). This results in the ‘creative’ jobs being occupied by men and the ‘production’ or ‘administrative’ jobs being taken by women. Further, the ‘creative’ roles are the powerful roles, while the production roles are seen as being there to support the creative ones (Hesmondhalgh & Baker 2015: 27). Elsewhere, it is recorded that in the media industries the situation is worse than might be expected. For example, using statistics gathered annually by the Fawcett Society9 (a charity that supports women’s rights in the UK), it is noted that in the United Kingdom there is not a single female Chair or Chief Executive of a Television company; men outnumber women by more than 10 to 1 in decision-making roles in media companies; and women constitute only 5 per cent of editors of national newspapers. (Conor et al. 2015: 7)
Final Comment The information in the sections above is far from comprehensive but is intended to give a snapshot of the challenges for women in diﬀerent artforms. The position of women as leaders in the arts is a continuing contested environment. Nevertheless, there are many examples of women who are conductors, theater directors, musical directors, ﬁlm directors, choreographers, curators and gallery directors. But the journey getting there can be
Women and Arts Leadership
challenging, particularly if the aspiration is to work in creative/artistic leadership roles or be a leader of a major arts institution/organization. In some cases, though, it is still not accepted that women artists are of an equivalent quality to their male colleagues, so the absence of women as leaders in the various sectors of the art world is not surprising. Over the 20th century and into the 21st century, there have been many battles fought to gain acceptance, acknowledgment and respect for women in the arts. As evidenced above, though, this remains an ongoing challenge.
Notes 1 GLOBE is an acronym for Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Eﬀectiveness, an international research project initiated by Robert House in 1991. There is more discussion about it in Chapter 2. Further information about it is also found at: www.grovewell.com/wp-content/ uploads/pub-GLOBE-intro.pdf 2 The notion of the ‘other’ or ‘otherness’ was ﬁrst coined by Edward Said (1994). 3 Websites are: www.lincolncenter.org; www.roh.org.uk; www.sydneyoperahouse.com; www. tate.org.uk;www.moma.org;www.mca.com.au;http://lso.co.uk;https://nyphil.org; www.sydney symphony.com. 4 See www.guerrillagirls.com/#open 5 See Moss (2016). 6 Freestone et al. 2012 7 www.wakingthefeminists.org/about-wtf/how-it-started 8 www.vidaweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Authors-Reviewed4.jpg 9 www.fawcettsociety.org.uk
References Als, Hilton (2003) “Ghosts in the House.” New Yorker Magazine, October 27, 2003, accessed at: www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/10/27/ghosts-in-the-house Appleton, Gill (ed.) (1983) Women in the Arts: A Study by the Research Advisory Group of the Women and Arts Project December 1982. Sydney: Australia Council. ARTSY (2016) “The Most Inﬂuential Curators of 2016.” Artsy Editorial, accessed at: www.artsy. net/article/artsy-editorial-the-most-inﬂuential-curators-of-2016 Australia Council (1984) Women in the Arts : A Strategy for Action. Sydney: Australia Council. Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. M. (1997) “Shatter the Glass Ceiling: Women make Better Managers.” In: Grint, K. (ed.) (1997) Leadership: Classical, Contemporary and Critical Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bellou, Victoria (2011) “Do women followers prefer a diﬀerent leadership style than men?” International Journal of Human Resource Management 22 (13), 2818–2833. Berg, Madeline (2015) “Everything You Need to Know about the Hollywood Pay Gap.” Forbes Media and Entertainment, November 12, 2015, accessed at: www.forbes.com/sites/maddieberg/ 2015/11/12/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-hollywood-pay-gap/#1eaa0cc15cf1 Brown, Mark (2017) “Maria Balshaw’s Tate appointment conﬁrmed by prime minister.” The Guardian, January 18, 2017, accessed at: www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/jan/17/maria -balshaw-tate-appointment-conﬁrmed-by-prime-minister Brown, Mark & Pidd, Helen (2017) “Tate to name Maria Balshaw as new director to succeed Serota.” The Guardian, January 11, 2017, accessed at: www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2017/ jan/11/tate-to-name-maria-balshaw-as-new-director-replacing-nicholas-serota Ceˇ rne, Matej, Jaklicˇ, Marko & Škerlavaj, Miha (2013) “Authentic leadership, creativity, and innovation: A multilevel perspective.” Leadership 9 (1), 63–85. Chatman, Jennifer A. (1991) “Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public accounting ﬁrms.” Administrative Science Quarterly 36, 459–484.
Women and Arts Leadership
Cohen, Patricia (2009) “Rethinking Gender Bias in Theater.” The New York Times, June 23, 2009, accessed at: www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/theater/24play.html?_r=0 Conor, Bridget, Gill, Rosalind& Taylor, Stephanie (2015) “Gender and creative labour.” The Sociological Review 63 (1), 1–22. Cooper, Michael (2016) “Breaking the Glass Slipper: Where Are the Female Choreographers?” The New York Times, June 23, 2016, accessed at: www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/arts/dance/brea king-the-glass-slipper-where-are-the-female-choreographers.html?_r=0 Dean, Deborah (2017) “Harvey Weinstein: show business voices signal the sad ubiquity of sexual abuse in industry” The Conversation October 14, 2017accessed at: http://theconversation.com/ harvey-weinstein-showbusiness-voices-signal-the-sad-ubiquity-of-sexual-abuse-in-industry-85693 Deepwell, Katy (ed.) (1995) “Introduction.” In: New Feminist Art Criticism, Critical Strategies. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1–13. Donohue, Brenda, Dean, Tanya, O’Dowd, Ciara, Cawley, Kathleen & Harris, Kate (2016) Gender Counts: An Analysis of Gender in Irish Theatre 2006–15. Commissioned by Waking the Feminists, accessed at: www.wakingthefeminists.org/research Duncan, Amy (2017) “BBC salaries report reveals women are paid four times less with Claudia Winkleman the highest-earning female star.” Metro News, July 19, 2017, accessed at: http:// metro.co.uk/2017/07/19/bbc-salaries-report-reveals-women-are-paid-four-times-less-with-claudiawinkleman-the-highest-earning-female-star-6790566 Duthie, Lindsay (2017) “More female movie executives would stem the sexist rot in Hollywood” The Conversation October 13, 2017 accessed at: https://theconversation.com/more-female-movieexecutives-would-stem-the-sexist-rot-in-hollywood-85630 Eagleson, Geoﬀ, Waldersee, Robert & Simmons, Ro (2000) “Leadership behaviour similarity as a basis of selection into a management team.” British Journal of Social Psychology 39, 301–308. Fallon, Amy (2011) “VS Naipaul ﬁnds no woman writer his literary match – not even Jane Austen.” The Guardian, June 2, 2011, accessed at: www.theguardian.com/books/2011/jun/02/vs-naipaul-janeausten-women-writers Freestone, Elizabeth, Glover, Chloe, Sedghi, Ami & Fenn, Chris (2012) “Women in theatre: the key statistics”, Guardian Graphics for The Guardian online, December 11, 2012, accessed at: www. theguardian.com/stage/interactive/2012/dec/11/women-theatre-key-statistics Fullerton, E. (2016) “‘It’s a Corrupt System and It’s Becoming More Corrupt’: The Guerrilla Girls Arrive at the Whitechapel Gallery in London; New show examines bias and discrimination in European museums.” ArtNews, September 30, 2016, accessed at: www.artnews.com/2016/09/30/ its-a-corrupt-system-and-its-becoming-more-corrupt-the-guerrilla-girls-look-at-discrimination-ineuropean-museums Gill, Raymond & Smith, Michael (2002) “Opera Australia sacks its music director.” The Age, September 14, 2002, 1. Greer, Germaine (1979) The Obstacle Race. New York: Farrar Straus Giroux. Heller, Nancy (ed.) (1987) Women Artists: An Illustrated History. New York: Abbeville Press. Herman, Jan (1998) “Vienna Philharmonic still under ﬁre.” Los Angeles Times, February 27, 1998, accessed at: http://articles.latimes.com/1998/feb/27/entertainment/ca-23437 Herrera, Richard, Duncan, Phyllis A., Green, Mark T. & Skaggs, Sheryl L. (2012) “The eﬀect of gender on leadership and culture.” Global Business and Organizational Excellence 31 (2), 37–48. Hesmondhalgh, David & Baker, Sarah (2015) “Sex, gender and work segregation in the cultural industries.” The Sociological Review 63 (1), 23–36. Higgins, Charlotte (2013) “Male conductors are better for orchestras, says Vasily Petrenko.” The Guardian , September 2, 2013, accessed at: www.theguardian.com/music/2013/sep/02/male-con ductors-better-orchestras-vasily-petrenko Higgins, Charlotte (2012) “Women in theatre: Why do so few make it to the top?” The Guardian, December 11, 2012 accessed at: www.theguardian.com/stage/2012/dec/10/women-in-theatre-glassceiling.
Women and Arts Leadership
House, R. J., JavidanM. & Dorfman, P. (2001) “The GLOBE Project.” Applied Psychology: An International Review 50 (4), 489–505. Huﬀer, Elise (2016) “Cultural Leadership in the Paciﬁc.” In: Okvall, Meredith (ed.) Report of 7th World Summit on Arts & Culture Valletta Malta 2016. Valletta, Malta: IFACCA, pp. 50–56. Jamison, Judith (2012) Makers: Video collections of women’s stories, accessed at: www.makers. com/judith-jamison Jansen, Charlotte (2016) “The Guerrilla Girls Have Data Proving the Art World Needs More Women Leaders.” Artsy, September 30, 2016, accessed at: www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editoria l-the-guerrilla-girls-have-proof-that-the-art-world-needs-more-women-leaders Kantor, Jodi and Twohey, Megan (2017) “Harvey Weinstein Paid Oﬀ Sexual Harassment Accusers for Decades” New York Times October 5th 2017, accessed at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/ harvey-weinstein-harassment-allegations.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource= story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news Kourlas, Gia (2016) “Dance Luminaries Weigh in on the Conspicuous Absence of Female Choreographers.” New York Times, June 23, 2013, accessed at: www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/arts/da nce/ballet-luminaries-weigh-in-on-a-conspicuous-absence.html. Kozinn, Allan (1989) “Antonia Brico, 87, a Conductor; Fought Barriers to Women in 30’s.” New York Times, August 5, 1989, accessed at: www.nytimes.com/1989/08/05/obituaries/antoniabrico-87-a-conductor-fought-barriers-to-women-in-30-s.html Kraus, Melvyn (2016) “More women are winning at musical chairs.” Pulse, August 3, 2016, accessed at: www.dailyprogress.com/entertainment/more-women-are-winning-at-musical-chairs/article_02cd 4bc6-5504-11e6-a55c-cb76f94ef555.html. Lally, E. & Millar, S. (eds.) (2012) Women in Theatre Research Report. Sydney: Australia Council for the Arts, accessed at: www.australiacouncil.gov.au/workspace/uploads/ﬁles/research/wom en-in-theatre-april-2012-54325827577ea.pdf. Lauzen, M. M. (2016) “The Celluloid Ceiling: Behind-the-Scenes Employment of Women on the Top 100, 250, and 500 Films of 2015,” accessed at: http://womenintvﬁlm.sdsu.edu/ﬁles/2015_Cel luloid_Ceiling_Report.pdf Leung, Linda (2016) “The creative other: Marginalization of and from the creative industries.” The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 46 (4), 200–211. Leuthold, Steven M. (2011) Cross-Cultural Issues in Art: Frames for Understanding. New York: Routledge. MacArthur, Michelle (2015) Achieving Equity in Canadian Theatre: A Report with Best Practice Recommendations, Equity in Theatre, Toronto, accessed at: www.eit.playwrightsguild.ca/sites/ eit.playwrightsguild.ca/ﬁles/FINAL%20EIT%20Report_4%2022%2015.pdf MacGregor, Elizabeth A. (1995) “The Situation of Women Curators.” In: Deepwell, Katy (ed.) New Feminist Art Criticism, Critical Strategies. Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 70–76. Maddocks, Fiona (2013) “Marin Alsop, conductor of Last Night of the Proms, on sexism in classical music.” The Guardian, September 7, 2013, accessed at: www.theguardian.com/music/2013/ sep/06/marin-alsop-proms-classical-sexist Meglin, J. E. & Brooks, L. M. (2012) “Where are all the women choreographers in ballet?” Dance Chronicle 35, 1–7. Mintzberg, Henry (1998) “Covert leadership: Notes on managing professionals.” Harvard Business Review, November–December, 140–147. Morrison, Toni (1993) “Toni Morrison – Nobel Lecture.” Nobelprize.org. Nobel Lecture December 7, 1993, accessed at: www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1993/m orrison-lecture.html Moss, Rachael (2016) “Sexism in Dance: Where Are All The Female Choreographers? ‘The higher up the ladder you go the less women you see’.” The Huﬃngton Post, April 29, 2016, accessed at: www.huﬃngtonpost.co.uk/entry/sexism-in-dance-female-choreographers_uk_5720dc9fe4b06b f544e11e52.
Women and Arts Leadership
Nochlin, Linda (1974) “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?” In: Hess, Thomas B. & Baker, Elizabeth C. (eds.) Art and Sexual Politics: Whey Have There Been No Great Women Artists? New York: Collier Books. O’Neill, Rosemary (2017) “Gender equity debate in ﬁlm and TV divides the industry.” The Australian, May 6, 2017, accessed at: www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/review/gender-equity-debate-in-ﬁlmand-tv-divides-the-industry/news-story/1e85312b0ce8fde6b84fdf7d75c7a70f Reslin, Eileen (2017) “Women in Hollywood Share Stories of Sexual Abuse in the Entertainment Industry” Elle Magazine October 18, 2017 accessed at: http://www.elle.com/culture/celebrities/ a13036155/elle-women-in-hollywood-sexual-abuse-speeches/ Rosener, Judy B. (1997) “Sexual Static.” In: Grint, K. (ed.) (1997) Leadership: Classical, Contemporary and Critical Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 211–230. Said, Edward (1994) Culture and Imperialism. New York: Vintage Books. Sands, Emily Glassberg (2009) “Opening the Curtain on Playwright Gender: An Integrated Economic Analysis of Discrimination in American Theater.” Thesis submitted to Princeton University Department of Economics, April 15, 2009, accessed at: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/pa ckages/pdf/theater/Openingthecurtain.pdf. Scharﬀ, Christina (2015) “Blowing your own trumpet: Exploring the gendered dynamics of selfpromotion in the classical music profession.” The Sociological Review 63 (S1), 97–112. Screen Australia (2017) “Gender Matters.” Accessed at: www.screenaustralia.gov.au/new-directions/ gender-matters-initiative Service, Tom (2013) “Vienna Philharmonic’s conservatism has exposed it to unsettling truths.” The Guardian, March 12, 2013, accessed at: www.theguardian.com/music/2013/mar/11/vienna-philha rmonic-history Stanﬁll, Sonnet (2016) “Taking on the Boy’s Club at the Art Museum.” New York Times, October 19, 2016, accessed at: http://nyti.ms/2egaaaM4 Sullivan, Jane (2012) “A Woman’s Place.” The Sydney Morning Herald, January 13, 2012, accessed at: www.smh.com.au/entertainment/books/a-womans-place-20120113-1pyoa.html Taylor, Andrew & Ting, Inga (2016) “What arts bosses in Australia earn, and how women get less.” Sydney Morning Herald, June 10, 2016, accessed at: www.smh.com.au/entertainment/art-a nd-design/what-arts-bosses-in-australia-earn-and-how-women-get-less-20160602-gpahfn.html. Taylor, Andrew (2015) “Conductor Simone Young: still the odd one out.” The Sydney Morning Herald, August 14, 2015, accessed at: www.smh.com.au/entertainment/music/conductor-sim one-young-still-the-odd-one-out-20150810-giddh7.html Turner, Ralph (2015) “Taymer’s Tempests: Sea change or seeing little change in responses to gender and leadership.” Journal of Gender Studies 24 (6), 689–704. VIDA Women in Literary Arts (2015) “The 2014 Women of Color VIDA Count.” VIDA, April 6, 2015, accessed at: www.vidaweb.org/2014-vida-count/2014-women-of-color-vida-count-2.htm Wakin, Daniel J. (2005) “Best Wishes on Your Job. Now Get Out.” The New York Times, October 9, 2005, accessed at: www.nytimes.com/2005/10/09/arts/music/best-wishes-on-your-job-now-getout.html Walker, Lynne (2002) “Simone Young: Opera’s young one.” The Independent, June 13, 2002, accessed at: www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/features/simone-young-operas-youngone-180108.html Wreyford, Natalie (2015) “Birds of a feather: Informal recruitment practices and gendered outcomes for screenwriting work in the UK ﬁlm industry.” The Sociological Review 63 (S1), 84–96. Wright, G. (2013) “Male dance educators in a female-dominated profession.” Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance 84 (7), 14–15. Wu, Ming-Yi (2010) “Gender and cultural inﬂuences on expected leadership styles.” China Media Research 6 (1), 37–46.
This page intentionally left blank
The Application of Arts Leadership
This page intentionally left blank
Artforms, Arts Organizations and Arts Leadership
When you consider traditional organizational studies and the framings of leadership and management, the approach of scientiﬁc management or ‘Taylorism’1 comes to mind. However, when you think of the arts and leadership, an opposite image arises. This is not to say that arts leadership and management is not ‘scientiﬁc’ or ‘eﬃcient’, but the philosophical approach is not that of a ‘machine-like’ system relying on inputs and outputs. Instead, the making of art is more of an organic process and leadership of this process needs to recognize and work with that as a given. Lapierre has observed: More than any other type of leader, the artistic leader is engaged in a perpetual struggle against the normal and legitimate tendency of management to apply a logic of organization, bureaucratization and rationalization. (Lapierre 2001: 6–8) Lapierre sees a continuous struggle between the vision and needs of the artist and the ‘normalizing’ impact of management. In Lapierre’s interpretation, the role of the artist leader is supreme and is in danger of being diminished by the impact of the organization’s management. Another way of seeing this is framing the leadership and management of arts making as ‘dual rationalities’, between the desire to work in an unimpeded and organic/creative manner and the need to work within a budget or even make money from the product at the end of the day (Cray et al. 2007). When talking about this tension between working creatively and a desire for control or management, Bilton uses the term ‘dualism’ or the necessity to work with contradictions (Bilton 2007). Arts leaders talk about the challenges within arts organizations where this tension is frequently played out between the artists and aspects of the administration (Caust 2010; Wester 2016). Commentators have discussed how arts organizations can exhibit two or even three internal cultures because of these contradictions (McDaniel & Thorn 1990). This chapter investigates how arts organizations are structured and organized both traditionally and in more contemporary contexts, how that relates to their leadership and how the situation can be both dynamic and complex. We then discuss the way artists work in diﬀerent artforms. Deﬁning artforms is not a binary exercise and the deﬁnition of an artist is also contested. We ﬁnally look in more detail at each artform in terms of their characteristics and how that inﬂuences their leadership. The impact of the environment is an important part of this discussion throughout.
Artforms and Arts Organizations
Arts Organizations First, there is not one model for an arts organization. There are arts organizations that only present activity and do not initiate their own work, and there are arts organizations that spend all their time creating artistic work. There are arts organizations created to do one special project or event, and there are arts organizations that have existed for more than a hundred years. The arts sector is stratiﬁed and the diﬀerence between levels can be quite extreme. There are large arts organizations that are seen as the élite of the arts and receive more funding and private support than others (e.g. major galleries, arts centers, ballet companies, opera companies, symphony orchestras). Then there are small arts organizations with little or no funding support that are doing excellent artistic work nevertheless. Arts organizations can diﬀer dramatically in terms of size, turnover and number of employees. Their missions also diﬀer. While some may be focused on producing the latest in cutting-edge arts practice, others may be focused on selling art at the highest possible price. There are arts organizations that use their arts practice to support social development in communities, and other arts organizations that use arts practice to improve educational outcomes. There are ‘for proﬁt’ and ‘not for proﬁt’ entities in the art world, and while the ‘for proﬁt’ models may operate as any other business, those in the ‘not for proﬁt’ sector generally do not. Depending on the country you are in, ‘not for proﬁt’ arts organizations may be classiﬁed as a charity and therefore be eligible for donations that receive tax-deductibility status. In countries that provide government subsidy to arts organizations, it is usually only the ‘not for proﬁt’ version, or registered charity, or incorporated association that is eligible to receive government support. There has been some pressure in the US to create a ‘hybrid’ model of organization for the arts sector that has diﬀerent aspects of ‘for proﬁt’ and ‘not for proﬁt’ models, but so far this is seen as not being advantageous, as it appears to take away the strengths of each (Rushton 2014). The structure of arts organizations can diﬀer dramatically according to their mission, artform, size and philosophy. While the conventional model is hierarchical, there are many other structural models that ﬁt somewhere in between. Large organizations such as museums, opera companies, ballet companies and arts centers are usually hierarchical and broken up into various departments and roles. Often the largest number of employees in arts organizations will be those in administrative functions. While the business may be focused around doing arts practice, such as presenting opera, the artists themselves may be hired for short periods or for one particular show. The leadership of such entities is concentrated at the top; in an opera company, for instance, there is usually a general director who is the overall leader and then there is an artistic director, an administrative director, a music director and possibly a marketing director and a corporate director. For example, performing arts companies have diﬀerent titles for the same function. The artistic leadership of each show occurs at the level of the show, but the company artistic director would still have an overseeing role. Often opera companies, for instance, also have their own venues, so they run a venue as well as produce work. The structure then of the company can be complex and multilayered. In the case of Teatro alla Scala,2 for instance, there is the historic main theater, working companies doing opera and dance, an orchestra, a training academy, as well as a museum. Interestingly, the Chief Executive Oﬃcer is also the Artistic Director at Teatro alla Scala, an unusual model for many major companies these days, given the perceived ﬁnancial challenges of leading a major arts organization. An example of how the leadership of an opera company can be framed is provided by Agid and Tarondeau (2007) when they examine the history of the leadership of the Paris
Artforms and Arts Organizations
Opera. Although this is a historical study which starts in the middle of the 17th century when the company was founded, the authors concentrate on one recent period of leadership from 1994 to 2004. During this period, a single individual, Hughes Gall, was responsible for the leadership and management of the entity. As a condition of taking on the role of Director of the Paris Opera, Gall insisted that all artistic, ﬁnancial, administrative and human resource decisions be his responsibility (Agid & Tarondeau 2007: 13). This centrality of power and responsibility is now rather rare. Fortunately for Gall, he was successful in his role, doubling the audiences as well as dramatically increasing the number of productions during the decade of his leadership (Agid & Tarondeau 2007: 13). Very few arts companies are as complex as a grand opera company. At the other extreme of arts organization might be a small cooperative or collective that works together, sharing leadership and other responsibilities among the group. Artists’ cooperatives have been in existence for a long time. They are often identiﬁed with the visual arts, but different forms of cooperatives and collectives exist in all artforms. In the case of the visual arts, they serve to provide exhibiting space and sometimes work space for their members. They can also act as a retail outlet for the work of their members. Usually, a member joins by paying a fee but in many cases they may need to go through a selection process with a jury of other members before they are accepted into the cooperative. There is likely also to be an expectation of helping with the staﬃng of the exhibition space and other tasks as part of being a member. Part of the attraction of being a member of a cooperative is the possibility of being seen by a broad audience and not being bound to a commercial gallery for large commission fees. It also provides a ready-made network of peers. An example of a traditional cooperative gallery is the ACCI Gallery3 in North Berkeley, California. It was founded in the 1950s and has more than a hundred current members who work across many diﬀerent mediums. Collaborative artforms such as theater, dance, ﬁlm and music are often organizationally based and the artistic work occurs within the structure of an organization. Individual artforms such as the visual arts and literature have organizations within their artforms, but they usually do not employ artists directly, except perhaps in the case of cooperatives or collectives which share the responsibilities within their organization’s framework. However, in the visual arts there are several examples of art galleries employing artists from diﬀerent artforms to add value to the work that is on display and providing a range of other activities such as performances, ﬁlm shows and talks. This action may be to provide another layer to a thematic exhibition or to use the gallery as a performance space in itself.4 It is also common for a living artist to be present when an exhibition of their work opens, so that they can discuss their work with those present. It is not uncommon also for artists to be given a working space within a gallery to continue to do their work while an exhibition of their art is occurring. This then encourages a dialogue between the artist and their audience.
The Governance of Arts Organizations The governance and leadership of arts organizations can diﬀer dramatically within artforms, between artforms, and between countries and cultures. There is no prescription as to how an arts organization should be structured and governed; it will depend on its purpose, the laws of the country in which it is situated, the cultural expectations of the country and the expectations of the major funders or income providers. Hence, arguing for one particular model over another does not have much relevance internationally.
Artforms and Arts Organizations
Arts organizations that rely on private philanthropy as their main source of income may have one particular structure. For example, in the United States there is an emphasis on governing boards being quite large numerically and the members being expected to contribute in a major way to fundraising; otherwise, they often cannot stay on the board. This has led to a mantra of ‘give, get or get oﬀ’. Ostrower comments that boards of arts organizations in the United States do not exist in a vacuum. Rather, the way that they function reﬂects a wider system that has developed out of the emphasis on private support and governance of arts institutions in the United States. (Ostrower 2004: xiii; emphasis in original) Thus, Ostrower is pointing out that the composition and approach of a board reﬂects the United States culture and the dependence of arts organizations on private philanthropy to survive. The boards of arts organizations in the United Kingdom, on the other hand, are often quite small, perhaps 5–8 members, and may be appointed to the position by the government of the day. This reﬂects the diﬀerent culture of the United Kingdom and a situation where usually public funds are involved in supporting the work of the arts organization. Arts organizations that are privately owned entities may have another structure again. They may have only family members or friends sitting on the advisory board, or not even have a board but rely on a director or directorate. Arts organizations that receive public funds may have certain restrictions placed upon them in terms of structure and governance. This can mean that the arts organization needs to have a particular legal structure as well as a certain number of board members. The funders might also expect that potential new members are recruited on the basis of what skill or knowledge base they bring to the board table. Arts organizations have been encouraged, particularly by certain stakeholders, to have board members who are business people, lawyers, accountants, marketers, etc. (Caust 2010; Wu 2003). While board members with these skills can be a ‘life saver’ for an arts organization, they can also bring a diﬀerent culture and belief system to the organization. In recent times and in certain scenarios, government funders and private donors have tried to push a governance model and a performance measurement approach that duplicates mainstream business practice (Caust 2005). The focus in a corporate context is measurement by numbers, particularly the bottom line, but the limitation of this model for the arts is that the work being produced cannot be measured quantitatively. This can create problems for the entity as arts organizations and arts making in general are ‘marching to a diﬀerent drum’ from an entity that is about producing the same object at the cheapest possible cost. While the corporate model may focus on limiting ﬁnancial risk, the arts model (sometimes) needs to embrace risk as its raison d’être. These can then be oppositional cultures at times which do not sit well together. Thus, a change in a governance or leadership model may result in a ‘culture clash’ if diﬀerent cultures within the same organization are in conﬂict with each other. This can be a healthy dynamic as alluded to by Bilton (2007), where there is mutual understanding and support of the diﬀerent function and roles within the organization at all levels of management. But it can be problematic if there is a tendency by the board and/or management of an arts organization to want to ‘control’ or ‘normalize’ the behavior of the arts leader or artists. McDaniel and Thorn (1993) note the development of two or even three distinct cultures within contemporary arts organizations. These might be a ‘board’
Artforms and Arts Organizations
culture, a ‘management’ culture and an ‘artistic’ culture. If these cultures are in competition for control of the organization, then inevitably there will be conﬂict. Jeﬀri is concerned how this plays out when corporate priorities take precedence: As these newly established institutions grow more like businesses, increasingly they follow a corporate model, where the boards or directors choose to learn more about marketing and the bottom line and little if anything about artistic vision. (Jeﬀri in Benedict 1991: 108–9) As McDaniel and Thorn ask, is the organizational goal to support the work of artists, the work of an institution or the work of a business (McDaniel & Thorn 1993: 28)? This is an ongoing question for all arts organizations, but particularly those that are changing from a smaller organization to a larger organization, or are moving from a founder/ leader model to a more complex leadership structure. It is noted: The distinct nature of arts organizations arises not simply from their artistic missions, but also from the complexity that multiple demands impose. (Cray et al. 2007: 297) The process of making art and the process of selling it to others is not straightforward and there is a need for arts leaders and managers to be adept at managing complexity and, as Bilton (2007) calls it, deal with contradictions.
The Leadership and Management of Arts Organizations To begin this discussion, we will consider deﬁnitions of leadership and reﬂect upon them in relation to the leadership of arts organizations. Yukl, a well-known leadership scholar, says: Most deﬁnitions of leadership reﬂect the assumption that it involves a process whereby intentional inﬂuence is exerted by one person over other people to guide, structure and facilitate activities and relationships in a group or organization. (Yukl 2002: 2) In Yukl’s comment, there are several words embedded: process, intentional, inﬂuence, one person, other people, guide, structure, facilitate, activities and relationships. Considering these terms in the case of the arts is helpful in clarifying the process and act of leadership. Robert Hewison and John Holden, writing from the perspective of the arts and cultural sector, deﬁne leadership of cultural organizations as the ability to conceive and articulate a direction and purpose, and to work with others to achieve that purpose in both benign and hostile circumstances. (Hewison & Holden 2002: 6) What is added here that makes a diﬀerence is the context. Hewison and Holden add ‘benign and hostile circumstances’ to their deﬁnition. In other words, arts/cultural leaders are operating frequently in a context that may not be supportive of their mission. The implication is that an arts/cultural leader may face challenges in their leadership journey
Artforms and Arts Organizations
that require certain personal characteristics to survive. Some of the characteristics that might be required in such a scenario could be resilience, determination and courage. It has already been observed that board members with diﬀerent expectations can bring internal challenges to an arts organization. The challenges can also be witnessed between the artistic leader and the organizational or administrative leader if the two are diﬀerent. Furthermore, the impact of other forms of income in addition to box oﬃce, such as government subsidy, corporate sponsorship or personal donations, has contributed to producing a new class of professional arts manager who has developed the appropriate skills required to manage the needs of conﬂicting stakeholders, as well as larger and more complicated budgets (Byrnes 2009; Palmer 1998). The pressure of this management imperative can be seen to have had a dramatic impact on the structure of arts organizations and, by direct association, their leadership. McDaniel and Thorn (1993) believe conversely that the increasing separation between management and artistic roles within arts organizations is partly the fault of artists who have chosen to abdicate their responsibilities for the leadership or management of the organization. They suggest that artists have not wanted to come to grips with the increasing complexity of running contemporary arts organizations and have in fact handed over the responsibility to professional arts managers and boards (McDaniel and Thorn 1993). Others claim that artists do not want to be dealing with the challenges of management and organization because it takes the energy and focus away from their artistic work (Wester 2016: 26). Lapierre (2001) argues that there is a tendency by some management theorists and stakeholders to want to see the leadership of the arts as being like any other leadership/ management activity – in other words, ‘normalizing’ it – whereas Bendixen (2000) sees ‘management’ as a neutral force that is separate from the context in which it is occurring. In Bendixen’s view, therefore, arts management would not be seen as diﬀerent from other forms of corporate management. Another perspective is that although “the variety of required leadership roles is similar to those in other industries, the way that they are enacted involves factors unique to the arts sector” (Cray et al. 2007: 298). While the focus here is leadership, there is a perspective that the roles within arts organizations are similar to those in other organizations, but the interpretation of the roles may be diﬀerent. Other writers also concur that there are diﬀerences in the approach to leadership and management in arts organizations. For example, Abfalter argues that theatre organizations rather embrace strong hierarchies. These may be historical relics, but they actually provide stability and security that facilitate creativity. (Abfalter 2012: 302) In her study about the relationship between creative work and leadership in theater companies in Germany and Austria, Abfalter suggests there is evidence that a hierarchical and sometimes autocratic model of leadership is accepted in the context of an arts organization (Abfalter 2012). This is supported by the ﬁndings of Fitzgibbon (2001). It is also argued that strong leadership models exist in the arts because there is a need to provide a clear vision, as well as provide a framework for limiting artistic excesses (Bilton 2007; Fitzgibbon 2001). The diﬀerent expectations of leaders within an arts organization, though, are likely to be more of a problem. As already noted, there is organizational leadership and there is artistic leadership. This polarity of roles, while seemingly at odds with each other, can in
Artforms and Arts Organizations
fact work well together if each understands and respects the other (Reynolds et al. 2017). However, there are artistic leaders who are intolerant of organizational and ﬁnancial challenges and may behave like spoilt children if they do not get their own way (Nisbett & Walmsley 2016). Then there are leader/managers who want to control the artistic side and not allow for risk or exploration, but instead focus on the ﬁnancial return (Caust 2010). If there are power battles between the two functions of management and artmaking, then problems can occur. This may center on who is the designated positional leader? Is it the organizational leader of an arts organization or is it the person providing the artistic vision/leadership? If the management role is the positional leadership role, then the artistic leadership may suﬀer. And conversely, if the artistic role is the positional leader role, then the management leadership of the organization may suﬀer. There is a view that the role of an arts manager or arts administrator is to support the role and function of the artist leader (Pick & Anderton 1996). This is also essentially the same view that Lapierre (2001) is arguing with regard to the attempt to ‘normalize’ management concerns over those of the arts leadership. The expectation that the positional leader of an arts organization should be an expert in the artform ﬁrst, and be a trained leader or manager second (Hewison 2004), can have its problems. There are several examples of poor leadership of arts and cultural institutions where the positional leader has a deep knowledge of the artform ﬁeld but inadequate understanding of how to run an organization and a group of diverse people (De Paoli 2013; Douglas & Freemantle 2009; Hewison 2004). While there is now a greater understanding of the leadership skills required for eﬀective leadership, there are nevertheless challenges embedded in arts leadership of contemporary arts organizations (Hoyle & Swale 2016). In many cases nowadays, though, the ‘positional’ leadership role of an arts organization is not occupied by the artistic leader. This may work quite well in a context where the individual occupying the management leadership role is from the artform and has deep knowledge and experience in it (Reynolds et al. 2017). Many arts managers have in fact been arts practitioners and have chosen to move away from their practice to take on a management role and its responsibilities. In these cases, they may maintain an understanding and sympathy for the core business of the organization and have that always as their central driving force. They may in fact interpret their role in the manner that Pick and Anderton (1996) describe: there to support or facilitate the artistic process and activity. As an organization grows or increases its ﬁnancial turnover, the artistic leadership position can be pushed further down the hierarchy while the administrator’s role is promoted upwards. The title of the administrator’s role then may become managing director or chief executive oﬃcer (CEO). While the artistic leader is driven by expertise in an artform, the emphasis of general management theory is that everything is the same and should be managed or led in the same manner. Then the power of the organization is often focused on the ‘money’ side and not on the ‘artistic’ side. Further, the impact of ‘managerialism’5 and ‘neoliberalism’6 has also had an impact on the governance and leadership of arts organizations over recent years, intensifying this ‘normalizing’ approach (Caust 2010). The pressure to make the arts model conform to the corporate model aﬀects the selection of arts leaders as well as the design of the organizational structure. There have been several appointments of individuals to senior roles in the arts who have come from the corporate world, bringing corporate values with them (Caust 2005; Wu 2003). Sometimes this appointment of individuals from outside of the arts sector to arts
Artforms and Arts Organizations
leadership roles has led to a reduction in artistic innovation by the arts organization concerned (Castañer & Campos 2002). There are issues to confront when the leadership of arts organizations is seen to be taken in a direction that may be in conﬂict with the core values of the organization or the artform involved.
Artists and Artforms Arts practice is described in many diﬀerent ways, including grouping diﬀerent artforms together as the performing arts, the visual arts, the literary arts and the media arts. They might then be subdivided further into:
performing arts: theater, dance (including ballet), puppetry, music (in all its forms), circus, festivals; visual arts: painting, sculpture, crafts, performance art; literary arts: ﬁction, poetry, drama, non-ﬁction; media arts: ﬁlm, video, multimedia, digital.
Artists may describe themselves as an actor, dancer, singer, musician, sculptor, painter, jeweler, ceramicist, weaver, writer, dramatist/playwright, poet, digital artist, ﬁlmmaker, director, choreographer, sound artist, screenwriter and so on. Nowadays, many artists work in a cross-disciplinary manner, so that they may describe themselves as a dancer but they also work with sound and video, or a sculptor who works with video and sound, or a ﬁlm artist who works with text and image. The access to technology and the internet has broken down many barriers between artforms. It has allowed artists to see quickly what other artists are doing and then integrate diﬀerent inﬂuences into their own practice. It has also given relatively cheap access to aspects of technology that were only previously available to large organizations – it is now possible, for instance, to make a movie on a cell phone. Hence, the capacity for anyone to be able to make quite technical forms of ‘art’ is limited only by the individual’s own ideas. This then raises questions around who is an artist and what is art. What is the diﬀerence between art, craft or amateur dabbling? As discussed in Chapter 2, Holden has tried to come to terms with the dramatic changes in the arts and cultural landscape by describing the arts as an ‘inter-relationship of spheres’, describing the spheres as ‘home-made’, ‘publicly funded’ and ‘commercial’ (Holden 2009: 449). While this captures the complexity of how contemporary arts practice may arise or be framed, it does not answer the questions: is this ‘art’ or is this individual an ‘artist’? These quandaries have always been part of the discussion and there is no simple formula to decide the answer. If someone describes themselves as an ‘artist’, then that may be true. But whether their work is valued by others, is acknowledged as ‘art’ or is viewed as ‘art’ over generations is an imponderable question. An artist’s work can be rejected in their lifetime but valued highly later on, or it can be valued highly in their lifetime and then forgotten once they have passed. Alternatively, neither can occur and the artist’s work is never given external value. The question of whether an artist’s work is classiﬁed as ‘art’ by others is never easily answered and is wholly dependent too on your deﬁnition of art. For John Carey (2005), ‘art’ is a meaningless concept in the later 20th century, although he protects literature (his own artform) from this framing. In an age of postmodernism and relativism, the capacity to assert decisively that something is ‘art’, or conversely not ‘art’, is even more challenging.
Artforms and Arts Organizations
The majority of people who describe themselves as artists are unlikely to be working full-time in an arts organization. They are more likely to be working in what is presently described as a ‘portfolio’ career. This means they do various jobs, some directly related to their work as an artist and others not. They may work over their lifetime in some organizations for diﬀerent periods of time depending on their discipline, but for large parts of the time they may be freelancing, creating work with others or doing their artistic work alone. This can be due to the nature of their work, their artform discipline, the few opportunities that exist for artists to be employed in existing structures, the low levels of reimbursement that artists receive and the high degree of competition for opportunities that do exist. The income of artists from their art continues to be at the very low end of the spectrum. In fact, very few artists actually make a living wage from their work but supplement their artistic work with other work so that they can survive (de Peuter 2014; Gill & Pratt 2008; Throsby & Zednik 2010). There are diﬀerent cultures between artforms that need to be acknowledged. This is reﬂected in the way artists in those artforms function and the organizations that exist to support or work as part of that artform. Thus, theater artists tend to be diﬀerent from musicians who are diﬀerent again from painters. They see the world diﬀerently, given their form of expression, so naturally the way they function also diﬀers. Within an artform, there are also aesthetic diﬀerences. So a jazz musician and a classical musician may have diﬀerent ways of seeing the world, given their artistic preferences.
Artforms and Leadership There are diﬀerent artforms and diﬀerent manifestations of arts leadership within them. There are those who are leaders in an artistic practice, there are leaders of arts organizations and sometimes there are individuals who are both. Cultural diﬀerences between artforms have an impact on how leadership is exercised and understood in each artform. To see how arts organizations are similar and diﬀerent, we will look at some diﬀerent artforms and consider the activities that occur within them. Theater In the case of theater, the artform practice is performed usually in a purpose-built or appropriated space. This space can vary between a formal proscenium arch design, an apron stage, a black box or studio space, in liminal space (those between other spaces), outdoors in improvised settings or formal settings. The possibilities are extensive, but the action of theater usually involves one group of people (the actors) performing for another group of people (the audience). Leadership in this context can be focused on the making of the work to be performed, the organization of the performance or both. Within the rehearsal space, the director usually plays the leadership role. This can be interpreted in diﬀerent ways. It can be done in a transactional manner where the director essentially tells the players how the characters should be interpreted and where they should stand or move in each part of the play. If the writer is part of the rehearsal process, then the director and writer may work with the performers to develop the play through the rehearsal period. Everyone then may play a leadership role during the process, although it is expected that the director will take the overview. If the play is groupdevised, then the process may diﬀer again. In this instance, all members of the group may take the lead at diﬀerent times, and even take on the role of director when needed. In the
Artforms and Arts Organizations
making of the show, there are also other artists involved such as a set designer and a lighting designer. These people will also have a view about the way the play should be presented and take on a leadership role at particular moments. The whole process of making a play can be highly collaborative, or it can be quite hierarchical, or somewhere between the two, depending on the nature of the work, the process and the individuals involved. Theater making can be located within the structure of a large or small organization, or within no organizational framing at all. Theater companies such as the Royal Shakespeare Company7 in the United Kingdom have hundreds of people employed, do several productions per year, run their own theater spaces and tour around the world as well as around their own country. An important point to note is the use of the term ‘company’ to describe a theater organization. The emphasis is still located around a group of people working together. The structure of a theater company can be hierarchical with a single positional leader. That person may be known as the chief executive oﬃcer (CEO) or the artistic director, or the managing director, or the managing producer or just the director or a combination of these titles. Alternatively, the structure can be a dual model of leadership where the artistic director and the general manager work as an executive team to lead the company overall (Reid 2013; Reynolds et al. 2017). There are companies that have a more ﬂuid organizational model where there is an artistic committee that runs the company. The ‘company’ then is a small group of people who all see themselves as leaders, as they are structured as a collective or a cooperative. In this model, they share the leadership as well any income earned from their work. They may employ a director to work with them or alternatively choose one of their number to do the directing. If the director is hired in, then that person plays a leadership role during rehearsals, but the overall leadership still resides with the group. The way theater companies are structured is extremely varied and can change from one period to the next. Some groups of artists come together for ‘one-oﬀ’ projects and work under a loose umbrella of a ‘name’, whereas others only come together to do one play. In these cases, the director can be employed by the group, or is employed by someone else to direct the play, or has created the idea and brings in other collaborators to explore it. The structure of theater companies can vary in diﬀerent countries and in diﬀerent contexts. Nevertheless, theater making is an international and collaborative activity that has occurred for centuries, and occurs in many languages around the world. Dance Dance as a cultural practice has seemingly been part of human behavior for ever. Since the beginning of civilization, human beings have used diﬀerent styles of dance as a social, ritual and cultural practice. (Ehrich & English 2013: 457) As a professional artform practice, though, dance is more recent. As in other artforms, there are diﬀerent disciplines within the overall practice of dance. Professional dancers may be trained in one discipline or in several. Generally, dancers who are trained in the Western classical tradition, for example, will work in ballet companies and those who have been trained in more contemporary forms of dance will work in contemporary/ modern dance companies. Although a dancer must be trained in the Western classical
Artforms and Arts Organizations
tradition to work in a ballet company, that is not always the case in reverse; a classically trained dancer might shift across to a more contemporary form because they realize that suits their temperament more. In other cultural contexts, such as Bali in Indonesia, dancers are trained from childhood to perform the traditional Balinese dance repertoire. It is unlikely then that they will perform in another dance tradition, but they may. The nature of dance is such that the dancers themselves must train every day, like a professional sportsperson, to keep up their skill base. It is not possible to be a carpenter one day and a professional dancer the next day. A dancer requires years of practice to get their body trained ready to perform and then they need to maintain this level of skill constantly to continue. Some choreographers have very speciﬁc needs or preferences in terms of the kind of dancers they prefer to work with – for example, some might want dancers who have been trained in a classical tradition, whereas others might want dancers who have had training in acrobatics as well as contemporary dance. Dancers are attracted to work with particular choreographers also because the choreographic style suits their own dancing style or the kind of body they have. Long-term professional relationships can then develop where a choreographer and dancer work together to create work. Many large dance companies employ dancers continually, if they can aﬀord to, on long contracts so that their skills can be maintained within the context of the company. There are modern dance companies that work from a contemporary classical tradition so the dancer needs to be skilled in both classical and contemporary disciplines. There are also contemporary dance companies that prefer not to work with classically trained dancers because the company has an aesthetic that requires more freedom of expression. There are dance companies that have embraced other forms of communication, particularly, say, using the voice, so that they want dancers who can be heard on the stage as well as move well (e.g. the work of Pina Bausch). All artforms are in a constant state of change and are always experimenting with new and diﬀerent ways of expression, through their chosen artform; dance is part of this spectrum of change. Dance companies are often organizationally structured like theater companies but they also have distinct diﬀerences. If they are a formally structured entity, then they may employ administrative, technical and artistic staﬀ as in a theater company. What is particular about a dance company, however, is the fact that they usually employ a group of dancers on an ongoing basis, unlike a theater company that may only employ actors from one show to the next. The size and income of the company will determine the number of people employed. A large contemporary dance company such as Nederlands Dans Theater8 has about 46 dancers and 78 support staﬀ, including physiotherapists and masseurs. A major ballet company such as the American Ballet Theatre9 has more than 90 dancers and over 100 support staﬀ. The majority of dance groups, though, are of a smaller size and would function with 5–10 dancers and 1–5 support staﬀ (e.g. Union Dance Company10 in the United Kingdom). Some groups cannot aﬀord to employ dancers for a long period of time and contract them when needed for particular projects, while maintaining a core staﬀ of three or four (see CoisCéim Dance Theatre11 in Ireland). Many dance companies supplement their income by teaching, either by having a permanent dance school attached to their company or by providing classes in particular aspects of dance on a regular basis. They may also rent out their studios to provide another income stream when they are away on tour. Kenneth Tharp, former dancer and now Chief Executive Oﬃcer of The Place, a center for contemporary dance in London, says: “we have a theatre, a resident company and a school all operating in one building, as one organisation” (Tharp 2016: 89).
Artforms and Arts Organizations
Dance companies are often begun by an individual who has a diﬀerent approach to choreography or a passion for a form of dance that is not available in their location. This can mean that the company is named after the founder, even if the founder has passed on. Examples of these are the Martha Graham Company, the Pina Bausch Company or the Alvin Ailey Company. Dancers can spend their whole working life with one dance company because the form suits them and they develop a strong working relationship with the choreographer or director. This is diﬀerent to how most actors work nowadays; actors tend to freelance much more and work between the diﬀerent mediums of theater, ﬁlm and television. The nature of dance companies usually means that they tend to tour a lot because they need to generate box oﬃce income continually to maintain their company. In addition, the audiences for some forms of contemporary dance may be quite limited, so a company may need to travel a lot to ﬁnd more audiences. Case Study 4.1 Bangarra Dance Theatre Bangarra Dance Theatre is an Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander dance company which was formed in 1989. It is based in Sydney and has its own studios, ofﬁces and rehearsal spaces in the Wharf Complex on Sydney Harbour. The company’s mission is to create inspiring experiences that change society. The work of Bangarra is unique because of the historical cultural traditions it is drawing upon and its integration of modern and traditional dance techniques. It has toured its work around the world as well as across Australia. Bangarra has performed in New York at the Brooklyn Academy of Music, the Lincoln Center and in 2016 at the City of New York Fall for Dance Festival. It has also performed on many occasions throughout Europe and in Asia. Bangarra’s Executive Director, Philippe Magid, recently said international touring is a crucial element of Bangarra’s program: Promoting intercultural dialogue and exchange is at the core of Bangarra and over the past 27 years we have reached over 60 cities. (Bangarra Dance Theatre, media release, August 24, 2016) The company draws on the traditions of the Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people that go back over 40,000 years. All the dancers are professionally trained and come from either an Australian Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background. Although the company is in a sense a traditionally structured dance company, its community role and its work is unique. The dancers come from both urban and regional areas and develop their repertoire by working with the Elders in their community. As part of their annual program, they do a national tour of a world premiere work, perform in some of Australia’s most iconic venues, undertake a regional tour and do an international tour. So far they have undertaken 24 international tours. There are 16 permanent dancers in the company as well as 27 support staff. Stephen Page is the Artistic Director of Bangarra and was appointed to this position in 1991. He is descended from the Nunukul people and the Munaldjali clan of the
Artforms and Arts Organizations
Yugambeh nation from southeast Queensland. Stephen was director of the indigenous part of the opening and closing events for the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney. He was also the Artistic Director of the Adelaide Festival in 2004. Another signiﬁcant and long-term Bangarra member is Djakapurra Munyarryun. He is a traditional Yolngu songman born in Yirrkala and is a member of the Munyarryun clan of northeast Arnhem Land. Stephen Page invited Munyarryun to join Bangarra in 1991 as a traditional dancer and didgeridoo player. Munyarryun has had a major creative and cultural inﬂuence on Bangarra in his role as cultural consultant and is instrumental in the company’s ability to fuse traditional myths and music, with the experience of urban Aboriginal and Islander people. Bangarra also undertakes training and educational programs for aspiring dancers and community members and presents shows in schools. One outreach program they undertake is with young people in their community, which they call Rekindling. As part of this, they undertake residencies with secondary school students. This enables the young people involved to draw on the traditions of their own Elders; they can then develop their own creative work integrating what they have learned. Bangarra website: www.bangarra.com.au
While new circuses and physical theater are not strictly dance, there are many similarities. A major player on the cultural scene over the past 20 years has been Cirque du Soleil.12 This group began as an alternative street circus model in Quebec City in the early 1980s. It then grew to become a multi-million-dollar enterprise with several companies working under the Cirque du Soleil banner at any one time by the early 21st century. The company employs about 100 artists and 400 craftspeople and other specialists. There is a need for performances that cross language barriers. Physical theater uses a visual language rather than a vocal language, so it can be a means for doing this successfully. A challenge though for a group like Cirque du Soleil is doing work that is meaningful as well as technically brilliant. Music Music is an international language often requiring no translation. Every country has its own musical traditions that reﬂect its culture. Festivals of diﬀerent forms of music occur constantly throughout the world, providing audiences with a rich fare from which to choose. As in dance, there are many forms of music, and the organization of music reﬂects these aesthetic diﬀerences. Like dancers, musicians train for many years to develop a high degree of technical skill. They can develop a skill in one instrument or in several or can rely entirely on their own voice as their instrument. There are several diﬀerent genres in music and new genres continue to emerge. Musicians can move from one genre to another but there is also much specialization. Musicians frequently work with other musicians although individual musicians also work alone. Classical musicians tend to gravitate towards groups that do the kind of music they prefer to play, as do musicians from other genres. Large orchestras may employ around 100 musicians full-time, but competition is intense for those positions. Thousands of people train to be musicians – it is reputed that more than 40 million children are now learning Western musical instruments in China (Monteﬁore 2014). The music world, like the arts generally, is a highly competitive environment and to survive and succeed in it requires many skills, with talent being just one.
Artforms and Arts Organizations
In the music world, there are orchestras, music groups, bands, individual artists as well as touring organizations, performance venues, recording companies and festivals. In addition, there are opera companies, musical theater companies and dance companies that often employ a large number of musicians. Music organizations therefore tend to reﬂect the kind of practice they are involved with. There are very large music organizations such as the major orchestras. The London Symphony Orchestra,13 for example, employs over 100 musicians, seven conductors and more than 80 support staﬀ. There are also venues that primarily present music, such as Carnegie Hall14 which employs more than 200 staﬀ in various roles, including administrative, educational, programming, marketing, digital and technical. Then there are small informal music groups that work together from time to time, with little or no administrative support. In addition, many musicians freelance and work with several groups, or are hired to support the production of musicals, the recording of music or the presentation of it, in its various forms. In addition to the leadership role played by conductors and musicians, composers play a leadership role that can have many inﬂuences. The impact of composers historically is well recognized. The great Western classical masters such as Bach, Mozart and Beethoven continue to inﬂuence the work of present-day musicians and have inﬂuenced musicians, composers and audiences over many generations. Composers can alter the way instruments are played, which instruments work together, which musicians work together and how music is presented and understood. While a musician interprets the work, the composer creates it. Organizations presenting classical music such as symphony orchestras and recital halls, often receive large amounts of government funding as well as private donations, but other forms of music are less well supported. For example, jazz musicians often subsidize their income with other forms of work. Popular music genres and much contemporary music receive little external support. They rely on performing gigs at music venues and selling recordings. Folk music similarly may receive little or no external income but rely on the commitment of its supporters. The role of technology and the internet has had positive and negative eﬀects on the music world. With the advent of downloading from the internet, many musicians receive very little from their original creation, unless there is some form of copyright in place that provides a degree of protection. New ways of funding arts activity have emerged over the past few years as an alternative to public funding and philanthropy. Music is an area in particular that beneﬁts from this. Diﬀerent forms of ‘crowd funding’ have enabled people to contribute to activity that may not be happening in their own backyard or even country, but which they believe is important and worthy. Social media now plays an important role too in promoting new work. While music organizations can be similarly structured to other performing arts organizations, such as in theater and dance, the artistic leadership of music groups is often used as a template for generic leadership studies. This can relate to the way leaders (e.g. conductors) of music groups get a large and skilled group of individuals to follow one leader (Mintzberg 1998; Zander & Zander 2000). It also relates to how, within groups, successful approaches to collaborative leadership and self-managing teams can be demonstrated. For example, in relation to leadership within string quartets it is observed: Ensemble members had complete autonomy to decide which tasks they would perform and what norms of conduct would guide their behavior. Members experienced
Artforms and Arts Organizations
a strong sense of collective responsibility for the outcome of their work and there was no supervisor or manager constraining the quartet’s choices. (Gilboa & Tal-Shmotkin 2010: 22) In this description, there is an acknowledgment of a group where all its members take collective responsibility for its leadership and at the same time enjoy the autonomy that provides. The members of a string quarter are peers with specialized knowledge and mastery of their instrument. They then have to work as a group to produce one coherent sound. Although the ﬁrst violin can sometimes be seen as the ‘leader’, the reality is that within a string quartet each musician takes the lead at diﬀerent times and also needs to follow at others, so again leadership is interchangeable (Gilboa & Tal-Shmotkin 2010). Similarly, in a jazz group, leadership is a quality that is given and taken within a group, depending on who is taking the lead at any particular moment (Furu 2013). Visual Arts The visual arts are broad in the forms of arts activity that come under their umbrella. They can include painting, ceramics, jewelry, sculpture, most forms of craft, photography, video, digital work and work that crosses over with more than one of these, as well as with other artform disciplines. The visual arts, perhaps more than other artforms, can be very inﬂuenced by the vagaries of the marketplace, so that an artist’s work may be in fashion for a time and then be out of fashion. There can be extremes in terms of the cost of buying art; one moment it may be valued for very little, but then it can be seen as ‘good’ and worth collecting and become highly valued. Some artists achieve both high visibility and commercial value in their own lifetime; obvious examples are Pablo Picasso and Damien Hirst. Others are only valued later on – for example, Vincent Van Gogh. Female artists in particular have been frequently ignored and not visible in major collections or hung in major galleries (Nochlin 1974). Although that is starting to change, the commercial value of the work of a successful female artist is still likely to fetch a lot less than its male equivalent (Hattenstone 2016). This suggests that there are other forces at play, aside from objective tastes, that inﬂuence the market. Other major arts organizations involved with the visual arts are galleries and art fairs – they are a location for showing the work and then potentially selling it. Galleries come in all forms. They can be an outside or an inside space. Some use the name of the gallery owner; others have a more generic name or a name that tries to indicate the kind of work that is presented. There are privately owned galleries that exhibit and sell art, and there are artist-run cooperatives and collective models that have a membership and work for the beneﬁt of their members. Gallery owners/directors can have a major inﬂuence on the career of an artist. If an artist is promoted by a gallery, that intervention may launch their career, provide an ongoing exhibition space and inﬂuence their output, sales and artistic future. There are gallery directors who have developed close relationships with particular artists which have then ensured that the artist is seen by a broader audience. The promotion of an artist by a well-known and respected gallery director can ensure that the artist is taken up by others, as the judgment of the gallery director is seen as the test of the artist’s potential collecting value. The relationship between a gallery owner and an artist can be almost symbiotic, and there have been many cases of artists who have had close and successful working relationships with a particular gallery owner. There are also many
Artforms and Arts Organizations
cases of artists being exploited by a gallery owner where the gallery owner takes a paternalistic attitude to the artist. Gallery owners often take large commissions from the artists for the sale of their work. Artists themselves should therefore take responsibility for the business side of their work and not abrogate all responsibility in this regard; otherwise, it can sometimes mean that they lose a lot of money. A gallery is a business and the gallery owner is running it in the end to make money, however passionate they may be about the art. Then there are major art galleries, often called art museums, which hold permanent collections that are displayed for viewing but usually not for selling. These galleries are often owned by the state (e.g. the Louvre) or a major private benefactor (e.g. the Guggenheim). They can be quite specialized, focusing on a particular period or style or artist (e.g. the Van Gogh Museum15), or they can be dedicated to the visual artwork of a nation or region (e.g. the Whitney Museum16 in New York) or represent the work of speciﬁc cultures (e.g. Asian Civilisations Museum17 in Singapore). They can demonstrate the wealth of the original collector by the monetary value of the collection (e.g. Catherine the Great and the Hermitage). They are also a drawcard for cultural tourism around the world (e.g. Bilbao and the Guggenheim) as well as being connected with the notion of the creative city (Landry & Hyams 2012). There are also many free public spaces that exhibit art – for example, urban places such as public squares, walls or footpaths. Visual art is not conﬁned to the private sphere; it can be found anywhere. The mission of an art gallery can be quite broad or it can be speciﬁc. For instance, the Museum of Modern Art in New York states that it was founded originally as an ‘educational’ institution. In this sense, it saw its role as an educator of the public by showing the work of contemporary artists. Its mission now is expressed as follows: The Museum of Modern Art seeks to create a dialogue between the established and the experimental, the past and the present, in an environment that is responsive to the issues of modern and contemporary art, while being accessible to a public that ranges from scholars to young children. (MOMA website18) Thus, the art museum can play a major role as an educator, disseminator of contemporary arts practice and an agent for brokering new understandings and connections. Major art galleries are usually structured in a hierarchical model with various departments. They can have a large number of employees, with the majority of staﬀ in support or administrative roles. However, the artistic leaders within a gallery setting are the specialized professional curators. They decide whether an artist is presented, how an artist is presented and when this might occur. They are, in essence, the mediator of the arts practice to the broader public. Since the 1960s, curators have been seen to have an increasing inﬂuence on the presentation of art and have frequently been described as artists themselves (Filipovic 2014; O’Neill 2012). It is noted: The role of the exhibition maker had been transformed from an activity primarily involving the organization of exhibitions of discrete artworks to an extended organizational and discursive practice. (O’Neill 2012: 22)
Artforms and Arts Organizations
Thus, the design, approach and content of an exhibition is framed as a separate artistic activity from the art that is being presented. Further, some artists have adopted the medium of curating as their artform (O’Neill 2012: 87). It is also noted that artists have frequently curated their own work so that they can control how it is presented (Filipovic 2014). Aside from galleries and discrete exhibitions, there are special events such as art fairs and biennales that try to capture the latest in contemporary art. At biennales, the curator is often seen as the master artist choosing and displaying art in a way that is particular to their own sensibility. An example of this is the Venice Biennale19 which shows work from diﬀerent countries, with individual curators from the countries represented, as well as a central international exhibition curated by a guest curator. It happens in Venice every two years and is probably seen as the major event of the visual arts calendar. Then there are events such as Documenta20 which happens every ﬁve years in the small city of Kassel in Germany. In this case, there is one main curator who plays the role of artistic director and chooses what they regard as the most important art of the previous period. Documenta was conceived by the artist and academic Arnold Bode to reintroduce Germany into the visual arts world after the events of the Nazi period. Another interesting event is Manifesta21 which is based in Amsterdam but takes place in a diﬀerent European location each time every two years, and is curated by either one individual or a team. Outside of Europe, there are many other biennales that are signiﬁcant internationally, including the Whitney in New York, the Gwangju in South Korea, the Bienal de São Paulo in Brazil, the Sydney Biennale in Australia and the Shanghai Biennale in China. Art fairs are diﬀerent from biennales as the notion of a ‘fair’ involves sale. Art fairs are huge exhibitions bringing together major dealers and traders in art from diﬀerent countries together to show and sell art. In addition, smaller galleries and cooperative galleries will also show work, so the fair becomes a showcase and retail environment for new art being produced from around the world. The fairs are also likely to hold workshops and seminars, with guest speakers addressing diﬀerent aspects of the selling of the visual arts. One of the most important of these is Art Basel,22 held annually in Switzerland, and then repeated in a diﬀerent version in Hong Kong and Miami. There is also Frieze Fair in London and New York, Artissima in Turin, ARCO in Madrid and NADA in Miami. In Asia, aside from Art Basel in Hong Kong, there is the India Art Fair in New Delhi, ArtStage in Singapore as well as art fairs in Taipei, Tokyo, Shanghai and other centers through the region. In the Middle East, there is the Art Dubai, and in Latin America there is ArteBA in Buenos Ares. There are many more art fairs across the globe. Specialist auction houses such as Christie’s and Sotheby’s are also major traders in the visual arts, but usually they are selling work that has already been bought before; that is, they are re-sellers of artwork. Visual artists usually need a space to do their work. While many may work in a studio at their home, others work in studios elsewhere. A studio space reﬂects the aesthetics of the artist and the needs they require from a space. It is argued that an artist’s studio, as a site for viewing and study, has become increasingly romanticized and in some cases seen as sacred (Lebourdais 2016). The working spaces of artists are also now a subject for exhibition and frequently recreated as part of a larger retrospective of an artist’s work (Lampe 2015). For example, in 2001 the Cleveland Museum of Art featured an exhibition called “Picasso: the Artist’s Studio” (Lebourdais 2016). It seems that viewing an artist’s work space provides “on the one hand, a view of the creative process; on the other, a view of the creative life” (Lampe 2015).
Artforms and Arts Organizations Case study 4.2 Inema Arts Center Inema Arts Center is a collective of Rwandan artists based in Kigali in Rwanda in Africa and specializes in contemporary African arts, crafts, music and dance. It was founded in 2012 by two brothers and self-taught painters, Emmanuel Nkuranga and Innocent Nkurunziza. Inema’s artists produce paintings, sculptures and mixed-media work that is displayed in the center’s gallery. The center is home to programs, projects and initiatives that are focused around social action goals, and at the same time the center is working to expand creative arts practice in Rwanda. The center also provides a working space for ten artists-in-residence. One initiative of the center is the Nziza Workshop which trains and employs Rwandan craftswomen. The on-site daily workshop trains women in sewing, beading and ﬁnishing bespoke pieces, such as kitenge pillow covers and goat leather handbags. This work is then sold in the center’s showroom. This is the retail arm of the Inema Center that brings together artisan work from around the country. It offers a range of products solely produced by women including jewelry, African linens and leatherworks made at the Nziza Workshop, as well as work from partner co-ops in the region. Another project of the center is Art with a Mission which works with orphans aged 10–17, offering them an opportunity to discover and use their artistic talent. In conjunction with local orphanages, Inema Arts Center mentors young people in art as a skill, providing potential occupations as well as survival skills for the orphans. The work produced from the workshop is subsequently sold at the showroom in Inema Arts Center, with the proceeds from the sales used to support the orphans’ livelihood and school fees. The center is also engaged with dance, which is a major form of artistic expression in Rwanda. Inema Arts Center holds ongoing dance workshops with around 30 young people aged 4–18. Three times a week there are performances of the Rwandan traditional dance styles – ‘amaraba’ for girls and ‘intore’ for boys. Inema dancers also take part in performances around the country. The founders of the Inema Arts Center hope that through what they believe is the common language of art they will be able to train a whole new generation of artists. At the same time they want to raise awareness and appreciation of arts practice in Rwanda. Inema Arts Center’s website is: http://inemaartcenter.com
Literature Writers are the creators of literature/writing in all its forms, but the medium that others experience it is usually through a publication, either in paper form or downloaded from the internet and read on an electronic device. The convergence of various mediums has provided outlets for the reading experience on many levels. While publishers are traditionally the means by which books and other publications have been distributed and accessed, this is changing with the advent of self-publication and the use of the internet and social media. Libraries, particularly community libraries, seem to be thriving and are a center of a range of cultural activity. Librarians often play a cultural leadership role within their
Artforms and Arts Organizations
institution, facilitating other activity. Aside from traditional book readings, they also host many diﬀerent cultural pursuits. In a study undertaken by researchers from the Pew Research Center in the United States, conducted in late 2012, it was discovered that 59% of all Americans over the age of 16 had had contact with a library in the previous 12 months (Zickuhr et al. 2013). Further, the study concluded that a majority of those who participated in the survey believed libraries were very important to a community whether they used them or not (Zickuhr et al. 2013). In some educational institutions, however, libraries are being closed because ‘hard copy’ is seen as no longer necessary (Bradley 2016). It is argued that resources of all kinds can be now found in an electronic form, so libraries as places to go to read, borrow and browse are seen as an anachronism within an educational environment that has limited ﬁnancial resources (Bradley 2016). It appears that reading has not been dramatically diminished by the digital age, but there has been some evidence of change. In the case of the United States, 79% of Americans had read a book in 2011 whereas in 2015 it is recorded that this has dropped to 72% (Rainie & Perrrin 2015). Pew Research researchers also record some reduction in reading of print books in the US from an average of 72% of American adults in 2011 to 63% in 2015. On the other hand, they record that 17% of Americans had read an e-book in 2011 and this had increased to 27% of Americans in 2015 (Rainie & Perrrin 2015). They also note that those most likely to be book readers included women; young adults (those ages 18–29); those with higher levels of education and higher household income; and whites. These patterns largely hold for overall book reading and for the diﬀerent reading platforms – printed books and e-books. (Rainie & Perrrin 2015) Thus, the practice of reading in the US reﬂects issues around gender, wealth, education and race. Publishing companies traditionally have had great power and inﬂuence and acted as the mediators of taste for the literate. Editors employed by the publishers have played an signiﬁcant arts leadership role in inﬂuencing taste and promoting some writers over others. Editors are skilled in making judgments about good writing and are also able to intervene and improve the written form so that it is publishable. Nevertheless, they are also likely to bring their own questions to the table: whether there is a market for the book, who that market is, what they like to publish and whether they also like the work. In this way, editors and publishers act as gatekeepers for the publication and dissemination of new writing. Although there has been quite a lot of convergence and merging of diﬀerent brands, major publishing houses still exist; for example, the publisher Random House23 has at least 250 diﬀerent book publishing imprints under the name of Random House, including Penguin. Random House is owned by a German media conglomerate called Bertelsmann and the British global education and publishing company Pearson PLC; together, these two organizations control over 25% of what is published internationally. This convergence of publishing ownership is an international challenge given the potential for global control of what is produced by such conglomerates. The power of inﬂuence globally by major publishers in the book trade is now challenged though by another company. Perhaps the major player in bookselling and other aspects of the book trade over the past 20 years has been the online seller Amazon. Like other
Artforms and Arts Organizations
creatures of the digital age, Amazon started in the 1990s on the west coast of the United States. It began as an online bookstore and then expanded its stock to include music products. It then went into general online retailing and is now one of the largest companies of its kind in the world. There have been many criticisms of Amazon for the control it wields over pricing and distribution, particularly in relation to the sale of books (Manjoo 2014; Streitfeld 2014). It seems that while low prices beneﬁt the consumer, they have had a negative impact on the creators and publishers. There are many outlets that encourage reading in a social context. For example, Literary Festivals have become popular throughout the world and serve to bring the writer closer to their audience. Some have been going for over 60 years such as the Cheltenham Literary Festival24 in England. Others have started more recently, such as the Jaipur Literary Festival25 that began in 2007 in India. Literary festivals are usually not owned by a publishing company but they may receive signiﬁcant sponsorship from them or others associated with them (e.g. The Times/Sunday Times Cheltenham Literary Festival). The director of a literary festival plays a role, like a visual arts curator, where they choose writers to participate in their program, thus performing an arts leadership and gatekeeper role. There is an advantage for a writer to appear at a writers’ festival as the contact is likely to result in the sale of more books. Festivals also aﬃrm the writer as a signiﬁcant player in the literary world and enable writers to meet with other writers and be part of a broader community. Other forms of organized activity around reading also occur. Book clubs, for example, have become ubiquitous in many communities, and the inclusion of a book in a club’s program will certainly result in more books being sold. An example in the UK is the Richard and Judy Book Club which is sponsored by a major bookseller, WHSmith.26 Book shops often hold readings of a writer’s work, particularly when it is ﬁrst published, and they may work together with a literary festival to highlight the work of particular writers. Reading and writing continues into the digital age and the digital medium has in fact encouraged people to be read in diﬀerent formats at a reduced cost. Case Study 4.3 Jaipur Literature Festival The Jaipur Literature Festival began in 2006 in a minimal way in the city of Jaipur in Rajasthan in India. The festival was founded by two writers, Namita Gokhale and William Dalrymple. At the ﬁrst festival in 2006, there were 18 invited writers and the festival was a low-key event attended by around 100 people. By 2010, there were 172 invited writers and more than 30,000 attendees; by 2015, 80,000 people attended the festival. By 2017, it was the largest free writers’ festival in the world and is internationally well known. A hallmark of the festival is that it is free. Many similar festivals internationally now charge entry for different sessions. Since 2008, the organization of the festival has been managed by Teamwork Arts, an Indian-based arts production company. This has meant that the festival has also begun embracing other activities including music events and theater performances. It also hosts a parallel event called Jaipur Bookmark for those in the book trade such as publishers, booksellers and literary agents. From 2015, it began to host satellite events in London and in Boulder, Colorado.
Artforms and Arts Organizations
The festival is an annual event, goes on for ﬁve days in January each year and is based at the Diggi Palace in Jaipur. Over the years, the festival has hosted many wellknown writers including Hanif Kureishi, Ian McEwan, J. M. Coetzee, Mohammed Hanif, Oprah Winfrey, Orhan Pamuk, Pico Iyer, Salman Rushdie, Stephen Fry, Thomas Piketty, Vikram Seth, Margaret Atwood and Wole Soyinka, as well as Indian language writers such as Girish Karnad, Gulzar, Javed Akhtar, M. T. Vasudevan Nair and Uday Prakash. However, in 2012 the festival attracted controversy when Salman Rushdie had to cancel his appearance because of death threats. He had attended the festival safely in 2007. The Jaipur Literature Festival promotes itself as the ‘Greatest Literary Show on Earth’, capturing elements of the circus in its proﬁle. Indeed, there is no doubt that the festival plays an important role in cultural tourism for both India and Rajasthan. Although the event itself is free, it is having a major economic impact on the city of Jaipur and Rajasthan more generally. In 2015, it expanded to other venues outside of the Diggi Palace and organized 300 events in ten different venues. It is noted in an anonymous blog in The Economist: The vastness, youth and exuberance of the crowd is by far the most distinctive thing about the Jaipur festival … The JLF is more a mela – an Asian fair – than a meeting of literary minds. (The Economist 201527) Perhaps the Festival’s continued growth may be a challenge for both the organizers and the attendees. But it is certainly a successful arts event in India. The Jaipur Literature Festival website is: http://jbm.jaipurliteraturefestival.org
Film and Visual Media Filmmaking is a diﬀerent process to putting on a play or presenting a concert. The numbers of people involved, the costs of doing it and the range of skills required are more complex. Individual ﬁlmmakers have had artistic and social inﬂuence across national and cultural boundaries. Filmmakers such as Eisenstein, Chaplin, Godard, Bergman and Kurosawa have encouraged many other ﬁlmmakers across the world. However, ﬁlmmaking is framed more frequently as an industry than other sections of the arts because of the costs (and possible ﬁnancial returns) involved. As a result, large companies have generally controlled the making of ﬁlm and other media, more or less since the beginning. The convergence28 of various forms of creation as an outcome of the digital age has already been mentioned, but perhaps this is most evident in the world of ﬁlm and other forms of visual media. A ﬁlm may already be at a second point of creation because the idea may have originated from a book (e.g. Lord of the Rings or the Harry Potter series). When it is made into a ﬁlm, it then spawns other products such as DVDs, animations, comics, video games and toys. The returns from the ‘add-on’ goods may in fact be greater than the return of the original showing of the ﬁlm. Filmmaking can be big business and the proﬁts from commercial success can be enormous. For example, in 2016 the Disney Corporation made US$7 billion in global ticket sales from its ﬁlmmaking (McClintock 2017). Their commercial success has been seen as the result
Artforms and Arts Organizations of a decade long strategy to reinvigorate Disney’s ﬁlm division by buying up blockbuster franchises, characters and talent … Hollywood’s movie secret, which Disney happens to have mastered the best, at least for now, is that bigger is better and less is more. (Sweney 2016)
Leadership and power within the ﬁlm and media sector are seen as located around the source and control of the money. Given that the motivation of the ﬁnance people is likely to be focused on a healthy return on an investment, the priorities for the making of a new ﬁlm would be to make something that will be proﬁtable. While a proﬁtable outcome may not be predictable, nevertheless it can inﬂuence decisions around content, casting, personnel, distribution and marketing. The question of whether ﬁlm is ‘art’ or ‘entertainment’, and where it sits in relation to other artforms, can be complex. Filmmaking can be formulaic and this is illustrated well with popular action series that are produced over several years to a similar format, usually with a male lead – an example of these are the James Bond series or the Indiana Jones series – yet there are many ﬁne artists who are associated with this kind of work. While the producers in ﬁlmmaking raise the ﬁnance and take overall executive control, the actual artistic directorial work is done by a director (as in the theater). However, unlike theater, there are a more than just a few actors and a set involved. The technical demands of ﬁlmmaking are huge, and ﬁlm directors need to understand all the diﬀerent aspects of this to make the ﬁlm they desire. There is an artistic team that includes the directors, the actors, the writers, the cinematographers, the sound directors, the music directors, the composers, the designers and the editors. There is then a much larger team of people under each area who are responsible for ensuring the technical demands are met in lighting, sound, costume, design, editing, ﬁlming and logistics. Most people involved in ﬁlm do not have another job – they are usually employed from project to project. Directors may prefer to work with a certain cinematographer or editor or actors, and this can then become a loose team that works together successfully over several projects. Independent ﬁlmmakers have tried to counteract the inﬂuence of the ‘money men’ by making ﬁlms for a much lower cost and then raising ﬁnance from sources that impose less direct pressure on their creative control. Sometimes this works out from both ends; that is, the outcome is both an artistic and commercial success. But this is usually rare, as the key costs often relate to marketing and distribution, and these are still controlled by large companies. If independent ﬁlmmakers can get their ﬁlm into a well-regarded ﬁlm festival such as the Sundance Festival,29 and if the ﬁlm gets a good reception there, then it may be taken up by a major distributor and given a broader exhibition. This can then enable it to break through some of the barriers and be seen by a larger audience. Another outcome, however, of the digital convergence is that ﬁlmmakers are choosing to bypass the cinema route and release ﬁlms directly into the digital world. By using the diﬀerent platforms that now exist in the digital world, ﬁlmmakers can target a speciﬁc audience that they may not otherwise be able to connect with (e.g. the television series Game of Thrones and streaming media such as Netﬂix). Aside from English-language ﬁlmmaking, and various European ﬁlm industries, other ﬁlm industries have developed rapidly over the past 30 years, in Asia in particular. These include the Chinese ﬁlm industry, the Indian ﬁlm industry and the Japanese ﬁlm industry. There are also developing industries in the Middle East, in Africa and in South America. It is observed that the global box oﬃce from ﬁlmmaking in 2016 is likely to be around
Artforms and Arts Organizations
$38.3 billion, with the Hollywood industry taking around $11.36 billion of this (McClintock 2017). Because of the popularity of the ﬁlm medium, the ﬁlm sector can be seen to represent the culture or imagined culture of a country or region. Hence, the inﬂuence of the ﬁlm sector in creating cultural trends and inﬂuencing behavior is immense.
Final Comment Artforms and art sectors are all unique, with their own cultures, organizations and approaches to art-making. The way artists work and the way leadership may be manifested is inﬂuenced by their artform. If an artform works in a collaborative model, then that aﬀects who might be the leader. If the artform is more individually driven, then that inﬂuences the nature of the leadership and the role of the organizational models. For instance, there is a strong and direct connection with commerce in the ﬁlm and media sector as well as in parts of the visual arts sector and the literature sector. Thus, working within a commercially driven model will inﬂuence what is valued and how work is packaged and distributed. It will also inﬂuence the type of leadership required. Each artform sector has areas that are more focused on pure art-making and areas that have more commercially orientated goals. Within each artform there are art organizations that are large and complex, employ hundreds of people and have huge turnovers. The majority of art organizations, though, are small to medium in size, employ only a few people, have a limited turnover and frequently struggle to stay aﬂoat. Leadership within sectors varies according to the nature of the artform and the organizational models in place. The environment of the artform also inﬂuences how organizations in each sector are structured and led, and who is seen to have formal and informal leadership roles within the sector.
Notes 1 Taylorism is understood as a process of ‘scientiﬁc management’ where tasks are broken down into diﬀerent segments, creating an assembly line and enabling large-scale manufacturing to occur. Frederick Taylor published his book on Scientiﬁc Management in 1911. 2 See Teatro alla Scala at: www.teatroallascala.org 3 See www.accigallery.com 4 For example, Museum of Modern Art in New York and their performance series, accessed at: www.moma.org 5 Managerialism are business techniques that are introduced into a context that is not conventionally framed as business (e.g. the public sector, the voluntary sector, the education sector and the arts), implying that everything is the same (everything is a ‘business’) and should be governed by the same rules as business. 6 Neoliberalism relates all activity to free market forces and is characterized by privatization, free trade, deregulation and reduction in government spending. 7 www.rsc.org.uk 8 www.ndt.nl/en/home.html 9 http://abt.org/default.aspx 10 www.uniondance.co.uk 11 http://coisceim.com 12 www.cirquedusoleil.com 13 http://lso.co.uk 14 www.carnegiehall.org 15 www.vangoghmuseum.nl/en 16 http://whitney.org 17 http://acm.org.sg
Artforms and Arts Organizations
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
www.moma.org/about/index www.labiennale.org/en/Home.html www.documenta.de/en/about www.manifesta.org www.artbasel.com www.randomhousebooks.com/imprints www.cheltenhamfestivals.com/literature/festival-guide/about-the-festival https://jaipurliteraturefestival.org www.richardandjudy.co.uk/home See “Bigger than the Canon.” The Economist, January 26, 2015, accessed at: www.economist. com/blogs/prospero/2015/01/jaipur-literature-festival 28 Media convergence is deﬁned as “the phenomenon where digitisation of content, as well as standards and technologies for the carriage and display of digital content, are blurring the traditional distinctions between broadcasting and other media across all elements of the supply chain, for content generation, aggregation, distribution and audiences” (Australian Communications and Media Authority quoted in Croucher & Flew 2012, Section 3, p. 64). 29 www.sundance.org/festivals/sundance-ﬁlm-festival
References Abfalter, Dagmar (2012) “Authenticity and respect: Leading creative teams in the performing arts.” Creativity and Innovation Management 22 (3), 295–306. Agid, P. & Tarondeau, J.-C (2007) “Governance of major cultural institutions: The case of the Paris Opera.” International Journal of Arts Management 10 (1), 4–18. Bangarra Dance Theatre (2016) “Bangarra to tour New York and Paris.” Media Release, August 24, 2016, accessed at: https://bangarra-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/pdf/Media/Bangarra%20tours% 20to%20New%20York%20%26%20Paris%2024%20August%202016%20FINAL.pdf Bendixen, Peter (2000) “Skills and roles: Concepts of modern arts management.” International Journal of Arts Management 2 (3), 79–107. Benedict, Stephen (ed.) (1991) Public Money and the Muse. New York: W. W. Norton & Co. Bilton, Chris (2007) Management and Creativity: From Creative Industries to Creative Management. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Bradley, Andrew (2016) “School libraries face a bleak future as leaders try to balance the books.” The Guardian, April 7, 2016, accessed at: www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2016/apr/06/ school-libraries-bleak-future-leaders-balance-books Byrnes, William J. (2009) Management and the Arts. Woburn, MA: Focal Press. Carey, John (2005) What Good Are the Arts?London: Faber and Faber. Castañer, X. & Campos, L. (2002) “The determinants of artistic innovation: Bringing in the role of organizations.” Journal of Cultural Economics 26 (1), 29–52. Caust, J. (2010) “Arts and business: The impact of business models on the activities of major performing arts organisations in Australia.” Media International Australia, Incorporating Culture and Policy135, 32–44. Caust, J. (2005) “Does it matter who is in charge? The inﬂuence of the business paradigm on arts leadership and management.” The Asia Paciﬁc Journal of Arts and Cultural Management 3 (1), 99–103. Cray, David, Inglis, Loretta & Freeman, Susan (2007) “Managing the arts: Leadership and decision making under dual rationalities.” The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 36 (4), 295–313. Croucher, R. & Flew, T. (2012) Classiﬁcation Content Regulation and Convergent Media (ALRC Report), Australian Law Reform Commission, accessed at: www.alrc.gov.au/publications/3-m edia-convergence-and-transformed-media-environment/media-convergence-and-transform-0 De Paoli, Donatella (2013) “The Case of the Norwegian National Museum of Art.” In: Caust, Josephine (ed.) (2013) Arts Leadership International Case Studies. Melbourne: Tilde University Press, pp. 115–131.
Artforms and Arts Organizations
de Peuter, Greig (2014) “Beyond the model worker: Surveying a creative precariat.” Culture Unbound 6, 263–284. Douglas, Anne & Freemantle, Chris, with Performing Arts Labs, Cultural Enterprise Oﬃce, Scottish Leadership Foundation (2009) The Artist as Leader: Research Report. Aberdeen: Robert Gordon University, accessed at: https://openair.rgu.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10059/405/Douglas% 20Artist%20as%20Leader.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Ehrich, Lisa Catherine & English, Fenwick W. (2013) “Leadership as dance: A consideration of the applicability of the ‘mother’ of all arts as the basis for establishing connoisseurship.” International Journal of Leadership in Education 16 (4), 454–481. Filipovic, E. (2014) “When Exhibitions Become Form: On the History of the Artist as Curator.” The Artist as Curator, issue 41. Mousse Magazine, Milan, accessed at: http://moussemagazine.it/taac0 Fitzgibbon, Marion (2001) Managing Innovation in the Arts. London: Quorum Books. Furu, Patrick (2013) “The Art of Collaborative Leadership in Jazz Bands.” In: Caust, Josephine (ed.) Arts Leadership: International Case Studies. Melbourne: Tilde University Press, pp. 211–224. Gilboa, Avi & Tal-Shmotkin, Malka (2010) “String quartets as self-managed teams: An interdisciplinary perspective.” Psychology of Music 40 (1), 19–41. Gill, Rosalind & Pratt, Andy (2008) “Precarity and cultural work in the social factory? Immaterial labour, precariousness and cultural work.” Theory, Culture and Society 25, 1–30. Hattenstone, Simon (2016) “Carmen Herrera: Men controlled everything, not just art.” The Guardian, December 31, 2016, accessed at: www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/dec/31/carmen-her rera-men-controlled-everything-art Hewison, Robert (2004) “The crisis of cultural leadership in Britain.” International Journal of Cultural Policy 10 (2), 157–166. Hewison, Robert & Holden, John (2002) The Task Force Final Report, The Clore Leadership Programme, London, accessed at: http://cloreleadership.org/HoldenHewisonTaskForceReport.aspx Holden, John (2009) “How we value arts and culture.” Asia Paciﬁc Journal of Arts and Cultural Management 6 (2), 447–456. Hoyle, Sue & Swale, Robbie (2016) “Changing leaders in changing times.” Originally published by Arts Professional, accessed at: www.artsprofessional.co.uk/magazine/296/feature/changing-leaderschanging-times Lampe, Lilly (2015) “What goes on in the artist’s studio.” The New Yorker, April 16, 2015, accessed at: www.newyorker.com/culture/photo-booth/what-goes-on-in-the-artists-studio Landry, Charles & Hyams, Jonathon (2012) The Creative City Index: Measuring the Pulse of the City. Gloucestershire: Comedia. Lapierre, Laurent (2001) “Leadership and arts management.” International Journal of Arts Management 3 (3), 4–12. Lebourdais, George Phillip (2016) “A Brief History of the Artist’s Studio.” Artsy, August 27, 2016, accessed at: www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-why-do-we-care-about-an-artist-s-studio Manjoo, Farhad (2014) “Amazon’s Tactics Conﬁrm Its Critics’ Worst Suspicions.” New York Times, May 23, 2014, accessed at: https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/23/amazons-tactics-con ﬁrm-its-critics-worst-suspicions McClintock, Pamela (2017) “Box Oﬃce: ‘Captain America: Civil War’ Leads 2016 With $1.15B.” The Hollywood Reporter, accessed at: www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/top-grossing-m ovies-2016-20-best-box-oﬃce-earners-960788 McDaniel, N. & Thorn, G. (1993) Towards a New Arts Order. New York: Arts Action Research. McDaniel, N. & Thorn, G. (1990) Rethinking and Restructuring the Arts Organization. New York: FEDAPT. Mintzberg, Henry (1998) “Covert leadership: Notes on managing professionals.” Harvard Business Review, November–December, 140–147. Monteﬁore, Clarissa Sebag (2014) “Why piano-mania grips China’s children.” BBC Culture, October 21, 2014, accessed at: www.bbc.com/culture/story/20131022-piano-mania-grips-china
Artforms and Arts Organizations
Nisbett, Melissa & Walmsley, Ben (2016) “The romanticization of charismatic leadership in the arts.” The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 46, 2–12. Nochlin, Linda (1974) “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?” In: Hess, Thomas B. & Baker, Elizabeth C. (eds.) Art and Sexual Politics: Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?New York: Collier Books. O’Neill, Paul (2012) The Culture of Curating and the Curating of Cultures. Boston, MA: MIT Press. Ostrower, Francie (2004) Trustees of Culture: Power, Wealth, and Status on Elite Arts Boards. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Palmer, I. (1998) “Arts managers and managerialism: A cross-sector analysis of CEOs’ orientations and skills.” Public Productivity and Management Review 21 (4), 433–452. Pick, J. & Anderton, M. (1996) Arts Administration. London: Sporn. Rainie, Lee & Perrin, Andrew (2015) “Slightly fewer Americans are reading print books, new survey ﬁnds.” FactTank, Pew Research Center, October 19, 2015, accessed at: www.pewresea rch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/19/slightly-fewer-americans-are-reading-print-books-new-survey-ﬁnds Reid, Wendy (2013) “Dual Executive Leadership in the Arts – Remi Brousseau, Pierre Rousseau and Le Théâtre Denise-Pelletier.”In:Caust, Josephine (ed.) Arts Leadership: International Case Studies. Melbourne: Tilde University Press, pp. 96–111. Reynolds, Sarah, Tonks, Ann & MacNeill, Kate (2017) “Collaborative leadership in the arts as a unique form of dual leadership.” The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 47 (2), 89–104. Rushton, Michael (2014) “Hybrid organizations in the arts: A cautionary view.” The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 44, 145–152. Streitfeld, David (2014) “Amazon and Its Missing Books.” New York Times, October 12, 2014, accessed at: https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/10/12/amazon-and-its-missing-books/?_php= true&_type=blogs&ref=technology&_r=1 Sweney, Mark (2016) “Disney breaks $7bn global box oﬃce record for 2016.” The Guardian, December 21, 2016, accessed at: www.theguardian.com/ﬁlm/2016/dec/20/walt-disneysets-7bn-box-oﬃce-record-2016-star-wars-rogue-one Tharp, Kenneth Olumuyiwa (2016) “There are deﬁnitely times when a decision needs to be made, even it ends up being the wrong one…” In: Dalborg, Karin & Löfgren, Mikael (eds.) The Fika Project Narratives by Cultural Change Makers, Interviews by Sven Rånlund. Gottenberg: Näverkstan Kultur, pp. 84–97. Throsby, David & Zednik, Anita (2010) Do You Really Expect to Get Paid? An Economic Study of Professional Artists in Australia. Sydney: Australia Council. Wester, Nina (2016) “I’m a natural leader, it’s as simple as that…” In: Dalborg, Karin & Löfgren, Mikael (eds.) The Fika Project Narratives by Cultural Change Makers, Interviews by Sven Rånlund. Gottenberg: Näverkstan Kultur, pp. 22–32. Wu, Chin-Tao (2003) Privatising Culture. London: Verso. Yukl, G. E. (2002) Leadership in Organizations, 5th ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Zander, R. S. & Zander, B. (2000) The Art of Possibility. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School. Zickuhr, Kathryn, Rainie, Lee & Purcell, Kristen (2013) “Library Services in the Digital Age Part 1: The role of libraries in people’s lives and communities.” Pew Research Center, January 22, 2013, accessed at: http://libraries.pewinternet.org/2013/01/22/part-1-the-role-of-libraries-in-peoples-livesand-communities
The Individual and Arts Leadership
This chapter explores the notion of the individual arts leader as well as artists themselves as leaders. The discussion focuses on the essence of leadership. Is leadership an action, a perspective, a behavior, a position or simply a noun or a verb? Individual arts leaders are often the subject of intense scrutiny, either in the popular media or in academic literature. Some of these individuals may be arts managers, such as the American Michael Kaiser, who has demonstrated how it is possible to run an arts organization eﬃciently and eﬀectively without making a ﬁnancial loss (Kaiser 2008). Another is Mira Trailovic´, an innovative arts leader and entrepreneur who succeeded in producing great theater, despite the intrusion and restrictions of Tito’s regime in Yugoslavia from 1956 to 1989 (Šešic´ 2013). Then there are outstanding theater directors, such as Peter Brook, who has been able to provide new insights in theater or dance production and provide leadership to a whole group of artists and arts workers at the same time (Brook 1972). It may be an individual writer who has contributed at such a level that other writers see that person as a role model, such as the feminist and Nobel prize-winning writer Doris Lessing. Or it may be a visual artist who has pioneered a new movement or inspired others to see the world diﬀerently such as Frida Kahlo. Or it could be a polymath like Rabindranath Tagore, a Nobel prize winner in Literature, who excelled in many ﬁelds including music and visual arts as well as literature. Individuals have made enormous contributions in all ﬁelds of the arts while simultaneously being role models and mentors for others. However, there can also be a ‘dark’ side to this leadership, where arts leaders are seen as being given too much credit, power or inﬂuence for the work that is produced. In this chapter, there will be an exploration of all sides of arts leadership and the individual. Arts leadership has been frequently used as a model for its approach to leading a team, being able to work collaboratively, getting everyone to own a vision, or simply being able to make a group of people follow one leader in a constructive and creative way (Adler 2006; Handy 1999; Mintzberg 1998; Wetlaufer 1999). This chapter considers, then, in what ways artists are and can be considered leaders, and shows how leadership is exercised in the arts. Examples of individual arts leaders are many and any conversation about arts leadership needs to consider all the diﬀerent possibilities.
The Power of Art and Artists The nature of art-making is often concerned with thinking outside of the square, seeing the world in a diﬀerent way and interpreting experience or feelings in a unique manner. Shakespeare in his plays often commented on real political events, interpreting them in a manner that ordinary people of the time understood and could identify with. At the same
The Individual and Arts Leadership
time, he wrote love sonnets of exquisite beauty that reﬂected his own feelings, while providing universal appeal. Mozart was employed by the court of the 18th century to write music, yet the music he produced then is still seen as sublime 250 years later. Artists have played leadership roles across society, not just in their own artforms. They have made political or social statements that have had an international impact. For example, Picasso’s Guernica is seen as a potent statement about the impact of war. Likewise, both George Orwell’s 1984 and Gunter Grass’s The Tin Drum captured the impact of the 20th century’s extreme philosophies. Arundhati Roy’s book The God of Small Things makes comment about the personal damage caused by religious fanaticism. Artists can convey in a single image what is wrong, good or challenging about something. Or an artist can play a leadership role by the force of their approach to their own work. Jeﬀ Koons has succeeded in persuading a wide international audience that he is a ‘leader’ in the sphere of contemporary art. Koons has built credibility through a remarkably consistent embodiment of the stories he has told, underlined by his various art series. He has projected himself as an artist of the highest merit, and has unashamedly linked his own career to those of some of the most widely recognized artists of all time. (Reckhenrich et al. 2011: 24) In this statement, there is the notion that the artist has played a role in deﬁning their own importance as an artist. Thus some artists are seen as masters of self promotion. The power of art is unique and at times perhaps dangerous. Arts practice can take people to another place emotionally, physically, intellectually and spiritually. A piece of music such as La Marseillaise can invoke feelings of nationalism that lead people to do violent and unpleasant things. Alternatively, it can make a person feel uplifted and powerful and part of something that is greater than themselves. Or it can invoke feelings of such inexpressible sadness that the individual can become paralyzed by despair. Art can be construed as a diﬀerent ‘take’ on the world and artists can see what might be regarded as the ‘commonplace’ and give it a diﬀerent perspective. Artists can and have played a leadership role politically. In Singapore, there is a seat in parliament allocated for a person from the arts and cultural sector. The holder of this position is elected by their peers, usually for a term of about two years. In 2016, the person nominated for this position was Singaporean theater director, Kok Heng Leun (Tan 2016). Giving his maiden speech in parliament, he commented: When artists create in Singapore, we are told the rule is: create art to foster social harmony and community bonding. If you don’t do that, you are breaking the rule. But what if we want to create art that encourages critical thinking? What if we want to create art that asks diﬃcult questions? (Kok quoted by Tan 2016) In Singapore, there is government censorship and intervention in the arts (Chong 2015). Although there is generous funding for the arts, there is also a prescribed view of what ‘art’ should be. Ong Keng Sen (2016), another leading Singapore artist, also talks about the limitations of arts practice that is not allowed to mature, and continually being controlled and censored by the state. The arts have been used by the state as a means of making Singapore a more interesting environment for the visitor, as a way of creating social harmony and, framed within the creative industry model, as an economic driver
The Individual and Arts Leadership
(Chong 2015). Hence, Kok’s plea for artistic freedom in their national parliament is a powerful statement in the context of Singaporean society. On the other hand, Herbert Von Karajan, the conductor of the Berlin Philharmonic, and before that the Vienna Philharmonic, was regarded as a great conductor. He was also a member of the Nazi party, as were many members of both the Vienna Philharmonic and the Berlin Philharmonic during the 1930s and 1940s (Herman 1998). They supported the political views of the then state. At least six former members of the Vienna Philharmonic, who were Jewish, were executed in Nazi concentration camps over this period (Herman 1998). The playwright Vaclav Havel was the president of his country, Czechoslovakia, from 1989 to 1992. When the country was divided into Slovakia and the Czech Republic in 1993, he then became the president of the Czech Republic from 1993 to 2003. While overt political leadership by an artist such as Havel or even Ronald Reagan as President of the United States may be rare, it is common to see well-known actors, directors and artists take a public stand over issues such as global warming, women’s rights, military actions and so on. Sometimes this might involve becoming a member of parliament such as the actor Glenda Jackson in the United Kingdom. They may do this because they know their view, which may be controversial, will get more public attention because of their celebrity status. The conductor Daniel Barenboim has a deep commitment to encouraging a positive dialogue between the Israelis and the Palestinians. He has furthered this through his artform of music. Case Study 5.1 Daniel Barenboim and the West–Eastern Divan Orchestra Daniel Barenboim is by birth an Argentinian Jew who moved to Israel with his family at the age of nine. As a child prodigy, he was a pianist, making his international debut at the age of ten, but he started conducting in the 1960s. Barenboim has held many senior positions as a musical director, including at the Staatskapelle Berlin, La Scala in Milan and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. In 1999, Barenboim and Palestinian-American intellectual Edward Said together founded the West–Eastern Divan Orchestra, seeing it as a way of instigating a conversation between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. This orchestra consists of young musicians from Israel, Palestine and other Arab countries, and is based in Seville in Spain. In July 2012, the orchestra, conducted by Barenboim, performed the complete Beethoven symphonic cycle at the Proms in London, a feat rarely seen. In 2008, Barenboim was given honorary Palestinian citizenship. In 2016, the Barenboim– Said Academy opened in Berlin as a training center chieﬂy for young musicians from Middle Eastern and African countries. Daniel Barenboim has exempliﬁed arts leadership by his commitment to the development of better Palestinian–Israel relationships through his music. This has frequently meant that he is unpopular with the ruling forces in his home country of Israel, but he has continued nevertheless to demonstrate leadership in his behavior. Talking about why he co-founded the West–Eastern Divan Orchestra, Barenboim says: The Divan was conceived as a project against ignorance. A project against the fact that it is absolutely essential for people to get to know the other, to understand what the other thinks and feels, without necessarily agreeing with it. (Barenboim quoted by Vulliamy 2008)
The Individual and Arts Leadership Barenboim began performing in 1960 and still continues to work at a frenetic pace. He is full of new ideas and ways of improving understanding and knowledge. For example, he says that he wants to tackle the gulf between a class of musicians who are technically skilled but ignorant of their society, and a wider society that can’t understand classical music. (Barenboim quoted by Chakrabortty 2016). The West Divan Orchestra’s website: www.west-eastern-divan.org Daniel Barenboim’s website: http://danielbarenboim.com
Arts Leaders and Leadership What is understood about individual leaders is that they can be charismatic, imbued with a vision and transformational in their role. They are often then described as the ‘heroic’ leader and given credit for bringing about transformational change within an organization or in some cases an artform. In a recent international study about the qualities required for cultural leadership (Okvall 2016: 70), the respondents gave their top ﬁve ratings to:
ability to communicate a vison; spirit of collaboration; strategic thinking; creativity; and knowledge of the ﬁeld in which the leader operates.
The label of ‘charisma’ is not mentioned; however, the capacity to ‘communicate a vision’ is given the top rating and the second-top rating is given to ‘spirit of collaboration’. There is also mention of the need for ‘strategic thinking’ and ‘creativity’. ‘Knowledge of the ﬁeld’, which is the other usually preferred characteristic, comes in at ﬁfth. This study is more broadly located around notions of cultural leadership and is primarily aimed at people in the role of arts or cultural manager. Nevertheless, it is interesting as it indicates a change in emphasis, particularly with its mention of the need for collaboration (discussed further in Chapter 6). It is also noted further in the study that “it is not the role of leaders that has changed, but the expectations and perceptions of them” (Okvall 2016: 73). The arts are famous for outstanding individual leaders. When you think of leadership in the arts, you frequently think of such individuals: choreographers such as Pina Bausch, Martha Graham or Alvin Ailey; theater directors such as Robert Lepage, Peter Brook or Ariane Mnouchkine; and conductors such as Neville Mariner, Leonard Bernstein and Herbert von Karajan. The proﬁle of these individuals has often gone beyond their artform so that they have achieved a popular notoriety. In some cases, they have inﬂuenced their artform so signiﬁcantly that they have created a new form (think of Martha Graham in dance), or pioneered a completely diﬀerent style of work (Bertolt Brecht in theater). The term ‘charismatic leader’ is often applied to such people.
The Individual and Arts Leadership
Charismatic leaders diﬀer from other leaders by their ability to formulate and articulate an inspirational vision and by behaviours and actions that foster an impression that they and their mission are extraordinary. (Conger & Kanungo 1994: 442) Hence, leadership in this interpretation is ‘given’ rather than ‘taken’ through the sheer force of the individual’s personality and their ideas. Adler comments that there is a direct connection between great leadership and great artists. She suggests that both share the courage to see reality as it is; recognizing both its beauty and its ugliness (even when others refuse to see such a reality) … to envision possibility, including the possibility of creating beauty (even when others pejoratively label such aspirations and thinking as naïve); and … to inspire people to move from current reality back to possibility. (Adler 2015: 210) This connecting of great artists and great leaders is signiﬁcant, as it encapsulates the characteristics of why arts leadership is such an important conversation. Arts leaders can be a force for great good through their arts practice and because of it. They can demonstrate simple truths that can inﬂuence people to change their views about the way they live or how they understand an aspect of society. But they can also access a side of leadership described by Conger (1990) as the ‘dark’ side. In this case, the individual leader can demonstrate narcissism, intolerance for the weakness of others and an unstoppable ego that may achieve much but at a great cost to others. Individual arts leaders are often in a position of great inﬂuence and in this role can behave in a despotic and autocratic manner. Some individuals want to be the leader for reasons aligned to their own ego or insecurities, rather than because they have the skill set or the knowledge to be successful in the role. This lack of insight can cause problems because the individual needs to recognize that they must be both respected and be able to respect others in order to play the leader’s role. Artistic directors of theater companies, dance companies and opera companies have often also enjoyed enormous individual power. While this may provide them with the capacity to pursue their individual artistic vision to great eﬀect, it can also mean that they treat their fellow artists with disrespect and sometimes even emotional and physical violence. [C]harismatic leadership also has negative eﬀects on followers. Followers can develop an unhealthy dependence on the leader, diminishing their own ability for independent action. The desire to please the leader may also be seen as an obligation. (Cray et al. 2007: 299) Bad behavior by artistic leaders is often excused as artistic temperament when in fact it is just bad behavior. It is not acceptable to behave like a crazed adolescent or a tyrant because you are the leader. Justifying this in the context of arts practice is equally unacceptable. Historically, an autocratic style of leadership has been commonplace in many areas of the arts. It has been justiﬁed philosophically because there is a need for one clear vison to make the work come together. If there are several visions involved, then the resulting work may suﬀer. The director or choreographer involved must be assertive and controlling to ensure there is one vision that can be seen throughout the work to make the work
The Individual and Arts Leadership
particular and unique. To achieve this singularity of vision, it is then argued that the leader may need to be dominating, egoistic and autocratic in their behavior, so everyone is clear who is in charge. Further, while this may conform to the ‘male heroic’ model of leadership, this behavior may not necessarily be deﬁned by gender. The notion of the ‘guru’ arts leader, though, lives on and is often cited when considering arts leadership in diﬀerent contexts. Fitzgibbon has asserted that the guru model or despotic leader is, in her view, the ‘norm’ in the arts. She argues that leadership in the arts is often not ‘shared’ or ‘collaborative’: Not only is leadership dominant and tending at times towards the autocratic, but also in each instance, structures are skewed, albeit to varying degrees, to ensure the centralisation of power. (Fitzgibbon 2001: 169) Fitzgibbon suggests that, in fact, arts leadership functions in a way contrary to contemporary leadership literature in that, in many instances, a large amount of power is vested in one individual, and this individual’s creativity or artistic practice dominates everyone else involved. Fitzgibbon argues that the kind of leadership she has observed in the arts, and which in her view is required for innovation, is very diﬀerent from that described in some of the literature about leadership and innovation (Fitzgibbon 2001: 171). What is interesting here is that Fitzgibbon is arguing contrary to the views of others (Goleman 1998; Taormina 2010) that collaborative leadership is not essential for creative outcomes. She asserts that a dominant style of leadership is better and more eﬀective in the context of the arts. This suggests that the sort of leadership that Fitzgibbon is describing involves a single view/perspective that then dominates. Perhaps she is thinking here of the work, say, of a theater director who is putting their vision of a play together with a team of people. In the process of making the production, the director’s view is dominant, and it is expected that the other members of the team will give over to that individual’s vision. It is also observed that expectations of leadership in the performing arts can be skewed towards a more dominant and autocratic style, as long as it does not veer too much towards narcissism and the dark side of leadership. Respondents deem leadership something positive and necessary … leaders provide a compelling artistic vision, can build on acknowledged expertise and are authentic. (Abfalter 2012: 302) So, in this perspective, leadership is seen positively and as necessary for creative activity to occur in theater, but the leader needs to have acknowledged expertise and be authentic in their behavior. In the ballet world, a charismatic and autocratic model of leadership has given enormous power to the choreographer/director and, as an outcome, the dancers have been treated as children who must be shown how to behave. This exertion of power can even result in physical violence where a choreographer/director may hit the dancer to ensure their conformity/obedience. When reading about traditional ways of training dancers, physical violence is often a feature of the process (Cunxin 2003). As dancers are trained in the artform from an early age, they are accustomed to a dominating/powerful/patriarchal relationship between themselves and their teachers. The work of ballet also involves physical pain and forcing the body to do things it is not meant for (e.g. female dancers
The Individual and Arts Leadership
standing on their toes). To ensure the teacher gets the outcome they want, they may use any means to make the individual learn to force their body beyond normal tolerance. This can be taken even further when dancers perform with injury. Although they may be in physical agony, to complain would be received with disdain. This internalized culture of exaggerated obedience to the leader, tolerance of enormous discomfort and acceptance that the individual’s views do not matter has been commonplace in traditional ballet/dance company models. These mores then go into the dance company and can be present throughout the entire culture of a company. All employees are expected to be subservient to the overall leader and there is an exaggerated sense of formality and polite, deferential behavior exhibited by the dancers and the other members of staﬀ to the artistic leader. This complete ‘giving over’ to the leader can mean that the leader may believe that they have the right to behave poorly and treat their dancers with little respect. If the leader has a more charismatic style, they may enforce their view with humor and charm, but nevertheless be the absolute leader who must be obeyed. Australian dancer and artistic director Ross Stretton became very unpopular as leader of both the Australian Ballet Company and the Royal Ballet in the United Kingdom, primarily because of his cavalier and disrespectful treatment of dancers (Lawson & Fray 2002). It is noted in this respect: Ballet is a highly competitive art form in which many suﬀer due to the decisions of artistic directors, all of whom have preferences for the kind of dancers they like, personally and professionally. (Lawson & Fray 2002) This atmosphere of competition for limited roles can result in poor behavior on all sides. Certainly, the example of Sergei Filin at the Bolshoi Ballet is an extreme example of the internal pressures within a ballet company. Case Study 5.2 Sergei Filin and the Bolshoi Ballet The Bolshoi Ballet is known as one of the world’s great ballet companies. It also has a close identiﬁcation with the Russian state: it receives generous state subsidy, but it also receives direct interference by the government in its leadership. It is said that more than 40% of the decisions related to both artistic and ﬁnancial matters are taken by the party rather than the company itself (Mackrell 2016). There are more than 250 dancers employed by the company and the challenges involved in managing repertoire, dancers’ egos and demands from the state are enormous. In January 2013, the world was shocked to hear that Sergei Filin, then Artistic Director of the Bolshoi, had been attacked with acid by a male dancer from the company, with the resultant loss of sight in one eye. The story of the events surrounding this incident are depicted in a documentary ﬁlm titled Bolshoi Babylon. It seems that the motivation of the male dancer to attack the Director was that he felt his girlfriend, another dancer, was not getting the roles she deserved from Filin, who was responsible for casting. This, it seemed, drove him to attack Filin. He was subsequently jailed for several years for the crime.
The Individual and Arts Leadership What is interesting is that Filin himself was a former dancer who had been promoted to take on the leadership role. However, the role of leader, in the context of the Bolshoi, was seen by many of the dancers as a ‘poisoned chalice’ (Mackrell 2016). A dancer who becomes the leader has, in the terminology of the other dancers, gone over to the ‘dark side’. Accusations of bribery and favoritism were rife in the company and the tying of dancers’ salaries to their number of performances meant some dancers were struggling ﬁnancially, despite being a member of the prestigious company. A new General Director, Vladimir Urin, was appointed by the government in 2013 after the acid attack on Filin. Urin demonstrated a leadership style (recorded in the ﬁlm) of seemingly benign despotism, but he had no respect for Filin because of their prior history together at another ballet company. So, shortly after Urin’s appointment, Filin lost his job. It is hard to be an arts leader when the expectations of the leader are complex, contradictory and subject to external forces. The Bolshoi Ballet website: www.bolshoi.ru/en/persons/ballet/all Bolshoi Babylon website: www.hbo.com/documentaries/bolshoi-babylon
While the approach to leadership in ballet may be seen as cultural (i.e. part of the dance world) or essential to achieve complete conformity from the corps de ballet (i.e. the means to achieve absolute uniformity of, say, swan movement in Swan Lake), nevertheless it is a model of leadership that depends on others being prepared to ‘give over’ absolutely for the greater good. This model of arts leadership is becoming an outdated approach into the 21st century.
Contemporary Approaches to Arts Leadership Modern leaders in all artforms must learn how to work with others without needing to resort to behavior that is controlling, abusive and disrespectful. Nevertheless, it is important to consider whether a model of autocratic leadership, as Fitzgibbon asserts, is required in certain situations in the arts. If the scenario is directing a play, for example, then should the director be ruthless and autocratic to achieve their vision? While recognizing that this has been commonplace in the arts, the question remains as to whether it is a legitimate approach even if it is not ‘politically correct’? Perhaps the answer may be in recognizing that in a time when leadership and working with others was less well understood, then maybe being a strong and autocratic leader was the norm. But it is known now that it is possible to achieve a clear artistic vision without having to behave badly or bully people into doing what you want. Is there still a gray area philosophically around wanting to achieve one’s vision at any cost in a collaborative artform? When creating a work of art, a clear vision is often necessary. Whether this belongs to one individual or is shared by several, the same remains. The idea is what is important. But in the 21st century, behaving as a bully or a despot to achieve the idea is not acceptable and usually not tenable. Nowadays, artists are educated and more knowledgeable than they may have been 40 years ago. So being able to manipulate others into giving over and being subservient is more diﬃcult, if not impossible. Of course, it may occur but it is not in favor and would be seen as an aberration of ‘good’ leadership when it happens. Further, the power of the leader can be seen now as unbalanced. For example, Glow comments:
The Individual and Arts Leadership
In the arts and cultural sector there is a sense of the exaggerated agency of its leaders; exaggerated because it tends to be leader-centric and focused on the achievements of individuals. (Glow 2013: 133) The discussion then needs to be about how to develop a successful leadership style in a collaborative setting that brings people with you and enables you to achieve a vision. While this is explored in more depth in Chapter 6, the truth is that along the journey ideas are altered by the input of others and the reality of working with people. There is a need then to develop a skill base where others are happy to give over and work on your idea, or where there is a sharing of both ideas and outcomes. There is likely to be conﬂict on that journey as part of the creative process and so managing conﬂict without having to either throw a tantrum or become a tyrant is essential. If, say, you are a theater director, you are generally working with people who share a similar commitment to making a play work. They bring to the rehearsal space often a highly developed set of skills that must be acknowledged. Although it may be your vision, there are other people involved who are working with you to achieve it. All the various people involved have experience and skills that are critical to making the whole piece work. It is dependent then on the director to respect this collective experience and make it work to serve their vision. A truism about leadership is that a leader is not a leader without followers. As noted in Chapter 1 DePree says: Leaders are given the gift of leadership by those who choose or agree to follow. (DePree quoted in Drucker 1990: 37) A subservient and intimidated follower may be a vestige of the past. Although it still may occur in isolated cases, the capacity to assert an autocratic leadership style nowadays in contemporary society is less likely. Communication devices such as phones and tablet computers mean that there is much greater transparency and the capacity for exhibiting uncivilized behavior without being caught out is quite low. In addition, attitudes and cultures have generally changed so that behavior based around mutual respect and autonomy is more common now than behavior based on fear and control. Even in the conservative world of ballet, the need for mutual respect and good communication between the leader and the followers is a necessity. David MacAllister became the new Artistic Director of the Australian Ballet Company after the era of Ross Stretton in 2001. He notes: What was important to the dancers were things like communication skills, and an openness … they were looking for a more mutually respectful relationship with whoever was appointed. (MacAllister quoted in Perkin 2001) MacAllister, like others before him, was a dancer taking on the leadership role, but his approach to that role was diﬀerent. Although he had been an outstanding dancer, he did not believe that was all that was needed for the role. For example, he educated himself in aspects of arts management by completing a university qualiﬁcation in this before taking on the role.
The Individual and Arts Leadership When talking about the arts leader in practice, Schlesinger notes: Leadership rests on having a deep, critical knowledge of a particular ﬁeld (arts practice, organisational practice or policy making) and having the knowledge to articulate this knowledge in accessible ways. (Schlesinger quoted in Douglas & Freemantle 2009: 37)
Schlesinger’s argument is that to receive the respect of their peers, an arts leader needs to be able to demonstrate deep knowledge in one of these ﬁelds and then communicate successfully about their expertise with their colleagues. This suggests a need for emotional intelligence (Goleman 1998), as well as specialized knowledge, to be successful in an arts leadership role. However, it should also be recognized that Many arts organizations are founded by an individual with a passionate commitment to a particular art form and usually a sound reputation in the ﬁeld. (Cray et al. 2007: 299) Their skill base comes from their artform expertise not their organizational or leadership skills. Hewison points out that, historically, values within the arts milieu have also provided barriers to understanding leadership. For example, there is a common belief – albeit diﬀerently expressed – in both the museum and performing arts sector that professional expertise is more important than good management, and that leaders are born, not trained. (Hewison 2004: 161) This means that arts leaders and those aspiring to be arts leaders of organizations do not necessarily value the development of leadership and management skills to do their job. They believe that innate leadership skills and expertise in their ﬁeld are all that is required for the role (De Paoli 2013). Hence, individuals take on arts leadership roles without any prior leadership training or expected skill development that is usually taken for granted in other ﬁelds. While they may be an expert in, say, European art, their capacity to run an art museum and the complexities that that involves may not have been considered or seen as relevant. Similarly, a good director of plays may go into the role of artistic director of a theater company without recognizing that playing the overall leadership role requires a completely diﬀerent set of skills. This can result in many diﬃculties both for the individual involved and for the organization. A Norwegian artistic director, Nina Wester, who had already been in her role for four years, and who professed to being a natural-born leader, acknowledges these limitations when she says: One important realisation for me has been that, in addition to artistic knowledge and inner strength, you also need experience of leadership to understand how some things work. (Wester 2016: 29) A reluctance to acknowledge the beneﬁt of taking a more professional approach to being in an arts leadership role is changing, however. Various cultural leadership training programs have emerged over the past few years, attached to universities, funding bodies,
The Individual and Arts Leadership
private foundations, cultural institutions or professional associations. One of the best-known of these is the Clore Leadership Programme1 in the United Kingdom. This was begun in 2004 after an extensive report was prepared about the needs of arts and cultural leaders authored by Robert Hewison and John Holden (2002). One graduate (or Fellow as they are called) of this program, Kenneth Tharp, CEO of The Place in London, and a former dancer, notes: [The Programme] helped me to make a very signiﬁcant transition to a very diﬀerent kind of role. I don’t think I would have had the courage to even apply for the position without having done that … (Tharp 2016: 98) There is an acknowledgement here that Tharp’s specialized knowledge in dance is not going to be enough to run an organization overall. Maria Balshaw (see Chapter 3), the ﬁrst woman to be appointed to the position of Director of the Tate in London (which has four major galleries under the umbrella of one organization), was also a graduate of the Clore Programme from its ﬁrst intake of 2004 (Tate London 2017). On the other hand, there is also recognition by some artists that they don’t want to take on a leadership role in an organization. While they may see themselves as a ‘leader’ in their artistic ﬁeld, they don’t want to have the additional responsibility of being an organizational leader. [I]t is not linear – artists who manifest the ability to lead do not necessarily want to enter positions of organisational leadership. (Douglas & Freemantle 2009: 28) Further, they may believe that if they do take that step under peer pressure, they may sacriﬁce their own arts practice in the process. The demands of leading an organization are diﬀerent to, say, directing a performance. If the needs of the organization take over, then there may be little energy left to do what may be seen as the more important work by the individual – that of making art. A challenge for any artist is to shift from being a member of a group of artists to being the leader of that group. As a member of a group, everyone is a ‘peer’, but when a peer becomes the leader, then they are taking the responsibility for the whole group, not just themselves. This change in status demands and expects a shift of perspective and behavior by the individual. It is not possible to be accepted as a peer within the group, as that person is now playing a diﬀerent role. This is illustrated clearly in the earlier case of Sergei Filin at the Bolshoi. Being popular and being one of the gang is not expected of the leader. That individual carries much more responsibility and makes decisions about the welfare of the group. David MacAllister, who shifted from being a member of the Australian Ballet to being its leader, notes when needing to make unpopular decisions: It is very diﬃcult, but I have to preface every decision I make with the question … “is this good for the Australian Ballet?” And that’s what I always aim to do. (MacAllister quoted in Perkin 2001) Thus, in the role of leader MacAllister needs to consider the collective needs, rather than the individual needs, including his own.
The Individual and Arts Leadership
Do Artists See Themselves as Leaders? When Wallis (2011), talks about the desire to interest arts leaders in Australia in a leadership training program, she observes that many of the people she approached did not identify themselves as leaders and were embarrassed to be described that way. The thing that really bowled me over though, was that some outstanding artists felt so uncomfortable about identifying themselves as leaders that we had to beseech them to apply for the new $20K grants for leadership development. (Wallis 2011) This ambivalence about the use of the term ‘leader’ may be cultural in the Australian context (where a meritocracy rules), or it may suggest that while artists play a leadership role, they may not acknowledge it or even want it identiﬁed. Indeed, this reluctance to use nomenclature such as ‘leaders’ and ‘followers’ is noted by others. Singapore theater artist, Ong Keng Sen (2016) says he does not see himself as a ‘leader’; instead, he thinks he plays a ‘mentoring’ role with other peers. Another aspect of how the term ‘leadership’ is understood in the arts sector is that while an individual is in a role of leadership, they may not believe that title describes their role adequately. Sutherland and Gosling (2010) observed in the United Kingdom that interviewees who were asked about their leadership saw it as not being conﬁned to running a particular arts/cultural organization. They saw their role in broader terms, described by them as cultural advocates and facilitators (Sutherland and Gosling 2010). Wallis also comments that arts/cultural leaders in her view are the people from whom the Australia Council seeks advice, or talks to, about various issues that occur. In other words, arts leaders are the ‘elders’ or the ‘experts’ in an area, and therefore worthy of seeking an opinion from or listening to. Often individuals are thrust into a leadership role without necessarily seeking it. In these cases, it is incumbent on the individual to recognize that being the leader is not easy. It is essential as a leader to be knowledgeable about yourself and recognize what are your strengths and weaknesses. Likewise, it is critical to recognize that other people may be very diﬀerent to you in the way they approach a problem, and it is likely their strengths and weaknesses will be diﬀerent from your own. In this situation, it is important to see diversity as a strength within a group and then work out a way to bring out the best in others as well as yourself. This is in fact what happens when putting together a play or a dance piece. Everyone has a diﬀerent set of skills, strengths and experiences. Harnessing these diﬀerent strengths is the key to making the work you are doing achieve your vision. Another issue in the arts context is whether the leader has to be seen as the best artist in a group. Can you occupy a leadership position in a dance company, for instance, when you are not known as the most accomplished dancer? Andrew Senior, then working at the British Council and interviewed for an arts leadership study by Ann Douglas and Chris Freemantle (2009), is quoted as saying that often the person who can be a great arts leader is not the best artist but has other strengths, such as a developed understanding of cultural policy, for example (Senior cited in Douglas & Freemantle 2009: 25). As Schlesinger noted earlier, there are more requirements in a leadership role than just knowledge or expertise in an artform. There is a need too for the capacity to be a good communicator, be respectful of your peers and to be able to demonstrate ethical standards in your behavior. Perhaps this is where both Stretton and Filin were lacking; their followers
The Individual and Arts Leadership
could not respect them as leaders because they did not demonstrate respect for their peers or were not transparently ethical in their behavior. Hence, a leader working with peers who are all knowledgeable, skilled and creative cannot just rely on the ‘positional role’ they are in to carry or communicate their leadership. They need to engender the trust and respect of their peers in order for them to want to follow/engage and be part of achieving a vision. As Ong Keng Sen says: I don’t think of what I do as being a leader; it’s just me being true to myself … it’s very intrinsic to me. I don’t see it as artistic leadership. It is for want of a better phrase, leadership by a particular artist. (Ong Keng Sen 2016: 21) Individual artists who play a leadership role can frequently be branded as ‘mavericks’ and be the target of oﬃcial disapproval if their opinions or actions are not approved by the powers that be. This means that they may have to exercise great personal strength to maintain what may be seen as an unorthodox approach within the society in which they live. The Chinese artist Ai Weiwei is an example of this approach to leadership. Case Study 5.3 Ai Weiwei Ai Weiwei is a Chinese artist who works across several disciplines. He is the son of the famous Chinese poet Ai Qing who introduced him to the arts at a young age. Weiwei is a visual artist, poet, architect, curator and expert on Chinese antique craftwork. He uses video, installations, woodwork and photography in his visual arts practice. He has been seen as a leader of the Chinese avant-garde art movement since the 1990s. He is also regarded as a high-proﬁle political activist in China and for this has been subject to prison and house arrest on several occasions. During the 1990s, Weiwei published three manifestos that documented the work of Chinese avant-garde artists. These were called the Black (1994), White (1995) and Grey (1997) books. The books included interviews with various artists as well as illustrations of their work. In 1997, he founded the alternative art space in Beijing called the China Art Archives and Warehouse where he curated exhibitions of the work of the avant-garde artists. In 1999, he designed and built his own studio and from that point has been involved as an architect on many projects. This included working with the Swiss architectural ﬁrm Herzog and de Meuron on the stadium for the 2008 Beijing Olympics called the ‘Bird’s Nest’. In 2006, Weiwei also began his own internet blog in which he documented his daily life as an artist, as well as writing about the life and culture of his country and commenting on political events. The blog became internationally known with more than 100,000 subscribers; however, the Chinese government shut down his blog in May 2009. In 2008, Weiwei became involved in exposing the scandal around the construction of schools in Sichuan following the earthquake there in May 2008 that killed thousands, many of them schoolchildren. He initiated a ‘Citizen’s Investigation’ of the scandal which began as a blog. As part of this investigation, he published the names of all the children who died and by April 2009 had accumulated 5,385 names. For being involved in this investigation, he was arrested and beaten by the police,
The Individual and Arts Leadership
suffering a cerebral hemorrhage as a result. From this time on, he was frequently harassed by the police, jailed or put under house arrest and subject to restrictions in travel. In May 2015 he was awarded Amnesty International’s Ambassador of Conscience Award, although he could not attend the ceremony. It was not until July 2015 that he was again allowed to travel freely outside of China. Weiwei’s work has been seen in many galleries across the globe. Talking about his work, he says: I like to use the most common objects. Even in my art, I use things like shoes or a table. These things are already cultured. People have already put a lot of knowledge and thought into them. (Weiwei quoted in Obrist 2011: 57) He sees art in everyday objects and wants others to recognize this too. Weiwei has demonstrated leadership on many fronts: in his political activism, in his promotion of avant-garde artists and in his own arts practice.
Other Ways of Seeing Arts Leadership Reckhenrich et al. (2011) talk about the way artists project themselves as leaders or innovators, relying on the uniqueness of their ‘story’ as the basis of their credibility. They note here how this connects with ideas by Gardner (1995) of three story lines used by leaders to excite and gain commitment from their followers: Who am I? Who are we? Where are we going? Using the example of the artist Jeﬀ Koon, they relate his artistic journey (or story) over more than 20 years, observing how “storytelling linked to his artwork has been the key element of the way he has projected himself as a credible leader in the world of contemporary art” (Reckhenrich et al. 2011: 12). They note further that by developing his story and by connecting himself with other artistic innovators, Koon has built his own credibility through a remarkably consistent embodiment of the stories he has told (Reckhenrich et al. 2011: 12). This notion of embodiment is another crucial theme when discussing arts leadership. It centers on the notion that the leadership is embodied within the actions of the leader. So there is little separation between the leader and their actions. Frequently, when talking about art, there is a sense that the individual artist sees their artwork as part of themselves – there is no physical separation. The Singaporean theater artist, Ong Keng Sen says, “For me art is about an encounter with the self” (2016: 11). This lack of separation means that the artist and their art are one; if you criticize their art, they may feel that you are also criticizing the person who made it. Hence, the notion of ‘embodied’ leadership is particularly relevant when talking about arts leadership. Bathurst and Cain (2013) discuss embodied leadership through the lens of music and cite the orchestral conductor as an example of embodied leadership. They talk about the use of ‘gesture’ in particular, as a signiﬁer of intent and indicative of leadership embodied within the individual. They also argue that the audience is subject to the process of embodiment through their identiﬁcation with a work of art. Another aspect of conducting is that, as Zander and Zander (2000) note, it is usually done in silence. Therefore, the conductor leads the musicians by gesture and eye contact. Although words will be exchanged during rehearsal, in performance there is no room for conversation. This again illustrates ‘embodied’ leadership (Bathurst and Cain 2013).
The Individual and Arts Leadership
An orchestral conductor has to be adept at getting a large group of people with different skills, but a shared knowledge/passion for music, to work as a team and produce a piece of artistic work. Often this is done over a limited period of time with one or two rehearsals, so the conductor’s skills at bringing everyone on to the same page quickly is signiﬁcant. It is said that sometimes this is about enforcing the conductor’s will on the group and making everyone realize who is in charge. At other times, it is seen as understanding how to get the best out of people in a short period of time. The conductor has a vision of what they want to achieve at the end of the day and within the allotted rehearsal time, so their skill depends on the way they communicate their ideas and then essentially coaching everyone to achieve it.
Can Arts Leadership Be Seen to Have a Broader Inﬂuence? In a study of the impact of arts leadership in the sustainability of regional communities, Radbourne (2003) argues that arts leaders can play two roles: ‘visionary’ or ‘enabler’. She sees ‘enablers’ as those who create opportunities for artists or creative activities to take place, and ‘visionaries’ as those who are imbued with a vision and are willing to take risks to ensure it is realized. She notes that arts leaders themselves identify several ways in which they demonstrate leadership within a community, including supporting artists, developing talent, advising, mentoring and building networks and trust- responses that support a collectivity of arts leadership. (Radbourne 2003: 223) She notes further that, as an outcome, arts leaders play a crucial role in the cultural sustainability of regional communities. Other arts leaders talk about their relationship to their community at large and the responsibility this entails. There are many communities inﬂuenced by an arts company and they are not homogenous, so being clear about who you are responsible to, who you are inﬂuenced by or are inﬂuencing are all challenging questions. Sue Hoyle and Robbie Swale from the Clore Leadership Program in the United Kingdom observe that whatever path the 21st century leader treads, all leaders need to take people with them. Audiences, colleagues, staﬀ and peers will need their support. Above all, a leader nurtures people, creating communities that don’t just survive but thrive in today’s world and supporting and developing the next generation of leaders and artists who can pick up the baton after them. (Hoyle & Swale 2016) They see that there is responsibility for arts leaders to create arts communities that have an ongoing life after their departure. There is an emphasis here too on nurturing and supporting future leaders to continue the challenges that go with art-making.
Final Comment Artists and arts leaders are often leaders in more than their arts practice. Artists and arts leaders are continually faced with the need/expectation to do more. They may be directly engaged with their arts practice, but in addition they may be engaged with an audience,
The Individual and Arts Leadership
an artform, a state and a society. Hence, the demands on individual arts leaders are challenging, complex and extensive. Unlike some corporate positions of leadership which frequently equate their primary responsibility as providing returns to shareholders, in the arts and cultural context there can be many communities (and stakeholders) to whom responsibility is owed. Not everyone who is an outstanding artist is skilled enough to be an arts leader; arts leadership requires diﬀerent skills and knowledge, and this needs to be understood by those taking on leadership roles, particularly of arts organizations.
Note 1 http://cloreleadership.org
References Abfalter, Dagmar (2012) “Authenticity and respect: leading creative teams in the performing arts.” Creativity and Innovation Management 22 (3), 295–306. Adler, Nancy (2015) “Finding beauty in a fractured world: art inspires leaders – leaders change the world.” Academy of Management Review 40 (3), 480–494. Adler, Nancy (2006) “The arts and leadership: Now that we can do anything, what will we do?” Academy of Management and Learning & Education 5 (4), 486–499. Bathurst, Ralph & Cain, Trudie (2013) “Embodied leadership: The aesthetics of gesture.” Leadership 9 (3), 358–377. Brook, Peter (1972) The Empty Space. Harmondsworth: Pelican Chakrabortty, Aditya (2016) “Daniel Barenboim on ageing, mistakes and why Israel and Iran are twin brothers.” The Guardian, August 16, 2016, accessed at: www.theguardian.com/music/ 2016/aug/16/daniel-barenboim-on-ageing-mistakes-and-why-israel-and-iran-are-twin-brothers Chong, Terence (2015) “Deviance and Nation Building.” In: Caust, Josephine (ed.) Arts and Cultural Leadership in Asia. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 15–25. Conger, Jay A. (1990) “The dark side of leadership.” Organizational Dynamics 19 (2), 44–55. Conger, J. A. & Kanungo, R. N. (1994) “Charismatic leadership in organizations: perceived behavioral attributes and their measurement.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 15, 439–445. Cray, David, Inglis, Loretta & Freeman, Susan (2007) “Managing the arts: leadership and decision making under dual rationalities.” The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 36 (4). 295–313. Cunxin, Li (2003) Mao’s Last Dancer. Melbourne: Penguin Books. De Paoli, Donatella (2013) “The Case of the Norwegian National Museum of Art.” In: Caust, Josephine (ed.) Arts Leadership International Case Studies. Melbourne: Tilde University Press, pp. 115–131. Douglas, Anne & Freemantle, Chris (2009) The Artist as Leader Research Report, On the Edge Research, Gray’s School of Art, The Robert Gordon University with Performing Arts Labs, Cultural Enterprise Oﬃce and Scottish Leadership Foundation, accessed at: https://ontheedgere search.ﬁles.wordpress.com/2011/02/artistasleader.pdf Drucker, Peter (1990) Managing the Non-proﬁt Organization. New York: Harper Collins. Fitzgibbon, M. (2001) Managing Innovation in the Arts. London: Quorum Books. Gardner, H. (1995) Leading Minds: An Anatomy of Leadership. New York: Basic Books. Glow, Hilary (2013) “Cultural Leadership and Audience Engagement: A Case Study of the Theatre Royal Stratford East.” In: Caust, Josephine (ed.) Arts Leadership International Case Studies. Melbourne: Tilde University Press, pp. 132–144. Goleman, Daniel (1998) “What makes a leader?” Harvard Business Review, November–December), 93–102. Handy, Charles (1999) The New Alchemists. London: Hutchinson.
The Individual and Arts Leadership
Herman, Jan (1998) “Vienna Philharmonic Still Under Fire.” Los Angeles Times, February 28, 1998, accessed http://articles.latimes.com/print/1998/feb/27/entertainment/ca-23437 Hewison, Robert (2004) “The crisis of cultural leadership in Britain.” International Journal of Cultural Policy 10 (2), 157–166. Hewison, Robert & Holden, John (2002) The Task Force Final Report, The Clore Leadership Programme, London, accessed at: http://cloreleadership.org/HoldenHewisonTaskForceReport. aspx Hoyle, Sue & Swale, Robbie (2016) “Changing leaders in changing times.” Originally published by Arts Professional, accessed at: www.artsprofessional.co.uk/magazine/296/feature/changing-leaderschanging-times Kaiser, Michael M. (2008) The Art of the Turnaround. Lebanon, NH: Brandeis University Press. Lawson, Valerie & Fray, Peter (2002) “Ross Stretton’s royal downfall.” The Age, September 27, 2002, accessed www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/09/27/1032734315215.html Mackrell, Judith (2016) “‘If the Bolshoi is sick, it’s because Russia is too’: The ballet company’s backstage dramas.” The Guardian, January 4, 2016, accessed at: www.theguardian.com/stage/da nce-blog/2016/jan/04/bolshoi-babylon-ﬁlm-ballet-acid-attacks-sergei-ﬁlin-russia Mintzberg, Henry (1998) “Covert leadership: Notes on managing professionals.” Harvard Business Review, November–December, 140–147. Obrist, Hans Ulrich (2011) Al Weiwei Speaks with Hans Ulric Obrist. London: Penguin. Okvall, Meredith (ed.) (2016) Report of 7th World Summit on Arts & Culture Valletta Malta 2016. Valletta, Malta: IFACCA. Ong, Keng Sen (2016) “We are all in some way involved in a kind of ‘world creating process’.” In: Dalborg, Karin & Löfgren, Mikael (eds.) The Fika Project Narratives by Cultural Change Makers, Interviews by Sven Rånlund. Gottenberg: Näverkstan Kultur, pp. 10–21. Perkin, C. (2001) “The dancer’s leap of faith.” The Age, September 2, 2001, previously available at: www.theage.com.au/entertianement/2001/09/02FFX2MWPA2RC.html Radbourne, Jennifer (2003) “Regional development through the enterprise of arts leadership.” The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 33 (3), 211–227. Reckhenrich, Jorg, Kupp, Martin & Anderson, Jamie (2011) “Made in heaven – produced on earth: Creative leadership as art of projection.” Journal of Business Strategy 32 (4), 12–24. Šešic´, Milena Dragic´evic´ (2013) “The Leadership Style of Mira Trailovic´: an entrepreneurial spirit in a bureaucratic world.” In: Caust, Josephine (ed.) Arts Leadership International Case Studies. Melbourne: Tilde University Press, pp. 19–34. Sutherland, Ian & Gosling, Jonathon (2010) “Cultural leadership: Mobilizing culture from aﬀordances to dwellings.” Journal of Arts, Law and Society 40, 6–26. Tan, Jeanette (2016) “This parliamentary speech by Arts Nominated MP Kok Heng Leun is more important than you think.” mothership.sg, April 6, 2016, accessed at: http://mothership.sg/2016/ 04/this-parliamentary-speech-by-arts-nominated-mp-kok-heng-leun-is-more-important-than-youthink Taormina, Robert J. (2010) “The art of leadership: An evolutionary perspective.” International Journal of Arts Management 13 (1), 41–55. Tate London (2017) “Maria Balshaw appointed New Director of Tate.” Press Release, January 17, 2017, accessed at: www.tate.org.uk/about/press-oﬃce/press-releases/maria-balshaw-appointednew-director-tate Tharp, Kenneth (2016) “There are deﬁnitely times when a decision needs to be made, even if it ends up being the wrong one…” In: Dalborg, Karin & Löfgren, Mikael (eds.) The Fika Project Narratives by Cultural Change Makers, Interviews by Sven Rånlund. Gottenberg: Näverkstan Kultur. Vulliamy, Ed (2008) “Bridging the gap, part two.” The Guardian, July 13, 2008, accessed at: www. theguardian.com/music/2008/jul/13/classicalmusicandopera.culture Wallis, Lyn (2011) “Arts leadership.” ArtsHub, March 25, 2011, accessed at: www.artshub.com.au/ news-article/features/all-arts/lyn-wallis/arts-leadership-183532
The Individual and Arts Leadership
Wester, Nina (2016) “I’m a natural leader, it’s as simple as that…” In: Dalborg, Karin & Löfgren, Mikael (eds.) The Fika Project Narratives by Cultural Change Makers, Interviews by Sven Rånlund. Gottenberg: Näverkstan Kultur, pp. 22–32. Wetlaufer, S. (1999) “Under the big top.” Harvard Business Review 77 (5). Zander, R. S. & Zander, B. (2000) The Art of Possibility. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
Collaborative Approaches and Arts Leadership
A concept of ‘leadership’ on its own implies that one individual is at the front providing a pathway for the followers or those behind. A model of collaborative leadership is the opposite – leadership is an action that is ‘shared’ or ‘distributed’. If leadership is providing direction, there may be concern that the overall direction will become confused when several people are providing it. Thus, the notion of ‘collaborative leadership’ may be seen by some as an oxymoron because the two concepts are seemingly in opposition to each other. Although this can be true, a model of collaborative leadership often works successfully in particular contexts. The arts sector is one of those contexts. For example, in artforms such as theater, dance and music in particular, leadership is frequently collaborative or the process of making the work is collaborative. While these two concepts are diﬀerent, there is also an overlap. To explore the notion of collaborative leadership and artistic collaboration within artforms further, it is essential to see how collaborative leadership is understood or considered in the literature.
Understandings of Collaborative Leadership A challenge for addressing the notion of collaborative leadership is that there are diﬀerent ways of describing a collaborative leadership model. There is literature related to team leadership, collaborative leadership, shared leadership, distributed leadership and leadership partnerships which are often all conﬂated into the concept of collaborative leadership. In fact, they have diﬀerent characteristics and they are not all about collaboration. Lash notes, for instance, that while collaboration is an eﬀective way to work in large organizations, “the skills required for eﬀective collaboration are not the same as knowing how to work eﬀectively in a functional team” (Lash 2012). Working in a team or even leading a team is seen by Lash as diﬀerent to collaboration or collaborative leadership. A leadership partnership may only involve two players, so while it is a collaboration between those two, it doesn’t necessarily involve others in the decision-making role. Sharing leadership is described as sharing power and inﬂuence among a set of individuals rather than centralizing it in the hands of a single individual who acts in the clear role of a dominant superior. (Pearce et al. 2009: 234) This model of shared leadership suggests that leadership is shared or distributed within a group without anyone necessarily being the traditional ‘boss’. Pearce et al. (2009) argue that because of increasing complexity in the broader environment, there is a need to share
Collaborative Approaches and Arts Leadership
leadership across organizations in order to arrive at good decision-making. In addition, the advantage of shared leadership is that Everyone is involved in the leadership process when and where he or she is best able to contribute. (Pearce et al. 2009: 236) When considering leadership within teams, many of the same issues re-emerge. There is the implication in the concept of ‘team’ leadership that a team is a smaller group within a larger group. So there might be several teams within a larger organization, all addressing diﬀerent problems. The team leader’s role is to keep everyone on track and focused on achieving the task through the process of the group working together. This might equate to the case of, say, an art studio where there may be one designated artist leader, but there are others working with that leader as part of a team to achieve a task. This can be seen to be contentious in the case of the artist Damian Hirst, where he employs several artist assistants to help him produce an artwork. This practice has been criticized by other artists, such as David Hockney. Hockney notes that the work that he does, with his signature on it, is purely his work alone and not that of others (Hockney 2012). It is known that artists such as Michelangelo also worked with teams of assistants and apprentices, but in Michelangelo’s case they were only permitted to do small decorative bits, ﬁnishing bits or mixing the materials. There is a question, then, of where does the team begin and the individual leader disappear, and whose work is it in the end? Does it belong to the group or the individual who led the group? Alternatively, the leadership of the team might be shared within the team, so the team is self-managing (Druskat & Wheeler 2003). The team members then have to work successfully as a group to achieve the task. Thus, the task of the team is just one aspect of a larger problem or challenge. However, as it is a task that cannot be solved by one individual, there is a need for a team of people to address it. In relation to distributed leadership, there is a sense that leadership is shared according to the strengths and skills of the members. But this may not be a constant occurrence, so distributed leadership happens when it is needed, and then at other times more top-down leadership may occur (Gronn 2002). In this reading, distributed leadership might be framed as an occasional necessary ‘practice’ rather than a constant feature. There are further ways of describing leadership models that center on collaboration, and a premise of these approaches is that leadership is not the action of one individual but the combined actions and interactions of several people. There is the use of the term ‘relational’ leadership where leadership is a process of bringing people together to pursue a shared goal (Uhl-Bien 2006). Following Gagnon et al. (2012), there is also ‘aﬃliative’ leadership that centers on the capacity of the leader to develop relationships, being open to whatever happens and allowing for sharing of control in terms of outcomes. This allows for the possibility that others’ views are as important or as useful as one’s own (Gagnon et al. 2012). It is argued by several writers that the concept of collaborative leadership is being increasingly embraced because of the complexity and multiple demands of the contemporary workplace (Ansell & Gash 2012; Gronn 2008; Lash 2012). O’Toole, Galbraith and Lawler comment that the need for shared leadership in mainstream business arises
Collaborative Approaches and Arts Leadership
when the challenges a corporation faces are so complex that they require a set of skills too broad to be possessed by any one individual. (O’Toole et al. 2002: 68) Complex problem solving is seen then as a main instigator for sharing the leadership process. Further, O’Toole et al. (2002) argue that shared leadership works best when the leaders have complementary skills. Others argue: Leadership, we claim, is similarly a collaborative process which continually invites people into the aﬀective domain where actions will occur. (Bathurst & Cain 2013: 371) So here it is proposed that leadership by its intrinsic nature is collaborative. This is in contrast to a model that sees leadership as the role of one individual. Clearly, a successful shared leadership model relies on there being both peer respect and mutual skill acknowledgment between the players. Gronn, in fact, talks about the notion of a ‘heterarchy’ instead of a ‘hierarchy’ (Gronn 2008): In a heterarchy, leadership is shared laterally, and decisions are made by individuals who have both status and expertise in the community. (Kennedy et al. 2011: 22) A challenge for this approach is that managers and positional leaders do not necessarily have the skill set to function successfully in a collaborative environment. If leadership is shared, then the participants need to exhibit emotional intelligence and skill in managing relationships (Goleman 2000; Senge 1992). A study from an education context demonstrates the way that leadership can be shared in a large and complex organization, so that diﬀerent areas of expertise are acknowledged and included (Kennedy et al. 2011). For this model to work, though, the authors note that all the participants must be regarded with respect by the other participants. They are all peers and must view each other as peers. It is noted here that in an educational context “[t]he principal played the role of a colleague and critical friend” (Kennedy et al. 2011: 22). So the positional leader of the organization – in this case, the principal – is there as a peer as well as a sounding board or reﬂector for the others; in this way, the positional leader is not playing the role of the ‘boss’ or ‘leader’, although they do occupy that positional role. Mintzberg uses the analogy of the workings of an orchestra to demonstrate the diﬀerent facets of leading and managing a group of skilled knowledge workers. He says: [I]n the orchestra, even though the musicians play together, each and every one of them plays alone. They each follow a score and know precisely when to contribute. The instrument not only identiﬁes each player but also distinguishes him or her from the other musicians. (Mintzberg 1998: 143) Mintzberg sees the role of the leader in the orchestral context as that of a guide rather than a master. He uses the term ‘covert leadership’ to describe the role (Mintzberg 1998: 144).
Collaborative Approaches and Arts Leadership
Diﬀerent forms of leadership are well observed in the role of the orchestral conductor. This is why the conductor is often used as a model for leadership. Nevertheless, orchestral musicians say frequently that they ﬁnd their work uninspired and not creative. This they connect to the expectations of doing the same repertoire endlessly and because, in many instances, the skills and knowledge of the conductor are lacking. If a conductor is essentially going through the motions and not showing real engagement with either the music or the musicians, the result can be that the musicians are disengaged and the music produced is not that exciting. The conductor may be well known to a wider audience and given the title of ‘Maestro’; however, as far as the musicians are concerned, they may not be enjoying the conductor’s leadership, and the conductor may not be leading the musicians in a real musical collaboration. For instance: Not every conductor is capable of moving beyond his own agenda and his own prejudices to see how he supports or undermines the players’ performance. (Zander & Zander 2000: 36) On the other hand, if the conductor is highly engaged, if they demonstrate to the musicians that they are completely on top of the music, that they can hear when anything is not quite right or could be improved, and demonstrate by their actions that they are knowledgeable, passionate and skilled, then the musicians respond diﬀerently. Indeed, if the conductor listens to any concerns of the musicians and considers these when setting the pace, then the process becomes collaborative. Orchestral musicians say that when this occurs, the experience becomes creative, engaging and exciting for them, leading to a much better and more satisfying performance journey for the audience. This, then, is artistic collaboration and perhaps an example of ‘covert leadership’ as described by Mintzberg (1998). Although there are diﬀerent views on what skills are required for successful collaborative leadership, there is agreement that traditional models of ‘command’ or ‘heroic’ leadership will not work. Lash (2012) suggests that successful collaborative leaders require highly developed skills in relationship building and interpersonal communication. Ansell and Gash (2012) suggest that diﬀerent situations require diﬀerent skills and argue for a contingency model when dealing with collaborative leadership. While noting the importance of detached and objective facilitating skills for collaborative leadership, they suggest that successful collaborative leaders may also be ‘organic’ leaders who demonstrate knowledge and skills in a particular aspect of the task (Ansell & Gash 2012: 6). They argue that the three critical roles required for successful collaborative leadership are those of ‘steward’, ‘mediator’ and ‘catalyst’, and that collaborative leaders will demonstrate diﬀerent strengths in these roles. In terms of skills required for innovation, however, they assert that ‘organic’ leaders may be more suited to this outcome, given the organic leader’s higher capacity for being in the role of a ‘catalyst’ leader. What is understood by ‘organic’ leadership varies, but essentially it is a style of leadership that is humanistic and compassionate in its interactions. Compared with individual leadership models, there are nuances around how these diﬀerent approaches to collaborative leadership work. When discussing a concept of collaborative leadership, several images come to mind, such as:
leadership from the inside; sharing of leadership;
Collaborative Approaches and Arts Leadership
working together to create something new; leadership that is non-hierarchical; distributing the role of leadership according to the expertise within the group; working together by combining skills and knowledge to solve a problem; shared decision-making; trusting and respecting your collaborators; sharing ownership of both the vision and the outcome.
Although not all of these conditions may apply in a model of collaborative leadership, it would be expected that some must – otherwise, the collaboration is unlikely to succeed.
Collaborative Leadership and Art Organizations Given the way artforms are organized and communicate, it is possible that distinct interpretations of leadership behavior may be required for diﬀerent artforms, as diﬀerent artforms have particular languages and ways of organizing themselves. For instance, the performing arts such as theater, dance and music tend to work in collaborative modes and in organizational structures that support this mode of working (e.g. theater companies, dance companies or orchestras). The production of art in these areas tends to happen in a group, so the capacity for working collaboratively is high. In the West, both in dance and in theater companies, the positional head has historically been the choreographer or the artistic director. More recently, the use of the title of managing director or chief executive oﬃcer (CEO) has emerged, but this is usually given to the administrative head. In many performing arts organizations, there is a ‘duality’ of leadership, with an artistic director and a general manager working together with equal status, both reporting directly to the board (Creese 1997; Pick & Anderton 1996; Reid 2013; Reid & Karambayya 2009). As Reid (2013) has observed, there are many challenges for this model to work successfully, as often the two individuals are appointed independently of each other, without prior working knowledge of the other. They then have to learn on the job how to work together as a complementary partnership. Case Study 6.1 Tafelmusik Baroque Orchestra The Tafelmusik Baroque Orchestra was founded in Toronto, Canada, in 1979 as a period instrument orchestra. Its Music Director from 1981 to 2014 was Jeanne Lamon. Jeanne Lamon was unusual when she was appointed to the role of Music Director in 1981. One difference was her gender; she was also a practicing musician who performed with the orchestra while she conducted. Tafelmusik’s mission is to engage audiences locally, provincially, nationally and internationally with historically informed live and recorded musical experiences on period instruments. Lamon developed Tafelmusik as a leading exponent of baroque music worldwide. The other member of the leadership team for the period 2000–2014 was its Managing Director, Tricia Baldwin. From 2000 to 2014, Tafelmusik built its operating budget from $2.7 million to $5.4 million, eliminated its deﬁcit, enjoyed 14 successive surplus
Collaborative Approaches and Arts Leadership
budgets, increased its endowment from $314,000 to $5 million and built balance sheet funds to $800,000. During this period, Tafelmusik developed its own digital music site called Tafelmusik Media as well as a digital concert hall. It recorded more than 80 CDs of its work. It also launched major education, outreach and artist training initiatives including the Tafelmusik Baroque Summer Institute. Jeanne Lamon and Tricia Baldwin presented a strong complementary team at Tafelmusik, which provided successful, stable leadership to the group over a long period of time, allowing the organization to grow and reach a much wider audience. The orchestra now performs around 100 concerts per year both in Canada and elsewhere. There are about 26 people working in a support capacity for the orchestra and around 16 musicians are employed. There is also a chamber choir attached to the orchestra which was formed in 1981 to complement and support the work of the orchestra. Tafelmusik’s website is www.tafelmusik.org
In the orchestra world, the head of the organization is usually the managing director or CEO, while the person/s providing the artistic leadership (e.g. the conductor or the orchestral leader) may be lower down in the hierarchy and not have a board reporting role. Nevertheless, Castañer, describing the relationships between musicians and managers in the Barcelona Symphony Orchestra, suggests that the managers feel a sense of powerlessness in relation to the power and status of the musicians (Castañer 1997: 405), so that despite the fact that the managing director is in the role of the leader, he/she does not feel powerful in this role and sees the actual leadership residing elsewhere – that is, with the artists. As noted in Chapter 4, Lapierre suggests that the leadership of an arts organization always resides with the artists (Lapierre 2001). Thus, the mandate of an arts organization and the way it is led are interconnected. Arts leadership, then, needs to be aligned and consistent with the vision and mission of the organization. Cray, Inglis and Freeman (2007) comment that although leadership and decision-making styles available to managers in the arts are similar to those in other industries, factors unique to the arts sector aﬀect the manner in which they are enacted. (Cray et al. 2007: 295) They talk here of the core artistic mission of the organization and also the personality and style of the dominant artistic leader setting the pattern for how the leadership works and how the organization functions. They also observe that in particular cases a model of ‘participatory leadership’ is appropriate for arts organizations as it is more inclusive and acknowledges that the majority of arts workers are both highly skilled and well educated. But they also argue that a participatory style can be slow to make decisions, which might not suit the performance-orientated environment of an arts organization where strict deadlines are mandatory. Given the particular nature of an arts organization with its focus on its artistic vision, a diﬀerent model of collaborative leadership is likely to be interpreted or enacted in an arts context. Pick and Anderton talk about the duality of the role of the arts administrator, referring to the competing forces inherent in the position – serving the artist and serving
Collaborative Approaches and Arts Leadership
the audience (Pick & Anderton 1996: 17). The tension within arts organizations between the process of arts making and the need to balance the books is also noted by others with the suggestion that Participatory leadership oﬀers the best ﬁt for most arts organizations provided they are not undergoing a crisis. (Cray et al. 2007: 303) Their conclusion that a participatory leadership model is a common ﬁt for arts organizations is interesting in any discussion about collaborative leadership and collaboration in the arts. Byrnes, in fact, talks about ‘distributed’ leadership as a reality in the context of contemporary arts organizations (Byrnes 2003: 169). Talking about leaders and managers in the arts, Schein writes: Leaders, managers, and organizers are more like composers who write a score for others to perform. Team members create the performance from their reading of the score, their interaction with each other, and the signals they get from the leaders, customers, and subordinates. (Schein 2001: 82) Here, a relationship is described which is very much about collaboration, improvisation, participation and trust. Reynolds et al. (2017) describe a dual model of leadership in the performing arts where there is mutual understanding and a shared vision that enables the two leaders with separate organizational responsibilities to work harmoniously together to produce the work: Dual leadership is perceived to be a way of managing the imperatives of artistic quality and ﬁnancial sustainability within arts organizations. (Reynolds et al. 2017: 89) Here, there is recognition that both functions are needed within a performing arts organization for the organization to succeed (see Case Study 6.1 above). But it is unlikely that both sets of skills reside in the one individual. In their study of 24 diﬀerent performing arts organizations, they observe that the conﬂict that is often described in the literature about the challenges that a dual model of leadership presents is not evident in the organizations surveyed (Reynolds et al. 2017). Instead, they argue that the collaboration works successfully because of “an acknowledged interdependency between the dual leaders” (Reynolds et al. 2017: 90). Thus, the recognition of their mutual need ensures the success of the leadership model. Another perspective of shared leadership in terms of process and structure in the arts is that it is found more frequently in smaller groups because it is seen as a better way of working. Small cultural organisations in particular seem to prioritise a model based on shared leadership … [T]his is not for formally democratic reasons but because it produces better artistic outcomes. (Dalborg & Löfgren 2016: 24)
Collaborative Approaches and Arts Leadership
This is an interesting perspective and no doubt it is more accepted that everyone’s skills and knowledge are needed in the art of creation in a group – hence an expectation of shared leadership. The frequency, though, of a shared leadership model being visible in smaller groups may also reﬂect a reality that creating a hierarchy is less workable within a small group. In small arts organizations, there is a necessity for everyone to pitch in and help, and maintaining a strong delineation between roles is not feasible. In a process of task sharing, there is a likelihood of greater collaboration. But this does not necessarily translate to collaborative leadership. Another variation on collaborative organizational models was the development of theater collectives in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. The philosophy that framed the collectives was that they operated on the basis of everyone being equal, being able to contribute equally and being paid equally. Sometimes these collectives lived together as well as worked together. Well-known examples of the time were the San Francisco Mime Troupe in the US and Monstrous Theatre Regiment, 7:84 and Joint Stock in the UK. A collective was located around a model of shared or collaborative leadership, but the challenges implicit in the model were that some were less equal than others because of skill, age, expertise or a combination of these. This can become more pronounced over time, as core members develop more skill and experience, while new members may not be at the same level. Many theater collectives created more than 30–40 years ago still exist and thrive, although the way they work may have changed and modiﬁed over the years. A challenge for theater collectives in the United Kingdom, for example, was the framing of government arts funding that insisted there be a particular legal and artistic structure for a group to receive funds (DiCenzo 1996). This led to the collapse of several groups and a change in structure for others so that they could survive. An example is Kneehigh,1 based in Cornwall and founded in 1980 by Mike Shepherd. Although it began as a rather anarchic group involving participants with no professional training, over the years it has become professionalized and established. It now has a core group of about 15 staﬀ as well as associate artists who work on and oﬀ with the company. It still sees its role as serving the community of Cornwall and is based at Truro. Aspects of collaborative structures also exist in other artforms. These include the artist-owned and run gallery, the artists’ collective for making work, the artists’ shared studio spaces and writers’ centers where writers meet and share ideas. In the creative industries, there are examples of design/art studios which work collaboratively on commission projects. Fallman (2007) has written about some of the essential characteristics of a design studio culture using the Swedish Umeå Design Research Group as his case study. He notes that an important part of design studio work is the ability to form a culture of work that cares as much for the whole as it does for the details. … [T]he perhaps most important part of a design studio culture is the shared understanding of being in that culture … [A] design studio culture promotes creative and collaborate activities, and becomes a setting in which it is natural for people to interact with each other … (Fallman 2007: 4–5) What is clear here is the need to create a studio culture where ideas are discussed, shared, critiqued and developed. All aspects of the studio space need to support the activities of the group members who are working within it to ensure it is a collaborative space, not a competitive one.
Collaborative Approaches and Arts Leadership
Case Study 6.2 Borderland Collective Borderland Collective is a group of artists, educators, young people and community members who are working together in Texas, USA. Borderland Collective is a social art group that uses art to explore geographic and cultural borders through collaborations. They aim to engage with complex issues and build space for diverse perspectives, meaningful dialogue and modes of creation and reﬂection. Borderland Collective was started in 2007 in the small oil town of Big Lake, Texas, by teacher Ryan Sprott and artist Jason Reed. The lead collaborators now number eight people, all with different skill backgrounds, and they have worked with hundreds of participants in making their work. Borderland Collective therefore references a collective mindset allowing for ever-evolving modes of practice and perspective. The theme of a recent work titled Northern Triangle centers on the migration of people from Central America to the US. In the exhibition, they explore the complexities of migration from the countries of Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. The exhibition was commissioned in response to the arrival of 68,000 unaccompanied young people to the border between Mexico and the US in 2014. Erina Duganne, a member of the Borderline Collective, says that through the exhibition they are trying to raise awareness about the complexity of the immigration issue. Thus, the content of the exhibition is multilayered and includes contemporary photography and recent artefacts as well historical documents. Duganne says: We see the exhibition as a kind of archive we’ve created. It has an archival feel to it … We want viewers to really think about what they see and hopefully start to make connections. (Duganne quoted in Heckel 2016) The group believe that information is often conveyed in sound bites so that providing a multidimensional approach allows for a depth of meaning to be evident. Northern Triangle is a traveling exhibition organized by the Blue Star Contemporary Art Gallery in San Antonio and has toured to different museums in Illinois. In the Borderland Collective, Ryan Sprott is given the name of ‘director’. But the members work as artistic collaborators where they are all providing leadership and contributing their own specialized expertise to make something that reﬂects their combined skills. Borderland Collective’s website is: www.borderlandcollective.org
Artistic Leadership and Artistic Collaboration The making of art, especially in the collaborative forms of theater, dance and music, is structured around a group of artists coming together to make something new that is an outcome of their joint eﬀorts, rather than the eﬀort and leadership of one individual. As Adler notes, the process of improvisation as part of creation necessitates an equal playing ﬁeld rather than stars competing (Adler 2006: 492). To the outside observer, this process may seem complex and/or mysterious, but participants rely on understandings and
Collaborative Approaches and Arts Leadership
communication processes that they are all aware of and familiar with. Furu, observing the process of leadership in a jazz band, says that all band members share the responsibility of the whole. … [L]eadership is a function that is performed by all band members, but at diﬀerent points in time. (Furu 2013: 219) This creative collaborative process is not ﬁxed or static but one that is subject to continual reinvention depending on the individuals and the goals involved. However, it does rely on a level of skill and understanding where everyone who participates recognizes that the ﬁnal outcome is dependent on their combined active contribution, not necessarily the leadership or ideas of one individual. Ansell and Gash’s (2012) model of ‘organic’ leadership when pursuing a goal of innovation is interesting when one is considering the nature of arts making. Frequently, arts making is about the making of something new, diﬀerent and innovative. So the possibility that leadership comes from those who demonstrate knowledge and skills in a particular task connects with the process of making a new work within a collaborative artform. It is noted: Actors, dancers and musicians – performing as ensembles – have developed team based collaborative skills to a much greater extent than have most managers. (Adler 2006: 491) In this artform model, the leadership is taken or given to the person who has the most knowledge/skill required at any particular moment. The leadership process can then be one of constant exchange through the dialectic of problem solving, testing new ideas, experimenting, failing, critiquing and reﬁning. Bilton (2007: 24) notes that “it is the collision of diﬀerent ideas that spark the creative process”. While it has been observed that, in the context of making theater, artists as leaders can be ego-driven, narcissistic individuals who exploit others to make their own work (Fitzgibbon 2001), it has been noted more recently that contemporary creativity models depend on collaboration rather than competition (Hewison & Holden 2011). Yet while Hewison et al. (2013) acknowledge that a creative process often involves conﬂict, they suggest that there is an interesting dialectic present in the process of collaborative creation. Conﬂict is a ‘given’, but this is not a negative trait, but one that is essential to a successful creative process (Bilton 2007). In this case, this is not an example of one individual asserting their creativity over others (as noted by Fitzgibbon), but that the process of ‘creation’ involves a constant dialectical struggle. Thus, conﬂict is framed as a positive necessity for creating new work. There can be considerable apprehension associated with a collaborative model of leadership. It is noted, for example, that [a] prevalent anxiety about true collaboration is that it eradicates individuality or requires an absence of leadership. Yet collaboration does not diminish, but rather releases and expands what is unique to any artist. (Thomson 2003: 119) This embracing of the ‘other’ and letting people into the process can be seen as one where control is lost. But it is argued here that, rather than lose control, a collaborative process can create more possibilities.
Collaborative Approaches and Arts Leadership
Furu (2013) argues that in the context of a group of jazz musicians, where each artist is an expert and a leader in the process of playing music, the coming together of the musicians makes the art occur. If they were not performing together, the art would not exist. However, this process can only happen because of each individual’s level of skill, capacity to ‘give and take’ and their respect for each other to take ‘the lead’ when the time is right. As noted earlier, no one individual is the leader; they are all leaders and they are all followers. This is also observed within the model of the string quartet. The way leadership works and how leadership is taken by a group member is “a complex interplay between the individual roles of the players and their collective role as a group” (Gilboa & Tal-Shmotkin 2010: 20). These examples demonstrate the ‘organic’ leader as described by Ansell and Gash (2012) earlier. Leadership in this context has ‘interchangeability’ which is related to knowledge and expertise at a particular moment, not positional authority per se. In a performance of Play2 observed by the writer, the leadership of the piece appeared to change as the focus changed. There were moments when each performer seemed to take the lead. There were two dancers and four musicians, but they all played diﬀerent roles within that. The dancers danced, played instruments, sang, talked, and the musicians danced, sang and played. All of the performers were skilled and adept at their crafts. The performance was continually surprising to the audience in terms of the direction it took and the layers of meaning revealed. From the audience perspective, the artists worked entirely collaboratively on the stage and shared the leadership. The artistic leadership of the work was ascribed to the two dancers, the Belgian dancer and choreographer Sidi Larbi Cherkaoui and the Indian dancer and choreographer Shanatala Shivalingappa, but every performer, be they dancer or musician, played a role in it. This example demonstrates aspects of both artistic collaboration as well as shared leadership. In dance, there are many examples of a collaborative artistic model where there is artistic collaboration and there is some sharing of the artistic leadership. Researchers note that what motivates many dance artists to work collaboratively is the chance to produce something novel, the opportunity to explore new ways of working as well as the possibility of sharing the inherent uncertainty of the creative process with others. (Rouhiainen & Hämäläinen 2013: 2) It is argued in the observation of the development of a collaborative dance piece that by sharing the creative process, new possibilities emerge that may not have occurred if only one person was taking the lead. The collaborative process allows for diﬀerence and that difference, while at times producing tension, facilitates more creative outcomes (Rouhiainen & Hämäläinen 2013). However, the way the leader approaches collaboration is crucial for those creative outcomes to occur. In creative collaborative work it is paramount to learn to appreciate the diﬀerences between group members and the movement of emotions, changing roles and relationships as well as novel ways of working that the process fosters. (Rouhiainen & Hämäläinen 2013: 8) Thus, the artistic leader who is working in a collaborative mode must spend time developing relationships and understanding the individuals they are working with, to enable a work process that encourages both creativity and participation.
Collaborative Approaches and Arts Leadership
The choreographer and dancer Leigh Warren, in conversation with the author, observed that if you are working with others, you need to get them involved from the beginning if you want them to commit to your vision. He said: People buy the idea and start contributing to it and you are all heading in the same direction. They then own the outcome if they are truly involved from the outset … (Warren quoted in Caust 2013: 198) Leigh Warren comments, for instance, that he has had both good and bad experiences when collaborating on someone else’s vision. Where he has been treated with respect and engaged from the outset, he says the relationship has worked well and this is reﬂected in the outcome. Warren argues that when he has been treated in a ‘mechanistic’ manner, illustrated by his engagement in an opera production to provide some dance moves but not expected to contribute to the overall vision, the artistic relationship and outcome in his view have been compromised (Warren cited in Caust 2013: 198). The artform of opera is an example of a potentially conventional leadership framing with a director in charge. Nevertheless, it is a cross-disciplinary process with theater, music, design and dance artists all working together to produce one creative outcome. How collaborative this process may be in the eyes of the participants, though, depends, of course, on the attitude and approach of the director. An aspect of the process of making opera in major international opera houses is that frequently the assigned director does not choose either their cast or collaborators, but is just assigned the job of ‘directing’ the opera by the managing director of the opera company. In this leadership model, the capacity for successful artistic collaboration will be limited because a successful collaboration usually takes place over a long period of time, where participants get to know, trust and respect each other. The notion of working collaboratively in theater can be interpreted in many diﬀerent forms. It can be about the text and its interpretation, it can be about how the piece was made, it can be about the way the artists involved work together, or it can be about the impact and relationship between the work, the performers and the audience. In the theater, there are many ways of making work, and writers, directors and actors have documented their diﬀerent approaches. The artistic process can depend on whether a work is new, an existing contemporary text, a classic text or a group-devised or even improvised piece. Each diﬀerent case can mean the group approaches the task diﬀerently. Yet one aspect of theater work is the same: that is, the artistic process involves a group working together to create a performance. Even if the piece is a solo work, it necessitates a group working together to make it. This includes the actor/s, the writer/s, the designer/s, the composer/ choreographer and the director. This aspect of the work always dictates that the process will involve collaboration. One way of describing this collaboration is the notion of the ‘ensemble’. As Hewison et al. note: In the theatre it has the speciﬁc meaning of a group of actors who work together in a collaborative fashion over a period of time. (Hewison et al. 2013: 143) Yet it is more than the ensemble of actors who make the work; it is everyone involved in the artistic collaboration. In fact, the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) recently took
Collaborative Approaches and Arts Leadership
the concept of the ‘ensemble’ to reconﬁgure the entire RSC and make the whole organization an ‘ensemble’ (Hewison et al. 2013). A famous ensemble in recent years was the Berliner Ensemble in Germany, formed after the Second World War in 1949. While the playwright and director Bertolt Brecht and his wife, Helene Weigel, were the overall known leaders, a premise of the work was that everyone within the group was capable of playing both the smallest and the biggest parts with equal skill and commitment (Weber 2007). A recent production by the National Theatre of Scotland illustrated the notion of the ‘ensemble’. This was the James Plays3 written by Rona Munro and directed by Laurie Sansom. In the trilogy, 20 actors played many diﬀerent parts, so in one play they may be playing the lead role of the king and in another play they could be playing a minor role. The ensemble of actors working together produced an outstanding series of plays that interweaved with each other and provided an insight into the history of Scottish Kings. The sense of an eﬀective ‘ensemble’ is one where everyone participates equally to produce the best work and where the outcome is that of a seamless piece of artistry, rather than a ‘show piece’ for one individual. A characteristic of some ‘ensemble’ performance is a process where a work might be workshopped and rehearsed for up to a year before it is performed to a paying audience. This was characteristic of theater work produced in Russia during the 20th century, when government funding for the theater was generous. This allowed for long, continuous employment of artistic personnel, where the directors and actors were inﬂuenced by the work of Stanislavski (2008). In his work about the process of acting, the Russian actor and director Konstantin Stanislavski advocated a detailed analysis of a text coupled with a systematic exploration of a character’s possible thoughts and feelings. This approach, described as the ‘Stanislavski Method’, was seen to support a more natural and realistic drama interpretation (2008). Hein, describing the process of directing theater productions, makes the important point that Contrary to common belief, creativity does not evolve in a vacuum or in an open, boundaryless space. Rather, it requires boundaries and a clear framework. (Hein 2012: 163) So, in raising the subject of how work is created in the theater, Hein stresses that the process of making new work is framed within boundaries that dictate the parameters of the work. Creating, in this context, is not about limitless possibilities but working on a theme/structure/vision to which each participant commits. This perspective can also be connected with how collaboration works best; there needs to be recognition of skills and capacity to contribute, as well as a framing of the process. The content/outcomes then become less important than the process to achieve them. In a study using participant observation undertaken in a play rehearsal, it is noted that while the director describes his model as generally collaborative, the degree of collaboration depends on the expertise that the other person brings to the conversation (Kramer & Crespy 2011). Thus, with participants who are lacking any experience, the director’s manner is quite ‘directive’, but with those who have had more experience, the style of communication is more ‘collaborative’ (Kramer & Crespy 2011: 1028–9). To create an environment that supported collaboration, the director spent time establishing relationships with the artistic participants to create less distance and invoke trust (Kramer & Crespy 2011: 1029). The actors reported at the completion of rehearsals that they had felt
Collaborative Approaches and Arts Leadership
the process was very collaborative and because of this felt more ownership of the outcomes (Kramer & Crespy 2011: 1034). The authors observe that the leader’s vision can be accomplished with a collaborative style, although that vision may change as a result of the collaboration. (Kramer & Crespy 2011: 1035) Thus, the leader in a collaborative context must be prepared to let go of aspects of their own vision. This introduces another critical point alluded to previously: whose vision is being served? For instance, the original work can be a classical text, yet is reworked through a process of workshopping and experimenting to become a completely new reading of the work. Peter Brook’s production of Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream in 1970 is an example of this. He wanted to break with tradition and awaken the audience to a diﬀerent and new reading of the work. He worked with the actors, designers and musicians to achieve this. Although Brook’s name is the one associated with the ﬁnal production, his journey of getting there included the engagement, commitment and creativity of everyone else involved. He observes about the process of rehearsal: Progression is circular, and deciding on who’s the leader depends on where you stand. (Brook 1972: 138) When describing the making of new work, the Australian theater director Andy Packer comments: [W]e’re all in the room working together … the approach we have is that it’s usually not the expert that has the best ideas … [T]he work never winds up being what I ﬁrst had in my head at all, because the metaphor behind it is usually still there, but how we get there and what it becomes is due to the collective, but we are not a collective in the sense that I’m the director and it’s more me shaping things … the work is a result of everyone. (Packer quoted in Caust 2013: 204) While there are role diﬀerences and the likelihood that the director has provided the original idea, the other artists work collaboratively to make the vision an artistic reality. However, there is an acknowledgment by the director that he is taking the lead in shaping the ﬁnal outcome. All the participants have contributed their creative skills and knowledge to produce the outcome, although the director takes responsibility for its ﬁnal form. This model of several artists from diﬀerent disciplines coming together to work under the leadership of a director or animateur is common in theater making. A collaborative process may involve an extended rehearsal and workshopping process where the participants develop the work over time, then leave it and revisit it sometime later to reﬁne it. In some aspects of theater making, this reﬁning process is continuous so that the work is always being workshopped and reworked, reﬂecting a view that the work is never ﬁnalized but always essentially ‘a work in progress’. In this way, it is believed the work is always fresh and alive and does not become mechanical for the players or audience. This approach to theater making is the opposite of the conventional
Collaborative Approaches and Arts Leadership
repertory model where a play is decided, the actors are cast, the rehearsal period is set for, say, three weeks and the work is performed for a speciﬁc period. There is limited capacity in the traditional repertory model for experimenting or workshopping, so this approach can be quite formulaic in its methodology for everyone involved. Making a play from the stories of those who have lived a challenging experience is another form of theater making (sometimes called documentary theater) where collaboration occurs between real people and their lives and the director, writer, actors, designers, etc. who work with them. The group comes up with a dramatized piece that reﬂects aspects of this experience for the audience. This approach to theater can involve social and political commentary and reﬂect real and not ﬁctional experiences and characters. Case Study 6.3 Somebody’s Daughter Theatre Company In Melbourne, Australia, over the past 30 years a theater company called Somebody’s Daughter has been working with groups of people who are living on the margins of mainstream society – women prisoners and disadvantaged youth. They say: “Our expertise is in working with communities that historically have had no voice.” Maud Clark, who started the company in 1980, began her work by doing drama improvisation workshops in prisons. She then involved other artists and did both theater and visual art workshops in prisons with women prisoners. They then took the idea further and produced performances with the prisoners writing, performing and designing the work, assisted and guided by the professionals. The plays are based on the real-life experiences of the women developed through improvisation over a period of time. These performances were ﬁrst done for their fellow prisoners within the prisons and then later for the public in conventional theater spaces. The ﬁrst show to be presented in a theater space was in 1992. In many cases, the performers were former women prisoners. Since 1992, Somebody’s Daughter has created more than 18 shows that have been presented throughout Australia and in different settings. They have also produced ﬁlms, DVDs and books which both document their work and embrace different media to present their work. Over time, the company has expanded its brief so that it is working with marginalized youth in both secure settings and in rural areas. Their ﬁlm Highwater was featured in several international ﬁlm festivals in 2016, including the Santa Fe Festival, the COMMFFEST and the Kids International Film Festival in Toronto. As an outcome of their work, the company has helped many former prisoners and young people ﬁnd a new life and provide a model for what can be achieved through engagement with theater and other artforms. While the work may seem to be fulﬁlling a therapeutic role, it is done with high artistic and production values so that it is seen as a work of art by the audience. Clark notes: My strong feeling as to why the arts work is that when people are working creatively, they are working equally … With the arts, it doesn’t matter how rich you are, how poor you are, how educated you are. (Clark quoted in Ross 2013)
Collaborative Approaches and Arts Leadership
While Maud Clark is the founder and leader of the group, she nevertheless works in a collaborative mode with her fellow artists and all the participants. She collaborates closely with fellow Artistic Director Kharen Harper and a team of other senior artists coming from different artforms. Given the nature of the work, the company deﬁnes itself as a community arts company rather than a theater company. Somebody’s Daughter website is: www.somebodysdaughtertheatre.com
While the focus of much of this chapter is on artistic collaboration and leadership in the performing arts, in the visual arts there is also a tradition of artists working together to make work. A modern example is Gilbert and George. They are two individual artists who have merged themselves into one entity and produce work that is not identiﬁable as being by either artist individually, but by them both. When they chose to work this way. they said, Two people make one artist. We think that we are an artist. (Gilbert and George quoted in Galenson & Pope 2012) In this case, the artists identify themselves as ‘one’ entity and their mode of practice has informed both their personal and working life. More recently, other artists have decided to work as ‘one’, similar to Gilbert and George. Galenson and Pope (2012) argue that this is because the artists recognize they have a shared ‘praxis’ as well as the scale of some of their work which demands the input of more than one artist. Groups of artists have been collectively inﬂuenced by a ‘style’ of working – hence Expressionists, Impressionists, Dadaists, Realists, etc. This shared style might involve individual artists sharing a studio and critiquing or being stimulated by each other’s work. However, usually they keep individual authorship of the work that is produced. When artists are working collaboratively, though, Sherwin observes that they need to let go of their ego and be clear that they are a team rather than individuals (Sherwin 2011). Artists working collaboratively must respect each other and be clear that they both own the outcome. Further, Roberts notes: Collective production, and/or the realization of a collective persona, becomes, for these collaborators, not only a creative methodology, but also one of the goals of the collaboration. (Roberts 2009: 47) There is a highlighting here of the importance of the ‘process’ for successful artistic collaboration. Indigenous visual artists in Australia frequently work in a collaborative mode. The ﬁnal work is then ascribed to the various artists who worked together on the piece. This collaborative process may reﬂect the story that is being told, whose story it is and the nature of the work. When working collaboratively, a group of artists may be telling a story where all members of the group have an association with the story. For example, a work in the collection of the National Gallery of Australia titled The Aboriginal Memorial comprises 200 painted hollow-log coﬃns and depicts the impact of European invasion on the Aboriginal people. The work involved 43 diﬀerent artists from Arnhem Land working on the one piece.4 The artwork produced by Australian Indigenous artists usually has a deep meaning.
Collaborative Approaches and Arts Leadership
The artworks tell the ancient stories of creation, the stories of the land, ceremony and the ancient philosophy of Tjukurpa (Law). They hold truth and secrets. (Blanco 2016) The meaning of the work will inﬂuence how the work is created and who is involved because the ancient stories have diﬀerent owners. The story owners are the only people who can tell their stories or reproduce them in a visual form.
Artistic Collaboration and the Audience Another aspect of the process of collaboration is the engagement or active involvement of the audience. Direct engagement by the audience can occur when they determine the outcome or plot development of a performance piece. For example, the author once worked in a theater performance in London where the audience was asked to vote on how a plot should progress. As the work was entirely improvised by the performers, this ﬂexibility was possible. This approach can be modiﬁed where the audience is presented with several diﬀerent plot resolutions and then asked to vote on the one they prefer. Rather than the audience being a passive spectator of a performance, the audience is seen as an active participant in the process. This form of theater, described as ‘improvisational’, is seen as “highly egalitarian; there is no single, formal leader, and responsibility for the outcome is wholly shared” (Gagnon et al. 2012: 305). It is argued by Gagnon et al. that this form of theater is useful for the development of skills that center on understanding how aﬃliative leadership works. They argue that it encourages multiple perspectives for problem solving and encourages the ability to share control with others, and in this case that includes the audience (Gagnon et al. 2012). Another perspective on audience engagement is working with the audience from the beginning of the whole artistic process. For example, Glow talks about a theater-making process at the Theatre Royal Stratford East in London, where the artistic directors and performers directly engage with their local community to include them in the process of both choosing what the theater does and how they do it (Glow 2013). In this way, Glow says the audience is enfranchised as part of the creative process. Other models of collaboration or engaging with the audience include involving audience members in aspects of the performance (without humiliating them), or making the audience part of the performance while the actors move among them. There is more discussion about artistic leadership and its relationship with the audience in Chapter 7.
Final Comment Although the process of making a collaborative artwork may seem remote from many aspects of the mainstream business world, nevertheless there is the capacity to share many of its key attributes. Making new work is about a process of choosing a theme/vision/text and then working and reworking it in a group in a structured manner. Workshopping and rehearsing are spaces for both play and work where the goal is to ﬁnd the best solution to address often quite complex issues. The players want to be believed by the audience, so the question of authenticity is always present. While rehearsing may seem from the outside to be a ‘play’ mode, it is a collaborative space for experimenting and ﬁnding the truth. Collaborative leadership and collaborative structures are common in the arts sector as artists and arts workers frequently need to work together to achieve a shared outcome.
Collaborative Approaches and Arts Leadership
The act of artistic collaboration is a recognition that all the participants are equal and no one is more important or more valued than another. As Thomson notes: True collaboration is non-hierarchical. The skilled collaborator, seeking absence of hierarchy, is sensitive to status and understands how to alter it, in order to remove blocks to communication. (Thomson 2003: 126) Collaboration requires mutual respect from all the participants and the capacity to allow the person with the appropriate skill to take the lead when required. There must be plenty of room and time for constructive conﬂict and disagreement to allow the process to work successfully. There also needs to be prior agreement on the overall vision and the players must all work together to achieve this. There are many diﬀerent collaborative structures and modes of working collaboratively in the arts sector that acknowledge shared responsibility and shared ownership in the outcomes. The process of sharing leadership or working collaboratively is not simple and is often an outcome of the need to address complex problems. If the process works, then the outcomes from a collaborative artistic process and structure can be deeply satisfying for everyone involved.
Notes 1 See: www.kneehigh.co.uk/page/about_kneehigh.php 2 Play performed at the OzAsia Festival, September 24–October 4, 2015. Performed by Sidi Larbi Cherkaoui, Shanatala Shivalingappa, Patriziz Bovi, Gabrielle Miracle, Olga Wojciechowska and Tsubasa Hori at the Adelaide Festival Centre. 3 See: www.nationaltheatrescotland.com/content/default.asp?page=home_TheJamesPlays 4 www.australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/austn-indigenous-art
References Adler, Nancy (2006) “The arts and leadership: Now that we can do anything, what will we do?” Academy of Management and Learning & Education 5 (4), 486–499. Ansell, Chris & Gash, Alison (2012) “Stewards, mediators, and catalysts: Toward a model of collaborative leadership.” The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal 17 (1), 1–21. Bathurst, Ralph & Cain, Trudie (2013) “Embodied leadership: The aesthetics of gesture.” Leadership 9 (3), 358–377. Bilton, Chris (2007) Management and Creativity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Blanco, Claudianna (2016) “From desert to coast: Aboriginal art from remote Australia to captivate the mainstream.” NITV News, October 20, 2016, accessed at: www.sbs.com.au/nitv/nitv-news/a rticle/2016/10/13/desert-coast-aboriginal-art-remote-australia-captivate-mainstream Brook, Peter (1972) The Empty Space. Harmondsworth: Pelican. Byrnes, William J. (2003) Management and the Arts. Woburn, MA: Focal Press. Castañer, X. (1997) “The Tension between Artistic Leaders and Management in Arts Organisations: The Case of the Barcelona Symphony Orchestra.” In: Fitzgibbon, M. & Kelly, A. (eds.) From Maestro to Manager: Critical Issues in Arts and Culture Management. Dublin: Oak Tree Press, pp. 379–416. Caust, Josephine (2013) “Thriving or Surviving: Artists as Leaders of Smaller Arts Organizations.” In: Caust, Josephine (ed.) Arts Leadership: International Case Studies. Melbourne: Tilde University Press, pp. 195–209.
Collaborative Approaches and Arts Leadership
Cray, D., Inglis, L. & Freeman, S. (2007) “Managing the arts: Leadership and decision making under dual rationalities.” The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 36 (4), 295–313. Creese, E. (1997) “The tension between artistic purpose and management functions in the performing arts.” Aesthetex 7 (1), 57–69. Dalborg, Karin & Löfgren, Mikael (2016) “Cultural Leadership in 3D. Introduction.” In: Dalborg, Karin & Löfgren, Mikael (eds.) The Fika Project, Perspectives on Cultural Leadership. Gottenberg: Näverkstan Kultur. DiCenzo, Maria (1996) The Politics of Alternative Theatre in Britain, 1968–1990: The Case of 7:84 Scotland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Druskat, V. U. & Wheeler, J. V. (2003) “Managing from the boundary: The eﬀective leadership of self-managing work teams.” Academy of Management Journal 46, 435–457. Fallman, Daniel (2007) “Supporting studio culture in design research.” Conference Proceedings International Association of Societies of Design Research, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, November 12–15, 2007, accessed at: www.sd.polyu.edu.hk/iasdr/proceeding/papers/Supporting% 20Studio%20Culture%20in%20Design%20Research.pdf Fitzgibbon, Marion (2001) Managing Innovation in the Arts. London: Quorum Books. Fitzgibbon, M. & Kelly, A. (eds.) (1997) From Maestro to Manager. Dublin: Oak Tree Press. Furu, Patrick (2013) “The Art of Collaborative Leadership in Jazz Bands.” In: Caust, Josephine (ed.) Arts Leadership: International Case Studies. Melbourne: Tilde University Press, pp. 211–225. Gagnon, Suzanne, Vough, Heather C. & Nickerson, Robert (2012) “Learning to lead, unscripted: Developing aﬃliative leadership through improvisational theatre.” Human Resource Development Review 11 (3), 299–325. Galenson, David & Pope, Clayne (2012) “Collaboration in Art (II).” HuﬀPost The Blog, October 2, 2012, accessed at: www.huﬃngtonpost.com/david-galenson/collaboration-in-art-ii_b_1930264.html Gilboa, Avi & Tal-Shmotkin, Malka (2010) “String quartets as self-managed teams: An interdisciplinary perspective.” Psychology of Music 40 (1), 19–41. Glow, Hilary (2013) “Cultural Leadership and Audience Engagement: A Case Study of the Theatre Royal Stratford East.” In: Caust, Josephine (ed.) Arts Leadership: International Case Studies. Melbourne: Tilde University Press, 132–143. Goleman, Daniel (2000) “Leadership that gets results.” HBR Boston 78 (2), 78–90. Grint, Keith (2000) The Art of Leadership. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gronn, Peter (2008) “The future of distributed leadership.” Journal of Educational Administration 46 (2), 141–158. Gronn, Peter (2002) “Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis.” Leadership Quarterly 13, 423–451. Heckel, Jodie (2016) “Krannert Art Museum exhibition deals with themes of migration and borders.” Illinois News Bureau, September 6, 2016, accessed at: https://news.illinois.edu/blog/view/ 6367/403791 Hein, Hedegaard Helle (2013) “Learning from Creative Work Processes in the Theatre: Stepping into Character.” In: Caust, Josephine (ed.) Arts Leadership: International Case Studies. Melbourne: Tilde University Press, pp. 163–76. Hewison, Robert, Holden, John & Jones, Samuel (2013) “Leadership and Transformation at the Royal Shakespeare Company.” In: Caust, Josephine (ed.) Arts Leadership: International Case Studies, Melbourne: Tilde University Press, pp. 145–158. Hewison, Robert & Holden, John (2011) The Cultural Leadership Handbook: How to Run a Creative Organization. Farnham: Gower. Hockney, David (2012) “David Hockney gives Damien Hirst an art attack.” Radio Times, January 2, 2012, accessed at: www.radiotimes.com/news/2012-01-03/david-hockney-gives-damien-hirst-a n-art-attack Kennedy, Anne, Deuel, Angie, Nelson, Tamara Holmlund & Slavit, David (2011) “Requiring collaboration or distributing leadership?” Kappan Magazine, May 2011, 20–24. Kramer, M. W. & Crespy, D. A. (2011) “Communicating collaborative leadership.” The Leadership Quarterly 22, 1024–1037.
Collaborative Approaches and Arts Leadership
Lapierre, L. (2001) “Leadership and arts management.” International Journal of Arts Management 3 (3), 4–12. Lash, Rick (2012) “The collaboration imperative.” Ivey Business Journal: Improving the Practice of Management, January/February, accessed at: http://iveybusinessjournal.com/publication/the-colla boration-imperative/ Mintzberg, Henry (1998) “Covert leadership: Notes on managing professionals.” Harvard Business Review, November–December, 140–147. O’Toole, James, Galbraith, Jay & LawlerIII, Edward E. (2002) “When two (or more) heads are better than one: The promise and pitfalls of shared leadership.” California Management Review 44 (4), 65–83. Pearce, Craig L., Manz, Charles C. & SimsJr., Henry P. (2009) “Where do we go from here? Is shared leadership the key to team success?” Organizational Dynamics 38 (3), 234–238. Pick, John & Anderton, M. (1996) Arts Administration. London: E & F N Spon. Reid, Wendy (2013) “Dual Executive Leadership in the Arts – Remi Brousseau, Pierre Rousseau and Le Théâtre Denise-Pelletier.” In: Caust, Josephine (ed.) Arts Leadership: International Case Studies. Melbourne: Tilde University Press, pp. 96–111. Reid, W. & Karambayya, R. (2009) “Impact of dual executive leadership dynamics in creative organizations.” Human Relations 62 (7), 1073–1110. Reynolds, Sarah, Tonks, Ann & MacNeill, Kate (2017) “Collaborative leadership in the arts as a unique form of dual leadership.” The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 47 (2), 89–104. Roberts, Teresa L. (2009) “Collaboration in Contemporary Artmaking: Practice and Pedagogy.” Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Ohio State University, accessed at: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_ etd/document/get/osu1248880538/inline Ross, Monique (2013) “Somebody’s Daughter Theatre helps transform lives of women in prison, marginalised rural youth.” ABC News, September 16, 2013, accessed at: www.abc.net.au/news/ 2013-09-15/somebodys-daughter-women-in-prison-theatre/4956046 Rouhiainen, L. & Hämäläinen, S. (2013) “Emotions and feelings in a collaborative dance-making process.” International Journal of Education & the Arts, 14 (6), 1–11. Schein, E. H. (2001) “The role of art and the artist.” Reﬂections 2 (4), 81–83. Senge, Peter (1992) The Fifth Discipline. Melbourne: Random House. Sherwin, Brian (2011) “Collaboration in art: Mutual respect, mutual work, mutual exposure.” Fine Art Views, accessed at: http://faso.com/ﬁneartviews/34275/collaboration-in-art-mutual-respectmutual-work-mutual-exposure Stanislavski, Konstantin (2008) My Life in Art. Trans. by Benedetti, Jean. Abingdon: Routledge. Thomson, L.M. (2003) “Teaching and rehearsing collaboration.” Theatre Top 13, 117–128. Uhl-Bien, M. (2006) “Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing.” Leadership Quarterly 17, 654–676. Weber, Carl (2007) “Brecht and the Berliner Ensemble – The Making of a Model.” In: Thomson, Peter & Sacks, Glendyr (eds.) The Cambridge Companion to Brecht, 2nd ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 175–192. Zander, R. S. & Zander, B. (2000) The Art of Possibility. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
Other Inﬂuencers and Changes
This page intentionally left blank
Stakeholders and Arts Leadership
Arts leaders do not function in a vacuum and there are many diﬀerent inﬂuences on artists and arts leaders. In an organizational context, they may be working with other artists, colleagues, board members, funders, sponsors, donors, audience members, the media and politicians. Therefore, they must be able to convince other people of their vision and take those people with them along a journey to the unknown. In this chapter, understandings of the term ‘stakeholder’ are explored in an arts context. The argument is framed within diﬀerent understandings of what a stakeholder in an arts context might be and the inﬂuence that stakeholders might have on decision-making and arts leadership more generally. The discussion considers the diﬀering kinds of stakeholders, their power, the way their inﬂuence may be exerted, what they oﬀer, the value they might bring and vice versa. In addition, approaches to managing the needs of stakeholders, the impact of diﬀerent structures related to cultures, governments and countries that connect with stakeholder inﬂuence, and control of arts organizations and practice are addressed.
What Is a Stakeholder? The term ‘stakeholder’ was introduced to describe all those parties who are part of decision-making or are inﬂuenced by decision-making in organizations. The ﬁrst use of the term ‘stakeholder’ in the context of running a business or organization is ascribed to R. Edward Freeman in his book Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (1984). He deﬁnes stakeholders as “any group or individual who can aﬀect or is aﬀected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives” (Freeman 1984: 46). Freeman’s theory is seen as the antithesis of a ‘pure’ business model where the only issue is the bottom line and the interests of the shareholders. Freeman asserts that any business or company needs the input of all the players that are part of that business to be considered in decisionmaking. Essentially, he is advocating a more holistic framework of how a business works which connects with systems theory where everything is interconnected.1 He is proposing that for a business to be successful it needs to consider the needs of all the players who are in a relationship with the business or may be inﬂuenced by it. However, the concept of a ‘stakeholder’ is seen as a ‘Western’ managerialist framing where the notion of a business or corporation is depicted as an ‘entity’ (Wu and Wokutch 2015). It is argued, though, that it is possible to merge tenets of Confucianism with stakeholder theory so that it is applicable in an Eastern context (Wu and Wokutch 2015). While it is acknowledged that Confucianism is framed around a hierarchical and gendered model, the cardinal virtues embodied in Confucianism of Ren (love), Yi (righteousness),
Stakeholders and Arts Leadership
Li (respect), Zhi (wisdom) and Xin (trustworthiness) are all seen as being important to the application of stakeholder theory (Wu and Wokutch 2015). The cultural framing in terms of the intended meanings is important to acknowledge when considering diﬀerent approaches to leadership and arts making. The application of ‘Western’ management theories to arts organizations is also important when considering diﬀerent cultures. Ideas about leadership and culture are explored further in Chapter 2. The initial use of the term ‘stakeholder’ focused on organizations. But in the context of the arts, there are stakeholders who inﬂuence the making of a single work as well as the making of an organization’s work. The use of the term ‘stakeholder’ has become more prevalent within the arts sector over the past decade, but some see it as another intrusion of ‘managerialist’2 language into the realm of arts making. Various authors have critiqued the use of such managerialist terms as a way of changing, controlling, perverting or misunderstanding the nature of arts activity (Beirne & Knight 2002; Caust 2003; Dorn 2004; McDaniel & Thorn 1993; Palmer 1998; Protherough & Pick 2002; Tusa 1999). This debate is explored further in Chapter 8. The thinking behind the introduction of the term ‘stakeholder’ originated from thinking more broadly than the existence of a ‘single’ bottom line in a business model. Ironically, the arts is a sector that has always needed to think beyond a single bottom line.
Stakeholders in the Arts Within the arts context, stakeholders can be a large group including board members, funders, sponsors, other artists, employees, critics, the audience, buyers and so on. In a study undertaken in Spain, researchers found seven diﬀerent groups that could be seen as major stakeholders in the marketing approach of a performing arts organization. These seven are the performing arts audience, schools, other competition, suppliers, public bodies, other organizations and internal groups (Quero & Ventura 2009: 22). In another study, German theater researchers focused on four groups that were involved in program planning for a theater. In this study, these are the government, the management, the audience and artistic employees (Boerner & Jobst 2011: 80). In addition, they note that stakeholders’ goals/needs can be complementary, neutral or competing (Boerner & Jobst 2011: 69). Addressing and managing stakeholder relationships can take up a lot of time, diverting attention from the core business of the organization. Stakeholders can be coming from a point of being involved or wanting to be involved in an organization’s leadership, artistic direction, ﬁnancing, promoting, consuming or critiquing. Particular stakeholders can have a direct inﬂuence on the artistic vision of the leader or leaders, or they can be involved in ensuring the work ﬁnds an appreciative audience. As in any sector, the interests of stakeholders may conﬂict with those who are the makers. As noted by Rhine (2015), stakeholders play a role in assessing the integrity and authenticity of a leader and can therefore support or undermine the capacity of the leader to be eﬀective. Rhine notes too that there can be tension between artists who want artistic outcomes and a board and/or sponsors who may want more commercially driven results. As the proportion of government funding going to the arts has reduced in many countries over recent years, the reliance on commercial interests and philanthropic support has increased. While government funders3 may have played a relatively benign role in terms of the artistic content of an arts organization, and even actually encouraged non-commercially orientated goals, commercially orientated sponsors may take a diﬀerent and possibly more interventionist approach. Ryan and Blois (2016) observe that there are many stakeholders
Stakeholders and Arts Leadership
in the arts, and in the context of one aspect – that is, sponsorship – the multiple relationships and the nature of those relationships are extensive. Indeed, the intrusion of ﬁnancial power into the equation can change the balance of power overall and thus the leadership. It is noted too that some organizations treat stakeholders diﬀerently, depending on the level of bargaining power they are expected to exert (Bridoux & Stoelhorst 2014). Arts sponsors who provide a large investment are likely to receive better or more favorable treatment from an organization than those who provide a smaller investment. This can also be reﬂected in other aspects of the leadership of the organization where some stakeholders, such as board members and important sponsors, are given much more inﬂuence in the future planning for an organization than, say, staﬀ members (Rhine 2015). This can mean that other important stakeholders in an organization feel left out of decisionmaking processes and become alienated from the organization and its leadership as a result. It also raises questions around who is providing leadership in an arts organization: the board, the artistic leaders, the managers or the employees (McDaniel and Thorne 1993)? There is another perspective that discusses the ‘value’ that organizations can provide to stakeholders (Lankoski et al. 2016). This may not be an economic value but other forms of value4 such as social or cultural value. The notion of ‘value’ is subjective in terms of the stakeholder, and therefore what is valued may diﬀer from one stakeholder to another (Lankoski et al. 2016). In research set in Ireland about the long-term relationship between an arts organization and a sponsor, the authors talk about the value and beneﬁts the sponsor’s employees receive from the relationship with the arts organization (Ryan and Blois 2016). This has resulted in the sponsor’s employees being regular volunteers for the arts organization (in this case, an arts festival) and close ties being developed between the employees of the sponsor and the employees of the arts organization, providing both with mutual beneﬁts. Weinstein and Cook (2011) talk about how relationships with arts organizations can beneﬁt commercial mainstream businesses. They cite several examples from the US experience where involvement with arts organizations brings many beneﬁts to the businesses involved. These various examples demonstrate that there can be beneﬁts for both sides in a sponsorship arrangement and it does not have to be a one-sided transaction. Case Study 7.1 Theatre Delicatessen Theatre Delicatessen is based in England and has two current homes, one in London and the other in Shefﬁeld. The London base is an old library in Southwark and their Shefﬁeld base is a former Woolworths Store. However, since its inception Theatre Delicatessen has had many homes, mostly abandoned or empty buildings that it has taken over for a period of time. It began in 2007 with four founders, two of whom have now left the group. It presently has two artistic directors and two producers who run the group. They work in collaboration with different groups and organizations as part of their process. Their work blurs boundaries between artists, audiences and spaces. When Theatre Delicatessen started, [t]heir intention was to mount large-scale, immersive theatre in the only spaces they could afford: empty ofﬁce blocks awaiting dereliction or resale, which they
Stakeholders and Arts Leadership would occupy for a peppercorn rent and a limited period, turning those ghostly buildings into living, breathing arts centres. (Barnett 2012)
In exchange for the use of a building, they negotiate a deal with the owners where they provide some form of service. To get access to the spaces for their work involves a lot of what they call ‘bartering’. Roland Smith, one of the co-artistic directors, says: We’re working with commercial property developers, City lawyers, investment banks … This idea of the bazaar mirrors the sorts of deals we have to do every day. (Smith quoted in Barnett 2012) This approach to working with developers and property owners is known as a ‘transaction’, where the group offers services in exchange for the use of the space. For example, they may offer workshops to the owners that are focused on various theater skills such as communication or collaboration. They may provide free shows to employees as entertainment. Alternatively, by occupying the building they can provide a physical presence that can attract other businesses and transform an area into one that is more vibrant. This way of operating is also drawn into their theater productions. For example, their presentation Bush Bazaar invited the audience to pay as much as they thought the work they were seeing was worth. This show was composed of several groups invited by Theatre Delicatessen to be part of the presentation. The audience then experienced the show as a series of different performances that they could partake in or not, spread over the space. This pattern of working and development has occurred a few times, where they secure a large empty space and then invite other artists to share it with them. In addition, by working with young emerging artists they provide a learning environment for their artistic collaborators to learn about mounting a show and working with others to make new work. Another facet of their work is their engagement with local communities. This can take many different forms, but in Shefﬁeld they are working with older people and providing them with a space to meet. They are also working with homeless people and host a weekly workshop for them at their Shefﬁeld center. Theatre Delicatessen’s website is: http://theatredelicatessen.co.uk
Stakeholders and Competing Needs in the Arts While arts organizations are not necessarily focused on a single objective such as making money, they may have, as their main objective, the making of a work of art that is unique and special. But applying stakeholder theory to this artistic goal can become complicated. Chew and Hallo (2015) tracked the inﬂuence of various stakeholders on the work of dance companies in Singapore to understand if artistic decision making in those companies has been altered by changing philosophical approaches to artistic leadership. They observed that in general stakeholders believed that artistic decision making should be left to the artistic director, but noted nevertheless that there was some inﬂuence on artistic decision making, depending on the role and knowledge base of the stakeholder. If we again consider a dance company which is in this case undertaking a new work and presenting it, then we need to consider who are the major stakeholders and how could the work be impacted by diﬀerent stakeholder goals? If we focus ﬁrst on the work
Stakeholders and Arts Leadership
The Funders (sponsors and/or government)
The Dance Work
Other artists such as designers.
Figure 7.1 A Dance Work and Stakeholders
itself as the end goal, then Figure 7.1 might be a relevant picture of how the relationships can work. In this ﬁgure, there are six diﬀerent groups of stakeholders all having a relationship or engagement with the outcome of the work. Other stakeholders not listed above could be the dance community more broadly, the media and so on. But this provides a particular conundrum for, say, the choreographer. Is the choreographer making a work that reﬂects their individual aesthetics/desires/vision or are they making a work that will work for all the relevant stakeholders? Is it possible to incorporate others’ views in the context of making artistic work? A second scenario might be that the artistic outcome is the primary goal and that everything else must support it. In this case, the picture might resemble Figure 7.2. In Figure 7.2, the dance work is at the top of a pyramid and all other stakeholders are beneath, in order perhaps of perceived less importance. However, if the scenario is about attracting the largest audience and thereby making as much money as possible, then this might mean that the picture looks more like Figure 7.3 below. In the third scenario, the dance work is there to attract as big an audience as possible and thereby make a proﬁt for the company. The artists need to work together to make a dance work that is going to appeal to a broad audience. There is a reason, for instance, that ballet companies do productions of Swan Lake as often as possible. They know it will almost always attract a large audience. If stakeholders have diﬀerent goals to each other, then all are likely to be aﬀected. As noted earlier, stakeholders’ goals can be competing, neutral or complementary. If they are competing, then there may be conﬂict in resolving the diﬀerent needs (Boerner & Jobst 2011).
Stakeholders and Arts Leadership
The Choreographer The Dancers. Other artists such as designers The Audience The Board, the Funders (sponsors and/or government)
Figure 7.2 A Dance Work with Quality of the Art as Its Focus
The Dance Work
The Choreographer. The Dancers. Other artists such as designers
The Board, the Funders (sponsors and/or government)
Figure 7.3 A Dance Work with an Audience Focus
For example, “one stakeholder group may be in direct opposition to another stakeholder group’s needs” (Waldman & Balvin 2015: 25). Within arts organizations, for example, stakeholders who have an arts focus are likely to conﬂict with those stakeholders who have a more ‘managerialist’ agenda (Cray et al. 2007). Artistic employees are likely to want to achieve the best artistic outcomes while management may want the best ﬁnancial outcomes (Boerner & Jobst 2011). It is also observed that stakeholders can exert direct pressure on arts leaders to behave diﬀerently to how they might prefer (Cray et al. 2007). This can lead to a direct intervention to control outcomes when there is a stakeholder who has money involved and believes that this gives them an entitlement to ‘call the shots’. Funders and donors are both likely to be engaged stakeholders because of the presence of money. For example, there are several examples of interventionist behavior by individual donors, particularly in relation to large cultural institutions. In Los Angeles (LA), there is a
Stakeholders and Arts Leadership
wealthy arts benefactor named Eli Broad who has contributed many millions of dollars to developing the contemporary arts scene in LA. But he has also clashed repeatedly with artistic and civic leaders because of his desire to inﬂuence what happens (Bruck 2010). It is noted that when fundraising for the LA Contemporary Art Museum, Broad pressed his formula for the museum’s success: an emphasis on showing the permanent collection, a small curatorial staﬀ, a minor commitment to education, and the kind of blockbuster ‘populist’ shows that would drive attendance. (Bruck 2010) Broad wanted inﬂuence over how the museum conducted its business and what it oﬀered. As their most important donor, he also wanted naming rights (i.e. The Broad Contemporary Art Museum) as well as inﬂuence over the institution’s artistic policy. When this was resisted by other stakeholders, he shifted his focus elsewhere. Broad then became involved in fundraising for what is now known as the Walt Disney Concert Hall5 in LA, which is the home of the Los Angeles Philharmonic Orchestra (Bruck 2010). Again, Broad wanted the hall to be named the Broad Hall because of his ﬁnancial donations, but the Disney family had got in before him. Eli Broad ﬁnally got his name at the forefront in 2015 with the opening of his own art museum called the Broad.6 This has been the answer for many wealthy art patrons. If they cannot succeed in getting what they want from a public institution, they may then open their own private one which they can control. While Broad has been a very generous donor to the arts in LA, reputedly having given around US$800 million to support the cultural life of the city, it appears he has also expected a considerable return from both arts organizations and civic authorities in other forms (Bruck 2010). This is not an uncommon scenario in the arts. These dilemmas around inﬂuence and control have also meant that some large donations to arts institutions have not been accepted or have been withdrawn because the ‘price’ is deemed too high. For example, the Smithsonian Museum in the US received negative publicity because of a donation from a wealthy benefactor who wanted direct inﬂuence over how her donation would be used (Craig 2002). In 2002, the Smithsonian was oﬀered US$38 million by Catherine B. Reynolds who wanted to create a 10,000-square-foot “Spirit of America” exhibit on individual achievement at the National Museum of American History (Craig 2002). This exhibit would celebrate American individuals who had achieved personal success such as Martha Stewart, Stephen Spielberg and Michael Jordan. When news of the donation became public, scholars, curators and activists publicly complained about the donation, saying it was inappropriate for one individual to determine what form of exhibition should occur at the nation’s national museum, the Smithsonian. The museum had intended to accept the donation, but because of the protests and publicity, the Reynolds Foundation decided to withdraw it, perhaps saving the museum from further embarrassment (Craig 2002). A further example is the withdrawal of promised sponsorship because of the disapproval by the sponsor of the work that is produced. An example of this is a production of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar by the Public Theater in New York in May–June 2017. The portrayal of Julius Caesar and his wife Calpurnia were seen to be loosely based on the characters of President Donald Trump and his wife, Melania. As the play (as well as the history on which it is based) demands that the character of Julius Caesar is killed, the sponsors objected, seeing it as a direct encouragement of violence against the President (Von Drehle 2017). Two corporate sponsors of the Public Theater, Delta Airlines and the Bank of America, then withdrew their ﬁnancial support for the production because they said that they did not want
Stakeholders and Arts Leadership
to be involved with a play that they believed advocated the killing of the President (Von Drehle 2017). The director of the production, Oskar Eustis, argued that the play advocated the opposite; nevertheless, the sponsors saw it otherwise (Von Drehle 2017). On the individual level, there are many examples of positive relationships between philanthropists and artists. Some donors give ‘support in kind’ that enables an artist to do their work. For example, the sculptor Elizabeth Turk talks about how she is able to acquire materials for her sculptures from the oﬀcuts of the Chiarini family, who run a stone fabrication business in California. They also provide specialist equipment that is essential for her to do her work (Ryckman 2007). Another artist, Helen Brough, has been helped by personal commissions and by the provision of free studio space by the Walentas family in New York (Ryckman 2007). There are many examples of free oﬃce space and/or free working spaces provided by diﬀerent wealthy patrons to support the work of artists without any strings attached. In addition, in recent years donors have provided support for individual musicians in orchestras, actors in theater companies and dancers in ballet companies, with or without receiving acknowledgement (Kelly 2016). Arts leaders and artists involved in working with diﬀerent stakeholders must ensure that there is a shared understanding about the nature of their work, their goals and how these will be achieved before a formal relationship is established between the parties. This requires thinking about the needs and expectations of other potential stakeholders so that it is possible to understand what the needs of each might be and whether they can be met, while staying true to the nature of the work.
Governments as Stakeholders The framing of arts practices diﬀers from country to country. For example, while the American model has been more inﬂuenced by private sector involvement, in Europe the state has played a more dominant role. As the American choreographer William Forsythe (who has worked extensively in Europe) points out, this diﬀerent approach means diﬀerent outcomes and expectations. [W]hat is the position of culture in Europe and the position of culture in the United States? In Europe, culture is not just ‘a given’ but an integral part of society. There is an Opera House in virtually every city because people expect this. Art emerges out of the state, it isn’t just a private thing. (William Forsythe in interview with Julie Copeland 2012) The framing of art-making vis-à-vis the state can change the nature of the work, the framing of the organization and the expectations of the stakeholders involved with an arts organization. Although state funding is more generous in, say, the European model, as described by Forsythe above, there are also obligations to which the arts organization or cultural institution must conform in exchange for this funding (Boener & Jobst 2011). The role government plays in a model where it provides a large proportion of an organization’s income will be diﬀerent to that of a model where the government provides little or nothing towards the activity (this is noted further in comparisons of board membership in Chapter 4). The greater the ﬁnancial involvement, the greater the likelihood that a government may want to be involved in the leadership, governance and policy of an arts organization. This is complicated also by diﬀerent models of government where one state may be more interventionist than another. In some contexts, government may see the arts institution as an
Stakeholders and Arts Leadership
organizational arm of government which they then essentially control. This is more likely to occur in a one-party system where all forms of government engagement must conform to the government’s political and social agenda. It may be that an arts or cultural institution, such as a national museum, is in fact a direct or indirect arm of government. Further, if it is wholly funded by government, it is there to present the state’s view about their culture and the distance between the institution’s and the government’s agenda can be non-existent. In other cases, the involvement by government may be framed as ‘arm’s length’, but nevertheless government plays an important role in the policy of the institution. In the British example, there are institutions such as the Victoria and Albert Museum where the trustees are all appointed by the prime minister of the day.7 Further, the institution is deﬁned as a non-departmental public body of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and a charity exempt from registration under the Charities Act of 2011. (from the website of the V&A8) The institution is both an indirect arm of government because it is framed as being part of a government department and a charity which makes it eligible for tax relief on donations. This places it in a challenging position. As an indirect arm of government, it must follow government policy. But to attract sponsors and donors, the institution may need to behave diﬀerently to a conventional government department. In this context, the state is deﬁnitely a major stakeholder, but rich donors would also be seen as stakeholders. Pleasing an individual donor may be at the expense of, say, the transparency and accountability that a government department would expect to exercise. Thus, the needs of diﬀerent stakeholders can be in direct competition with each other. The relationship between the ‘state’ and the making or collecting of art is usually a highly contested relationship. The approach governments have towards subsidising the arts has changed dramatically over the past 50 years. When the Arts Council of Great Britain and similar models in other countries such as the Canada Council and the Australia Council were established, the rhetoric for the involvement of the state in supporting arts practice was located around ideals of equitable access and ameliorating the impact of the marketplace (Williams 1989). However, in more recent times there has been an expectation that the arts should be providing other beneﬁts to earn their government subsidy. For instance, when debating support for the arts in Scotland, it was observed that the dead hand of Treasury control has fallen on the arts, subjecting it to the same criteria that it applies to every other branch of public spending. A presumption has grown up that culture can answer to ‘targets’ and ‘benchmarks’ in the same way as hospitals and schools, that unless creativity can be measured against ‘outcomes’ and ‘deliveries’ then it does not deserve to be funded. (Linklater 2003) The bureaucratic or managerialist mindset described above, characteristic of the new public sector management model,9 has become commonplace over the past decade in countries that provide arts subsidy. Governments appear to want a guarantee that what is supported conforms to an accountability and measurement framework. It is noted that
Stakeholders and Arts Leadership the need for fund-granting bodies to be held accountable to taxpayers has also kept the primary focus on ﬁnancial information, despite calls for the use of more non-ﬁnancial information. (Brignall & Modell 2000: 282)
The challenge of this approach for the arts is that this framework depends on tangible outcomes and the arts do not usually provide tangible outcomes. Nevertheless, ways of providing measurements of ‘value’ to meet the demands of the bureaucrats have evolved. This might mean that the ‘value’ of the organization is assessed by the number of people attending, and/or the number of performances, and/or the frequency of performances. These forms of measurement may provide useful information about the popularity of the oﬀering and the eﬃcient use of government subsidy. But the information will not tell you if the work performed or shown is of high artistic quality or is breaking new artistic boundaries. Funding bodies are attempting to introduce qualitative performance indicators to assess artistic value, but there is controversy about this approach, and it remains to be seen whether it achieves acceptance in the arts sector (Phiddian et al. 2017). Other variations on this approach include framing the arts in various guises such as social welfare, education, job creation and creative or cultural industries to justify a government’s involvement. When reviewing arts funding policies in the United Kingdom, Gilmore noted: Arts and culture became a tool for achieving wider policy goals including regeneration, economic development, social inclusion and health. (Gilmore 2014: 4) An instrumental framing of the arts has led to some confusion about the role of the state vis-à-vis the arts. If the state is a major arts funder, then it can be framed as a stakeholder in the making of the art that it supports. This may mean that artists who want to receive that funding support should consider how they can conform to one government agenda or another. However, this may not necessarily be an ideal recipe for making ‘good’ art or may lead to a view that, It is “good art” because it is useful art, which can produce tangible and measurable social beneﬁts rather than relying on aesthetic qualities, artistic excellence or conceptual innovation. (Chatzichristodoulou 2013: 306) The need to conform to the funder’s agenda can inﬂuence whether artists accept funding or try to make their art without that involvement. There are some artists, for example, who refuse to apply for government grants because they believe that the expectations and conditions of the funder will negatively inﬂuence their work (Gilﬁllan & Morrow 2016).
The Audience and the Broader Community as Stakeholders Another signiﬁcant stakeholder for arts practice is the audience. While the role of the audience can vary from passive observer to engaged participant, the audience can exert considerable inﬂuence over the work that is presented. Contemporary arts organizations spend a lot of their resources ﬁnding out if an audience liked their program, if they would
Stakeholders and Arts Leadership
like to see more of the same, or if they would like other kinds of programming. This is often described as relationship marketing (Quero & Ventura 2009). Many arts organizations rely, for example, on their subscription base to provide upfront income for them (Newman 1977). This means that there is a major incentive for the organization to please the needs of their subscribers (as in Figure 7.3). This can result in designing a program around a particular demographic – that is, the major subscribers for their product. Subscribers generally tend to be older and wealthier than people who buy single tickets. This may mean that age, class and possibly gender and ethnicity will come into play when a program is developed, if it is dominated by the tastes of existing subscribers. The challenge for this approach is that the programming as well as the organization can become ‘stuck’ and out of date over time, as the subscribers age Other forms of audience engagement are now being pursued where the audience plays a more active role (see Chapter 6). Whereas formerly there has been a desire to ensure that a program suits the needs of the audience, there has also been a movement to engage audiences in helping to actually create the program, so that the audience is at the ‘heart of the experience’ and seen as ‘co-creators’ (Walmsley & Franks 2011: 5). The diﬀerence here is that the outcomes are seen to be ‘audience led’ rather than ‘audience focused’ (Walmsley & Franks 2011: 4). It is noted, though, that “the role of leadership in successful co-creation and audience development is vital” (Walmsley & Franks 2011: 7). This interpretation of the role of artistic leadership is further developed by Glow (2013) when describing the Open Stage project at Theatre Royal Stratford East in London. In this project, the artistic director of the theater company set out to actively engage the local community in all aspects of theater practice. Rather than having a passive relationship with the audience where the company is performing work to the audience, the artistic director wanted to facilitate an active collaboration which involved the community being part of artistic decision-making. This involved inviting into the theater people from the local community. The people who responded were seen as ‘co-programmers’ (Glow 2013: 136). These ‘co-programmers’ then went out into their community to talk to more people about what they would like to see happen at their theater, thereby encouraging more community members to come to the theater and further engage in a dialogue. More than 1,000 people were interviewed for the project and the number of ‘co-programmers’ increased from around 25 to 50. The director and staﬀ of the theater also worked with the ‘co-programmers’ so that their knowledge and understanding of how the theater company worked increased, enabling their contributions to increase. Glow concludes that the process of opening up the theater to its community reﬂected another model of artistic leadership. [T]he work of the leadership of the organisation is, in eﬀect, to embed a decentralised leadership across the organisation; from its artistic director, to its project managers, and to the volunteers that are brokering relationships between the organisation and its community. (Glow 2013: 142) Leadership here reﬂects a distributed leadership model where there is not one leader but several who are taking responsibility for diﬀerent aspects of the arts organization and its activities. This approach to leadership also implies a more democratic approach to arts practice.
Stakeholders and Arts Leadership
Case Study 7.2 Te Papa Te Papa or the National Museum of New Zealand is located in Wellington, the capital of New Zealand. Like many such institutions in New Zealand, it is a bi-cultural entity. This involves not only the use of two languages but also two cultures being embraced throughout. The new museum opened in 1998 after a decision was made to unite the national museum and the national art gallery into one entity. With the establishment of the new museum, there was also a new Museum Act that encompassed the philosophy behind the new museum. Three important articles under the Act stated that Te Papa would:
be a partnership between Tangata Whenua (Ma-ori, the indigenous people of New Zealand) and Tangata Tiriti (people in New Zealand by right of the Treaty of Waitangi); represent and appeal to New Zealand’s increasingly diverse society; be a place for discussion, debate, involvement and celebration.
These tenets have been integrated into every part of the museum’s mandate: the collections, exhibitions, staff, community, events and process of working in the museum. From the top down, there is a sense of a community working together to reﬂect the different cultures of the nation. When an exhibition is being mounted that is focusing on the history and culture of a tribe (iwi), members of that tribe will work in close collaboration with the museum for the duration of the planning and mounting of the exhibition. Further, elders (kauma-tua) from the tribe are in residence during the exhibition to conduct special ceremonies or events that are connected with the exhibition. In addition, the museum runs regular workshops, both in Wellington and around the country, to train different tribes in the preservation of their cultural treasures. The culture of the museum is one that engages with the broader community and hosts many activities on the site, aside from the exhibitions. Some of these activities are integrated with the exhibitions and others are part of the museum’s mandate to engage with different sectors, making the museum a center of community cultural activity for all ages. The museum’s website talks about what it does: At the heart of its work is the concept of mana taonga, a philosophy and practice which seeks to meaningfully involve communities in the care and exhibition of their valuable heritage items, and shares the authority for the care and exhibition of taonga with their source communities. The role of the museum is clearly stated and is embraced in all aspects of the museum. It gives the museum an energy and liveliness that embraces the visitor on entry. It feels as if Te Papa is owned by its diverse community and not separate from it. As you enter the museum, you are met by the Waharoa or Gateway which signiﬁes the meeting of cultures. Te Papa’s website is: www.tepapa.govt.nz
Stakeholders and Arts Leadership
In another example of audience and community engagement, Tate (2012) describes a project at the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis in the US where the local community is invited to participate in making art which is then displayed as part of the Center’s ‘Open Field’ project (Tate 2012: 275, 280). By allowing community members into the Art Center’s space, Tate argues that a shared space is created that validates the community members’ engagement with art and enhances the Art Center’s engagement with their community. [T]he art remains in the space the community inhabits and creates, sustaining it through the resultant social network. (Tate 2012: 275) The community members receive acknowledgement of their engagement by the fact that their work is then exhibited within the grounds of an arts center over the summer months. In the museum context, it is argued that a museum depends on the contributions of many stakeholders to manage successfully (Mio and Fasan 2015). A museum may need input from their community to know what the community wants, as well as communicate to their stakeholders what are the priorities of the museum. Mio and Fasan (2015) note how some museums organize public meetings or create formal means of communicating with their ‘community’ to get their views on diﬀerent aspects of the museum’s practice. The reference to ‘community’ may mean their audience, their volunteers and their board. Many arts organizations and institutions are dependent on the contribution of volunteers to keep particular activities going, so volunteers then are seen as stakeholders of the organization. In the case of museums, volunteers may staﬀ the reception desk, the cloak room, be there as exhibition guides, staﬀ the shop and café, or play an informal security guard role. These roles are essential for the successful running of the organization and therefore volunteers need to be acknowledged in diﬀerent ways as key stakeholders of the organization. It cannot be a one-way transaction where the organization gets free labor. To keep the volunteers motivated and interested, there need to be various beneﬁts (such as free membership, access to special events, etc.) that come out of their involvement. Tate (2012) talks about the way various cultural organizations value their volunteers, providing social and cultural events for them. She talks about the relationships at the C. H. Nash Museum (CHNM) in Memphis, Tennessee, where she observes that volunteers now feel more comfortable asking for new projects, new learning experiences, and engaging in more co-creative ways with the museum heritage products. Volunteers are now able to exert some agency over their role within the museum space. (Tate 2012: 278) On the other hand, volunteers also need to be clear about the organization’s policies on diﬀerent matters so that they represent accurately the values and beliefs of the organization. They play a signiﬁcant role in dealing with the organization’s audience and are frequently the public face of the organization. The value of volunteers to an organization can be enormous and so they need to be selected, treated and trained as if they were paid employees to ensure there is a continuity of knowledge and approach within the organization. Over several years in the United Kingdom, there has been interest in getting greater community participation and sense of community ownership of many arts and cultural institutions. It is observed, however, that this can be undertaken in a ‘cynical’ way by an institution so that they are able to qualify for funding or to meet guidelines that come
Stakeholders and Arts Leadership
from outside the institution (Lynch 2011). Thus, community participation can be engaged in a manner that is more transactional than meaningful. Community participants can then think they are being ‘used’ by the institution and that they have little real input in what occurs. In a study conducted with 12 institutions across the United Kingdom, it was concluded that in many cases “claims of community collaboration and reciprocity seemed, to their community partners, to be somewhat exaggerated” (Lynch 2011: 5). If cultural institutions say they are engaged with their audience or with their community, what this means in practice may need to be examined. Are they working with a community or are they working to a community? The challenges for arts and cultural leadership are considerable. If they allow others in their space, should they cede some of their power and control over both their physical space, as in the case of the Walker Arts Center, or their overall policy and programming as in the case of the Theatre Royal Stratford East? Engaging with ‘the arts’ can for many people be a threatening and unfriendly experience. If you feel that you are an outsider the ﬁrst time you visit an art gallery or theater space, then it is likely you will not return. Arts institutions have often been the locale for ‘high’ art, so they can be quite intimidating for the ‘uninitiated’ to visit. The architecture, the aesthetics and the way people treat you when you arrive can all signal to you that you are not accepted in this place. If the people at the front desk are unfriendly and arrogant, you are likely to feel instantly a sense of being out of your comfort zone or in a hostile environment. There are still views that art is only for the knowledgeable, the initiated and those who share a similar outlook on life. Thus, people are excluded who do not have the same level of education, are of a diﬀerent cultural background, are too young or too old, or are poor. It is noted that for a cultural environment to be ‘inclusive’ it must consciously engage with diﬀerent forms of cultural inclusion that invite ‘others’ in (Azmat et al. 2015). Frequently in the West, arts practice has been the preserve of the rich, the powerful and the highly educated. Further, some arts practices require years of training to master (such as playing the violin). Developing a deep understanding and knowledge about artforms can take many years and is not necessarily a linear exercise. While acknowledging that arts practices can be inaccessible because of the knowledge required to understand them, there are many ﬁelds that can be experienced and understood immediately and which can provide a rich experience for all participants. Art experts have functioned as ‘gatekeepers’, keeping the art and its place of collection and performance separate and away from the general population. In highly stratiﬁed societies, this demarcation is likely to continue, especially in sectors of the arts that are still dominated by wealth and power. In those sectors, there is less interest in being open or welcoming. But in more ﬂuid and open societies, this approach has generally changed; arts organizations and cultural institutions have become more outward-looking and inclusive. In an ideal world, everyone should be able to be practice and experience some form of art. Many art institutions now treat visitors in a welcoming fashion because they actively want as many to come in as possible so they can share the experiences that they oﬀer. Some experts think the desire to engage with the public has gone too far and that art museums are too focused on being tourist destinations rather than citadels of art. A former Director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Phillipe De Montebello, says: The appreciation of art requires an engagement that is wholly diﬀerent from the instant gratiﬁcation provided by most forms of popular culture, and museums have a responsibility to help visitors achieve this. (De Montebello quoted in Westwood 2017: 14)
Stakeholders and Arts Leadership
This suggests that he thinks that museums are neglecting their educational/custodial role and focusing on their entertainment role and there is perhaps some evidence of this. However, it should also be celebrated that museums are places that people still want to visit, even if their experience may be at times superﬁcial. There is, of course, a ﬁnancial incentive on the part of the institution for this to occur, given entrance fees or by encouraging access to their shop or café. Nevertheless, attitudes have changed around the purposes of art galleries and other places where arts practice is on display or practiced. Globally, museums, galleries and libraries are now often crowded places because people want to experience what they oﬀer. In societies that provide public funding for arts and cultural activities, there is a recognition of the necessity to ensure that all taxpayers should have the opportunity to experience how their money is being used. Encouraging young people into arts institutions may ensure that they want to return frequently to experience art in all its forms. Nevertheless, in most societies more work needs to done to provide arts spaces that all people can access, whatever walk of life they come from. This would then recognize that the community more broadly is an essential stakeholder in the making, practice and appreciation of art.
Final Comment Stakeholders can play many diﬀerent roles in the arts sector. They can be a positive or a negative inﬂuence. Arts organizations are required to balance the needs of various stakeholders which can sometimes be in competition with each other. In an individual context, the arts leader has to be able to persuade an audience or buyer about the value of their work so that they invest in it, show it, go and see it, or support its making. While there is a romantic notion that artists only need their talent to succeed, in fact there are many factors that come into play for an artist or arts leader to make their work successful. Often there are challenges in these relationships. However, stakeholders will always exist in relation to the arts, so it is important that artists and arts organizations understand their relationships with others and work to make it a positive and supportive experience for everyone.
Notes 1 ‘Systems’ theory, stemming from the biology model of a ‘web of relationships’, describes the way everything is interconnected as compared with being separate and closed. See Wheatley (1999). 2 Managerialism is seen as a reductionist approach where everything is framed within a management organizational model with a focus on control. In this framing, every entity is seen as the same, requiring the same approach and therefore the same solutions (see Klikauer 2013). 3 This comment is, of course, dependent on the country and government model concerned. 4 “[V]alue is conceived broadly and as having multiple components that are not necessarily visible, easily quantiﬁable, or reﬂected in monetary terms” (Lankoski et al. 2016: 231). 5 www.laphil.com 6 www.thebroad.org/about 7 See www.vam.ac.uk/info/about-us#who-we-are 8 www.vam.ac.uk/info/about-us#who-we-are 9 From the 1990s, the public sector was encouraged to become more like the private sector and demonstrate forms of accountability that related to organizational performance as well as neomarket outcomes (Brignall & Modell 2000).
References Azmat, Fara, Fujimoto, Yuka & Rentschler, Ruth (2015) “Exploring cultural inclusion: Perspectives from a community arts organisation.” Australian Journal of Management 40 (2), 375–396.
Stakeholders and Arts Leadership
Barnett, Laura (2012) “Theatre Delicatessen: The pick-and-mix performers.” The Guardian, July 31, 2012, accessed at: www.theguardian.com/stage/2012/jul/31/theatre-delicatessen-bazaar-souk? Beirne, Martin & Knight, Stephanie (2002) “Principles and consistent management in the arts: Lessons from British theatre.” International Journal of Cultural Policy 8 (1), 75–89. Boerner, S. & Jobst, J. (2011) ‘Stakeholder management and program planning in German public theaters.’ Nonproﬁt Management and Leadership 22 (1), 67–84. Bridoux, F. & Stoelhorst, J. W. (2014) “Micro-foundations for stakeholder theory: Managing stakeholders with heterogeneous motives.” Strategic Management Journal 35, 107–125. Brignall, Stan & Modell, Sven (2000) “An institutional perspective on performance measurement and management in the ‘new public sector’.” Management Accounting Research 11, 281–306. Bruck, Cheryl (2010) “The Art of the Billionaire: How Eli Broad took over Los Angeles.” New Yorker, December 6, 2010, accessed at: www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/12/06/the-art-of-thebillionaire Caust, J. (2003) “Putting the ‘art’ back into ‘arts policy making’: How arts policy has been ‘captured’ by the economists and the marketers, and if this can change.” International Journal of Cultural Policy 9 (1), 51–63. Chew, Suyin and Hallo, Leonie (2015) “On your toes: Perceptions of leadership inﬂuence on dance companies in Singapore” Chapter 11 P. 117-135 in Caust, Josephine Ed. (2015) Arts and Cultural Leadership in Asia Abingdon: Routledge Asian Studies. Chatzichristodoulou, Maria (2013) “New media art, participation, social engagement and public funding.” Visual Culture in Britain 14 (3), 301–308. Copeland, Julie (2012) “William Forsythe in interview with Julie Copeland.” Australian Broadcasting Corporation, October 10, 2012, accessed at: www.abc.net.au/arts/performance/stories /s430960.htm Craig, Bruce (2002) “Reynolds Foundation withdraws support to the Smithsonian Institution.” Perspectives on History, accessed at: www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectiveson-history/march-2002/reynolds-foundation-withdraws-support-to-the-smithsonian-institution Cray, D., Inglis, L. & Freeman, S. (2007) “Art making under dual rationalities.” Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 36, (4), 295–313. Dorn, Charles (2004) “The deterritorialization of art.” The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 34 (2), 141–150. Essig, Linda (2014) “Arts incubators: A typology.” The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 44 (3), 169–180. Freeman, R. E. (1984) Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston, MA: Pittman. Forsythe, William (2012) “William Forsythe in interview with Julie Copeland.” Australian Broadcasting Corporation, October 10, 2012, accessed at: www.abc.net.au/arts/performance/stories /s430960.htm Gilﬁllan, Emily & Morrow, Guy (2016) “Sustaining artistic practices post George Brandis’s controversial Australia Council arts funding changes: cultural policy and visual artists’ careers in Australia.” International Journal of Cultural Policy, March 2016, 1–19. Gilmore, Abigail (2014) “Raising our quality of life: The importance of investment in arts and culture”, Centre for Labour and Social Studies, accessed at: http://classonline.org.uk/docs/2014_ Policy_Paper_-_investment_in_the_arts_-_Abi_Gilmore.pdf Glow, Hilary (2013) “Cultural Leadership and Audience Engagement: A Case Study of the Theatre Royal Stratford East.” In: Caust, Josephine (ed.) Arts Leadership International Case Studies. Melbourne: Tilde University Press, pp. 132–143. Kelly, Deirdre (2016) “Arts philanthropy a winning formula for artists, wealthy.” The Globe and Mail, June 30, 2016, accessed at: www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/arts-philanthropy-a -winning-formula-for-artists-wealthy/article30679667 Klikauer, Thomas (2013) “What is managerialism?” Critical Sociology 41 (7–8), 1103–1119. Lankoski, Leena, Smith, N. Craig & Van Wassenhove, Luk (2016) “Stakeholder judgments of value.” Business Ethics Quarterly 26 (2), 227–256.
Stakeholders and Arts Leadership
Linklater, Magnus (2003) “Dead hand of the bureaucrats threaten to strangle the arts.” Scotland on Sunday, January 26, 2003, accessed on January 28, 2003 at: www.scotlandonsunday.com/print. cfm?id=101722003&referringtemplate=httpp%3 Lynch, B. (2011) Whose Cake Is It Anyway? A collaborative investigation into engagement and participation in 12 museums and galleries in the UK, Summary Report. London: Paul Hamlyn Foundation. McDaniel, N. & Thorn, G. (1993) Towards a New Arts Order. New York: Arts Action Research. Mio, Chiara & Fasan, Marco (2015) “The impact of independent directors on organizational eﬀectiveness in monetary and in-kind stakeholder dialogue museums.” The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 45 (3), 178–192. Newman, D. (1977) Subscribe Now! Building Arts Audiences through Dynamic Subscription Promotion. New York: Theatre Communications Group. Palmer, Ian (1998) “Arts managers and managerialism: A cross-sector analysis of CEOs’ orientations and skills.” Public Productivity and Management Review 21 (4), 433–452. Phiddian, Robert, Meyrick, Julian, Barnett, Tully & Maltby, Richard (2017) “Counting culture to death: An Australian perspective on culture counts and quality metrics.” Cultural Trends 26 (2), 174–180. Protherough, Robert & Pick, John (2002) Managing Britannia: Culture and Management in Modern Britain. Harleston: Edgeways. Quero, María José & Ventura, Rafael (2009) “The role of stakeholders in the management of cultural organisations: The case of performing arts organisations in Spain.” Journal of Relationship Marketing 8, 17–35. Rhine, Anthony S. (2015) “An examination of the perceptions of stakeholders on authentic leadership in strategic planning in non-proﬁt arts organizations.” Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 45 (1), 3–21. Ryan, Annmarie, & Blois, Keith (2016) “Assessing the risks and opportunities in corporate art sponsorship arrangements using Fiske’s Relational Models Theory.” Arts and the Market 6 (1), 33–51. Ryckman, Pamela (2007) “Modern day patrons who set artists free.” The Financial Times, August 18, 2007, accessed at: www.ft.com/content/6dbe02b8-4cd5-11dc-a51d-0000779fd2ac?mhq5j=e2 Tate, Natalye B. (2012) “Museums as third places or what? Accessing the social without reservations.” Museums & Social Issues 7 (2), 269–283. Tusa, John (1999) Art Matters: Reﬂecting on Culture. London: Methuen. Von Drehle, D. (2017) “Why Donald Trump was low hanging fruit for the Public Theater’s Julius Caesar.” Time Magazine, June 14, 2017, accessed at: http://time.com/4817390/public-theater-sha kespeare-donald-trump-julius-caesar Waldman, David A. & Balvin, Rachel M. (2015) “Responsible leadership: Theoretical issues and research directions.” The Academy of Management Perspectives 3015 (1), 19–29. Walmsley, B. & Franks, A. (2011) “The Audience Experience: Changing Roles and Relationships.” In: Walmsley, B. (ed.) Key Issues in the Arts and Entertainment Industry. Oxford: Goodfellow Publishers. Weinstein, Larry & Cook, John (2011) “The beneﬁts of collaboration between for proﬁt businesses and nonproﬁt arts- or culture-oriented organizations.” SAM Advanced Management Journal 76 (3), 4. Westwood, Matthew (2017) “Playing to the Gallery.” The Australian, June 13, 2017, accessed at: www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/opinion/do-galleries-like-ngv-serve-art-well-by-catering-to-ever yone/news-story/3f4219b7dd35cb788b2c98c037cc0f15 Wheatley, Margaret (1999) Leadership and the New Science. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Williams, Raymond (1989) The Politics of Modernism. London: Verso. Wu, Jiyun & Wokutch, Richard E. (2015) “Confucian stakeholder theory: An exploration.” Business and Society Review 120 (1), 1–21.
New Framings and Arts Leadership
Over the past 30 years, there have been major changes to how the arts are framed, viewed and interpreted. It is important to address the impact of these changing paradigms on the ways artists do their work and how they aﬀect arts leadership. For example, as in other areas, the arts sector has been inﬂuenced by new technologies and they are playing a much greater role in the way art is produced, distributed and understood. New technologies have created issues around copyright and networking which then inﬂuence leadership requirements. There are also issues to explore about what leadership and environmental approaches support creativity in a context that is arguably ‘creative’ by deﬁnition. Over the past decade or more, we have seen the arts being subsumed into various industrial framings such as the creative industries or the cultural industries. This framing is inﬂuencing the way arts practice is presented and what is seen to be now required from artists and art leaders. For example, an expectation of entrepreneurial behavior and the creation of new business models in the arts are part of this changed setting. This new context is explored here in terms of its impact on art-making, on arts leadership and on the arts sector more generally.
New Technologies and Arts Practice The virtual world has created a new arts context where, because of technology, artists and audiences can communicate and work together in entirely diﬀerent forms. The digital world has provided a means for artists to work in cross-disciplinary ways and use diﬀerent solutions for undertaking their work. For instance, artists may be working collaboratively but they are not in physical contact. They may be composing a piece together but doing it at a physical distance from each other. Audiences, on the other hand, may be asked to engage directly in making content rather than being a passive receiver/observer. In an older arts context, everyone may have been located within the physical framework of an arts building, coming together for long periods of time to develop work or to witness work. In the new context, they may never actually meet, be in the same real time or in the same physical space. New technologies have changed the context of the arts, the making of art and access to art. In Holden’s view (2009), the impact of technology is inﬂuencing how the arts are framed by both participants and the audience. Access to technology is relatively cheap and it can be accessed anywhere. With the use of a button, one artform or practice can be given preference by the participant/audience over another. The concept of cyberspace means that there is no need necessarily to participate in any class ritual, role-play, or belong to a particular ethnic group or gender to be part of an artistic or creative practice. The role of previously powerful gatekeepers (both real and perceived) is changing rapidly in
New Framings and Arts Leadership
this context. In relation to the arts, new technology is inﬂuencing what is accessed, who accesses it and how it is accessed. A survey about Australian participation in the arts recorded that 81% of the Australian population now engage with arts practice online (Australia Council 2017). Anyone is able to make and distribute work using tools such as YouTube, so barriers between art, artists and audiences are becoming blurred. Further, it is argued: The democratization of taste, abetted by the Web, coincides with the democratization of creativity. (Deresiewicz 2015) Questions around standards, gatekeepers or the lack of, and the meaning of art are all aﬀected by access to and use of technology. Technology is also inﬂuencing, by default, the kind of work produced and the relationship between makers and their audiences. Artists and arts organizations are active users of diﬀerent forms of technology to market their work and communicate with other practitioners, as well as to stay in touch with new developments. Social media is used in a similar way to the notion of ‘word of mouth’, albeit with a little more social engineering. A Facebook or Twitter posting has a snowball eﬀect, so that very quickly thousands of people can be informed of a new show or event. Conventional models of promotion and selling art are now changing as a result of the use of technology. Another eﬀect of artists’ involvement in new technology is the role it is playing in designing new forms as an extension of their artistic work. As Cubitt notes, “many hundreds of artists are involved now, through movements like software art, in remaking the terms on which the system operates” (Cubitt 2009: 577). The uses of new technologies are allowing diﬀerent artistic relationships to occur between artform disciplines. For example Wayne McGregor's dance production "Tree of Codes" is initially inﬂuenced by architectural forms. The work is a collaboration with sound artist, Jamie XX and installation artist Olafur Eliasson, where each lead artist has experimented with new technologies in a response to a text by Jonathon Safran Foer that is a response to an original text by Bruno Schulz. This then produces an extraordinary artistic merging of dance, text, sound and light, arguably creating another artform in itself (Perkovic 2017). Artists are not just employing new technologies to make their art or to enhance their art; they are also inventing new forms of the technology and new uses of the technology in the process. There is a convergence, then, in role-playing between the artist, the scientist/engineer and the inventor through their experimentation with new media. It could be said that Da Vinci was doing this during the Renaissance – integrating art with science and engineering to make new forms of art as well making original contributions to science. Williams (1989) has noted elsewhere that the disconnect between the sciences and the arts only occurred quite recently. In the 19th century, the term ‘arts’ included the sciences in its remit. Other collaborations and connections are occurring – with engineers, for example, participating in the making of new art through collaborations with artists in new technologies (Birkett 2012). Many visual artists work with computer-generated imagery or use the tools that computers oﬀer to make or enhance their work. Some artists who use new technologies access it merely as a resource whereas others use it as their medium. The American artist Michael Manning1 produces his work with a computer by replicating the process of dabbling with paint on a canvas, then prints an image on canvas and overlays it with real acrylic paint (see Brooks 2015). Another American artist Petra Cortright2 makes her entire work on the computer and then transfers it to other mediums including YouTube (see
New Framings and Arts Leadership
Brooks 2015). The Australian artist Annette Bezor3 uses computers to manipulate, appropriate or generate images and then paints them on to canvas (See front cover of this book). There is also the possibility of artists helping scientists solve diﬃcult problems by using a more creative approach. For example, a recent exhibition by artist John McGhee4 used MRI scans and CT imaging to create art out of the human body (Reilly 2014). Reilly notes that McGee’s work takes the cross-sectional slices that are produced by MRI and CT scans and builds them up into three dimensions, using Maya software used in the video games and visual eﬀects industry (Reilly 2014). McGhee says his intention is to look at how could we use technologies and interpretative art processes … to enhance those data sets, to help real people with understanding what they’re looking at … the scans that we all get, that are often quite confusing and diﬃcult to understand … We’ve created a series of large scale projections, taking you through that vascular system and rendering it in a way that not just represents the function of these things and how they work, but also how we feel about them. (McGhee quoted in Reilly 2014) McGhee’s work is now part of a pilot program at Sydney’s St Vincent’s Hospital, helping patients coping with paralysis due to stroke (Reilly 2014). Another artist, biomedical animator Drew Berry,5 has created images which incorporate visual and sound mediums to recreate human functions. His animation work is incorporated into the Biophilia project by Björk. The Biophilia work is now in the collection of the Museum of Modern Art in New York and was the ﬁrst ‘app’ added to their collection. The curator, Paola Antonelli observes: Biophilia – a hybrid software application (app) and music album with interactive graphics, animations, and musical scoring – reﬂects Björk’s interest in a collaborative process that here included not only other artists, engineers, and musicians, but also splendid amateurs – the people that download and play the app/album … The scientiﬁc term biophilia refers to research that suggests an instinctive biological bond between humans and other living systems. (Antonelli 2014) These works are beautiful from an aesthetic perspective as well as educational, and in the process merging science and art. As McGhee notes: The gallery of the 21st century is becoming that type of space – that nexus of art, technology and science. (McGhee quoted in Reilly 2014) The capacity for autonomy and independence at the same time is another important aspect of artists who work with new technology and in virtual spaces. It is asserted that: Independent artists recognise that the potencies of artistic creation and intervention are undermined by commercialism and commodiﬁcation. (Shorthose & Strange 2004: 54) In a virtual space, it is arguable that the independent artist does not need to participate in a commodiﬁed approach to their art, given that they can produce and market their work
New Framings and Arts Leadership
themselves, without the intervention of others in the process. They can control what they do, when they do it and how they do it. This has implications in terms of freedom of expression and artists’ rights, and for the capacity to communicate new and diﬀerent ideas to a much larger audience, by direct contact or through social media. There is much evidence that artists themselves are playing a leadership role in the use and forms of the new technologies. Case Study 8.1 Blast Theory Blast Theory is a group of artists who use interactive media to create new forms of performance, mixing audiences across the internet, live performance and digital broadcasting. The group was founded in Brighton, England, in 1991 and is led by a triumvirate of three artists: Matt Adams, Ju Row Farr and Nick Tandavanitj. The group’s work explores the social and political aspects of technology, drawing on popular culture and games. The work often blurs the boundaries between the real and the ﬁctional. On their website they say that they make collaborative, interdisciplinary work that is innovative in its process and execution. To maintain this practice requires long rigorous periods of development followed by international showings over several years that are usually context speciﬁc. They perform work in different spaces that may be outside or in unconventional locations. Their early work was inﬂuenced by ‘club’ culture and they then moved into work that was more inﬂuenced by gaming culture. For example, their piece Uncle Roy All Around You (2003) was a mixed reality game in which players searched through the streets for ‘Uncle Roy’ using handheld computers and a virtual city. Their focus on games has probed the fundamental laws of games and of play, posing questions about the boundaries between games and the real world. In this context, they see that their work has had a broader inﬂuence, particularly between art, performance and virtual worlds. They have also undertaken work using mobile phones and are interested in how they can create new spaces for both making and participating in work. For example, in another of their productions called My Neck of the Woods (2013) young people chat with you during a live video streaming tour of their city. Blast Theory has had three permanent installations in museums; Exploratron (2004) at the Science Museum in London, Flypad (2008) at The Public in West Bromwich and Hurricane (2013) at the Red Cross Museum in Geneva. They have also performed at many festivals around the world and won several awards. They opened an installation at the Museum of London in mid-2017 called My Point Forward which is an interactive installation that invites you to recreate and explore a future London. See: www.blasttheory.co.uk
Indeed, integrating arts practice with new technologies can enable people to understand complex ideas such as the impact of climate change. As previously discussed, the accessibility of new technology is making it possible for boundaries to be broken down and new relationships created between the arts, the sciences and new technology. As Paola Antonelli, senior curator at the New York Museum of Modern Art, observes:
New Framings and Arts Leadership Collaboration, creativity, open-mindedness, curiosity, and endless talent are the basic ingredients of most great examples of art and design. (Antonelli 2014)
Many major art museums and libraries have digitized their collections so that it is possible to access them from a home computer. This is enabling anyone to access collections that were previously only available in situ. This is an example of the democratization of culture and is a positive outcome of the digital revolution. In addition, the design and use of performing spaces has been transformed by the input of new technologies, enabling diﬀerent relationships to occur between performers and audience. For example, new technologies have facilitated the recreation of performing spaces that are similar to those used by Shakespeare in the 17th century – for example, the Bankside Globe in London and the new Stratford RSC Theatre in Stratford upon Avon. It is asserted that this has facilitated a change in performance style and interaction between audiences and performers, recreating the intimacy of performance originally desired by Shakespeare (Bailey cited in Birkett 2012: 64). In the theater, audiences can now inﬂuence the narrative of a performance by being active participants in the creation, using the instruments of new technologies. The plot outcome can then change every performance, with new audiences providing diﬀerent solutions and ideas (Birkett 2012). The application of technology can see a merging between artforms such as cinema, visual arts and live performance. Indeed, the live recording of the best theater, music and opera performances has provided accessibility to global audiences via the cinema and television. It is possible now to see a production of the Metropolitan Opera without ever having to visit New York. Similarly, theater from the National Theatre of Great Britain is beamed into cinemas in Singapore, Adelaide and Los Angeles, or can be accessed from your own laptop. Attending the ‘space’ is no longer necessary to experience the art. At a regional level, in Western Australia (which has a land mass of 2.5 million square km but a population of only 2.67 million, making regional touring prohibitively expensive) Black Swan State Theatre Company now simulcasts its theater productions across the whole of Western Australia, creating a state-wide event of theater (Rusak 2016: 159).
Copyright, Intellectual Property and New Framings There are challenging issues associated with the use of technology and arts practice particularly located around copyright and the control of intellectual production. The notion of copyright locates the control of a creative activity with the owner of that creation. It may also imply that the copyright owner has control over how their created material is used by others, and provides compensation to the original creator if the work is used by others. US expert on copyright law Jane Ginsburg puts it succinctly: Copyright is not just about getting paid; it is also about maintaining control, both economic and artistic, over the fate of the work. (Ginsburg 2009: 155) However, with the growth of multiple forms of communication and dispersal, the control of copyright is challenging. There are sites that advise authors and creators about copyright that may provide helpful advice and insights.6 But control of copyright is further
New Framings and Arts Leadership
compounded when the legal statutes concerning copyright diﬀer between nations. Ginsburg notes, however, that digital media, by making the means of production and dissemination available to any computer-equipped author, give authors a realistic opportunity to bring their works to the public without having to put themselves in thrall to traditional intermediaries. (Ginsburg 2001: 1619) Her argument is that the medium of the internet and other new technologies that accompany it allow the author of a work to reach a much wider audience than previously, without the intervention of other gatekeepers. However, it is also observed that the new technologies allow others to exploit the original work without necessarily recompensing the original creator (Ginsburg 2001: 1619). For example, a composer may ﬁnd that their work is being used for another purpose than that envisaged in its original creation. An example might be that it is used as the background music of a commercial produced in another country and there is no copyright agreement between the country of origin of the creator and the country where the music is being used. Further, with free-trade agreements now commonplace, the control of intellectual property between diﬀerent nations becomes more complex. In addition, some countries have strong copyright legislation in place whereas others have weak legislation or none. An example of the eﬀect of streaming, which allows anyone to access already created music, is noted below: US songwriter Michelle Lewis, co-wrote the song Wings, performed by the British group Little Mix. Three million streams of the song on Spotify earned her just $US17.72 ($24.73). Lewis was one of 14 people credited for the song. (Hepworth 2016) There are forms of control that exist, aside from legal ones, including encrypting documents and requiring a payment for viewing/listening/reproducing. While some creators put in place various measures to protect themselves, they are often up against much more powerful forces that have an investment in either controlling copyright for themselves or encouraging an environment where copyright does not exist. Ginsburg comments that most authors lack bargaining power; the real economic actors in the copyright system have long been the publishers and other exploiters to whom authors cede their rights. (Ginsburg 2009: 148) The legal arguments around copyright have tended to occur between large companies who own the copyright and users who want to have access to the work, without paying the large company involved. But many of the users are also large companies who want to exploit the work without paying. An example is Google7 which won the legal right in 2013 to digitize books without paying copyright. Creators essentially need to arm themselves with as much knowledge as they can before signing contracts where they give away their copyright. As the internet and new technologies have provided access to information/knowledge/art not possible previously, it has also allowed access to anyone. This may mean that privacy and copyright protection are almost impossible to maintain in this changed environment.
New Framings and Arts Leadership
All people involved in creative activity therefore need to consider how they want their work presented and what controls they want to see, before they share it with everyone else. This is where those in leadership roles need to be active and aware. They often bear responsibility for the rights of artists and they need to be on the alert for ways to protect and honor the integrity of artistic production. The digital age has provided unlimited access but it may also contribute to privacy and copyright compromises.
Networks and Arts Leadership Networks and clusters within the cultural ﬁeld have become increasingly recognized and signiﬁcant (Stern & Seifert 2007). This can be seen from both negative and positive perspectives. In a negative framing, it can be seen as another method of exclusion and disenfranchisement: [N]etworks foster and reinforce labor segmentation among women and men, and among ethnic groups, restricting access to job opportunities and careers. (Christopherson 2008: 75) In this context, networks are seen as exclusive clubs that restrict access by others and thereby provide a framework for privilege to thrive. There have been examples of this form of exclusivity for a very long time: private men’s clubs in whatever form, for example, were locations where deals were made, jobs oﬀered and information traded (e.g. Masonic Lodge, exclusive city clubs). Networking can be related to privilege of one kind or another so that it “is therefore likely to be highly inﬂuenced by the status and social position of the person doing the networking” (Wreyford 2015: 86). This then reinforces the exclusivity of the network and excludes those who are diﬀerent. In sectors that are overly reliant on networking to secure employment, those not admitted to the networking circle because of gender, ethnicity, race or class are then less able to participate fully in that world. This is particularly relevant in ﬁelds that do not oﬀer permanent employment (such as in the arts), where there is a need to be known by the key people to get commissions or other forms of engagement. Further, there can be a resistance to following transparent employment processes, when people are employed because they have worked with someone before or because they are recommended by a friend. Wreyford (2015) shows that in the ﬁlm sector women are less likely to ﬁnd key creative positions because of the dominance of men in key roles, such as executive producers, who then employ the writers, directors and so on. In addition, networking requires time. This is usually additional time to that allocated to paid work. Hence, those who are ‘time poor’ (e.g. parents and again particularly women, those who work several jobs) may have more challenges engaging in networking in their artistic or creative activities than those who don’t. However, there are online networks that work in a similar way to the way craft guilds and trade unions worked previously. A network located around a shared practice or similar philosophical approach can work eﬀectively online and be a support base for individuals who are not located in the same city, region or even country. They can provide leadership and contact for a critical mass of people who can then lobby, work together, share resources, access knowledge and be a rallying point for many diﬀerent approaches to an arts practice or arts sector. This form of networking is important for artists who may be working on their own or in isolated contexts with limited capacity for communication with others. In a recent case in Australia when the federal government
New Framings and Arts Leadership
reduced funding for the small to medium art sector, online networks were instrumental in communicating information and organizing political actions to draw attention to the impact of the cuts (Caust 2017). Case Study 8.2 The Alliance The Alliance for Media Arts and Culture is an organization that has existed in the US since 1980. As its name implies, it works as a medium for bringing different groups together to facilitate collaboration and provide resources for its members. It sees strength in providing a single collective voice to ﬁght for particular issues. Its vision statement articulates this as follows: The Alliance believes in a world where media artists and organizations are essential and undeniable leaders in a thriving global community. This statement shows that the Alliance acknowledges that artists and arts organization do play a powerful leadership role in the community. The Alliance incorporates into their mandate a commitment to increasing the capacity building of its members. They function as a global network of organizations, independent artists and cultural producers whose values center around creative collaboration, innovation, equity and social justice. By being a member of the Alliance, members have access to various learning programs, grants, residencies, promotion, peer coaching and a myriad of other resources. For example, they provide a leadership development program for their members. One of the projects within this program offers an annual four-day residency lab for a selected group of 18 established and emerging arts leaders which is held at the Sundance Resort. Selection is competitive, but participation is free if you are selected. The program is open to individual artists as well as those in arts leadership roles with arts organizations. The Alliance works at increasing the capacity of its members in various ways. One approach they are pursuing is developing private/public partnerships to increase the skill base and support systems for their members. This program is called the Workforce Development Plan and is premised on the recognition that artists and arts organizations play an important leadership role within their communities but are chronically under-resourced. Another program within the Alliance is their Innovation Studio. They describe this as a place that provides a space to support the development of unique interactive digital media projects and other story-driven open source social justice tools and technologies that are designed to serve the ﬁeld and foster new creative experiences and social impact in communities around the world. One project that is under the umbrella of the Innovation Studio in 2017 is located in Tanzania. It tells the story of a grassroots community taking control of its natural
New Framings and Arts Leadership
resources in a changing environment. The community members in Tanzania are involved with a partner organization called Mwambao (www.mwambao.or.tz) which is actively involved in working to protect Tanzania’s coastline. The Tanzanian participants are being trained in all aspects of short ﬁlm production. This will enable them to document their stories and monitor changes in the marine environment. The Alliance website is: www.thealliance.media
A positive and inclusive framing of networking regards networks in terms of the likely sharing of resources, knowledge, ideas and expertise. A professional network can assist in the making, selling and promotion of work as well as provide a personal support base (Shorthose & Strange 2004; Stern & Seifert 2007). Gill and Pratt observe that in this context, “‘networking’ is less about ‘schmoozing’ the powerful than ‘chilling’ with friends, co-workers and people who share similar interests and enthusiasms” (Gill & Pratt 2008: 18). The arts sector has traditionally provided ways for artists and arts workers to get together to talk about their work and share ideas. This can happen in informal settings such as exhibition and event openings, and in more structured ways such as fairs, festivals, seminars, workshops or conferences. This process is very important because it connects artists who are often working in an isolated way with others who may be working in a similar context. This form of networking is also often critical to getting employment or winning commissions, given the reliance in the arts sector on informal networks rather than formal processes. In a digital age, networking is a constant reality. The ability to connect and share ideas with people on the other side of the world, or down the street, in an immediate manner, has transformed many cultural activities and practices. Social media also allows informal networking to occur without participants having to leave the domestic or work space. The impact of social media on connecting and the sharing of ideas is immense. It allows formal and informal groups to form, disappear and reform. It also allows for groups undertaking artistic practice to do the same. New ideas can be developed in a collaborative manner with others globally or over great distances. One such group, @Platea,8 an online artists’ collective led by social media artist An Xiao, has undertaken several performance pieces across the globe, collaborating through social media. The members of the group come from many diﬀerent disciplines and come together when a project is initiated online. A typical @Platea performance protocol includes a prompt and a few suggestions of diﬀerent ways to perform to the prompt. (Gray 2012: 68) While one member initiates an action, others respond to the action, but in diﬀerent ways and in diﬀerent contexts. One of the members observes that the work has a broader impact than the process of doing the actual performance piece, given that it encourages other collaborations and networks to emerge, apart from the initial one (Gray 2012: 70). Leadership in these new network framings can take on diﬀerent qualities and forms. A team working on a collaborative project through an online network process is more likely
New Framings and Arts Leadership
to share the leadership role, depending on the focus and skill required at any particular time. This is facilitated by social media enabling everyone to have an equal voice. In a virtual space, it is harder for one voice to dominate, so it can allow for deeper collaborations to occur. The focus is more on ideas and is less likely to be distracted by issues of gender, ethnicity and class.
Creativity and Arts Leadership In the late 20th and early 21st century, the need for everyone to embrace their creativity has been widely discussed (Bilton 2007; Tusa 2004). It is common to consider arts practice, by its nature, creative (although arguably there may be occasions when it is not). In an arts context, leaders who understand how to provide an environment that supports and encourages that creativity are essential. Leaders who embrace ‘creativity’ consciously develop strategies to enable this to occur. A study by Tierney et al. notes that employees with an innovative cognitive orientation work best under conditions that permit risk taking, operational autonomy, and the freedom to deviate from the status quo … (Tierney et al. 1999: 564) Therefore, if a leader wishes to encourage creativity in the workplace, the style of leadership that is used is signiﬁcant. For example, the leader has to consciously want to encourage a ‘dialogue’ – the opposite to a ‘top-down’ approach to leadership which is more about a ‘monologue’. As noted in Chapter 4 about arts organizations and their leadership, Fitzgibbon argues that a dominant or autocratic leadership style does not prevent creativity (Fitzgibbon 2001: 171). She believes that the kind of leadership she has observed in the arts, and which is in her view required for innovation, is very diﬀerent from that described in some of the literature. This argument reﬂects an approach to leadership where there is one creative individual, such as a theater director, from whom everyone else must take direction and who plays the dominant role in the rehearsal space. Hence, the leader’s creativity is supported, but it is contestable whether this supports the creativity of others. Diﬀerent approaches to individual leadership in the arts are explored in more detail in Chapter 5. Nevertheless, many researchers regard a ‘dominant’ leadership model as a negative for the encouragement of a creative environment (Amabile 1998; DeSalvo 1999; Goleman 1998; Senge 1995; Tierney et al. 1999). It is noted too that the workplace must operate more as ‘team’ rather than as a hierarchy (Wetlaufer 1999). Further, it is asserted that both leaders and participants in a creative environment need to be less focused on their egos and more focused on the outcomes for the group as a whole (Wetlaufer 1999). The physicality of the environment is also important in conveying a consistent message about the sincerity of leaders in creating an environment that does not reﬂect a rigid hierarchy. An environment that supports ‘creativity’ is often visually unconventional and deliberately encourages social and informal interaction as compared with isolation or formality (Leonard & Swap 1999: 87–8). It should encourage interaction, both formal
New Framings and Arts Leadership
and informal, and be aesthetically stimulating. If the environment continues to support traditional hierarchical approaches such as large oﬃces or other privileges for the managers, then the employees may receive mixed messages about the sincerity of the leader in desiring dialogue. A ‘creative’ workplace requires a complete rethink by the manager or leader about personal style, environment, staﬀ interaction and modeling behavior. According to Ekvall (2002), the environment or culture surrounding creativity or creative people has a signiﬁcant eﬀect on whether creative outcomes occur. This is important to consider in relation to exploring how organizations can maximize creativity, particularly in the context of arts organizations. Mintzberg describes creative organizations as ‘innovative organizations’ (Mintzberg 1989: 196). While referring to his idea that outstanding managers can merge both sides of their brain to function successfully, he goes on to describe an organization where the diﬀerent functions are also merged successfully. He refers to this kind of organization as an operating adhocracy and comments: A key feature of the operating adhocracy is that its administrative and operating work tend to blend into a single eﬀort. That is, in adhoc project work it is diﬃcult to separate the planning and design of the work from its execution. (Mintzberg 1989: 201) In Mintzberg’s innovative organization, there is less separation between diﬀerent functions because everyone is involved in the cycle of creating. This integration of functions is particularly important when talking about the arts. Arts organizations need to work together to produce good art – everyone within the organization needs to be working on the same page and for the same end. If competing cultures exist, then this is detrimental, not just to the functioning of the organization but to the purpose of the organization.
Industry Framings and Arts Leadership Over the past 20 years there has been a reframing of the arts sector into two particular industry framings. These are the cultural industries and the creative industries. It is noted, however: The creative arts – literature, performing arts and visual arts – are sometimes regarded as part of the ‘cultural’ or ‘creative industries’ and sometimes not. In our view this relates to weaknesses in conceptualising both culture and creativity, something with implications for public policy for the cultural sector. (Galloway & Dunlop 2007: 17) As this comment implies, there is considerable controversy around an industrial framing of arts and culture, both in terms of its usefulness for arts practice and for what belongs in any category. First, what is included in the diﬀerent industry framings and how does this aﬀect the arts sector? The creative industries usually include music, performing arts, ﬁlm, television, radio, advertising, games and interactive content, writing, publishing, architecture, design, fashion and visual arts. But they can include practice that has a ‘creative’ aspect such as journalism or hairdressing. The cultural industries usually include: music, performing
New Framings and Arts Leadership
arts, ﬁlm, writing, publishing, architecture, design, visual arts and cultural heritage (such as libraries and museums). In addition, there is a huge range of activities that are located under the umbrella of ‘creative industries’ or ‘cultural industries’. This means that there is a blurring of boundaries and understandings of what is understood as ‘creative’, ‘cultural’ or even ‘artistic’. From one perspective, it is asserted that the creative industry model is democratic, secures government and public support for culture, bestows political power upon cultural creators and represents a worthwhile national investment, given the capacity for the highly exportable creative industries to draw in proﬁts (Bennett & Carter 2001; Pratt 2004; Smiers 2003). Arguably, this can also provide governments with an excuse to withdraw funding support for the arts because of this industry positioning. This framing is seen as a positive, though, when it is asserted that creative industries are loci of innovation and employment growth in increasingly knowledge-based economies; cultural policy is moving from arts subsidy and advocacy to the centre stage of economic growth policies in postindustrial economies, at the level of cities, regions, or nations. (Flew & Cunningham 2010: 6) There is an argument here that by being connected with an economic model of industry, culture and cultural policy become more viable from an economic perspective. In other words, there is a view that changing how culture (and the arts) is framed or named means that it may no longer need subsidy: artists and arts organizations will become selfsupporting because they are seen as an industry. It is further argued that this framing locates culture in the center rather than at the periphery of society, but for diﬀerent reasons than argued in Chapter 2 (see Schafer 2015). The cultural industries approach places a historical understanding of the complexities and contradictions of cultural production (and the resulting content) at the centre of analysis. It looks at the various forms of cultural production that have come to be prominent in modern societies as interlinked industries, institutions, and processes, demonstrating varying manifestations of the creativity–commerce dialectic, rather than treating ﬁlm, television, music, publishing, etc., in isolation. (Hesmondhalgh & Saha 2013: 188) This statement makes an argument for the interconnection of all cultural or creative activity so that each area is not operating in a silo, but is part of an ecosystem, or, in this framing, a ‘creativity–commerce dialectic’. This recognizes that arts practice itself is crossing more boundaries in an interdisciplinary or cross-disciplinary fashion. It has been further observed that contemporary artists and arts workers commonly work across boundaries (whether they be institutional or discipline-based), demonstrating co-dependence rather than an independent mode of production. This links in with models of networking as discussed earlier in this chapter (Christopherson 2008). The creative industries refer to a range of economic activities which are concerned with the generation or exploitation of knowledge and information (Hesmondhalgh 2002: 12). It is noted further, however:
New Framings and Arts Leadership There are reasons to think that the unrelenting pursuit of commercial imperatives can be highly detrimental to some cultural values. (Hesmondhalgh & Saha 2013: 188)
In both these comments, there is a subtext that focuses on the creative industries being concerned with exploitation, generation of income and a focus on commercial outcomes rather than cultural. As O’Connor points out, the emphasis is on the term ‘industry’ rather than on the term ‘creative’, and the arts sector can then be a small or limited player in this context (O’Connor 2007: 42). Certainly, an industrial framing of the arts begs the question: is art-making an industry? As the notion of an industry often implies production lines and mass production, where do the arts ﬁt in this framing? Art-making is usually associated with a unique experience, a particular interpretation or a diﬀerent perspective. Artistic practice is associated with the work of outstanding individuals or with one-oﬀ outcomes, rather than objects or outcomes that are all the same. Many would argue that a production line and other commercial practices are in philosophical and practical opposition to arts practice. It would seem too that arts practice as a distinctive sector becomes invisible when located within an industry framing (O’Connor 2016). Is there a contradiction here between goals and outcomes, and, if so, how can that be resolved? Further, what impact is this changing paradigm likely to have on arts leadership? The goal of an arts leader in an industrial paradigm will likely be around how to make/create something that is saleable and easily reproducible. Indeed, ﬁlm producer Sue Maslin is quoted as saying that she is now a ‘creative entrepreneur’ and no longer a ‘content provider’ (Maslin quoted in Tiley 2017). Certainly, the need for entrepreneurial skills would be great in this model, as well as the need for adaptability. While the creative industry models stress how ﬁnancially productive arts practice can be, seeing arts and cultural practice within an industrial framing can also cause conﬂict between the approach and goals of the creator and the desire by the business leaders to make a proﬁt. Galloway and Dunlop have noted: As arts and culture become subsumed in a creative industries agenda some important justiﬁcations for their support are at risk of being lost. (Galloway & Dunlop 2007: 17) It is asserted that when the arts are framed within an industry model, they are then expected to be driven by market concerns. They are no longer framed within a ‘not for proﬁt model’, and the necessity therefore for government support for the arts can by argued as unnecessary. Arts organizations and individual practitioners may not agree with this outcome, but it may follow, for some, as a logical conclusion. The industrial framing of the arts has also seen a push to make the arts function under the same rules as mainstream business. This raises many issues for artists and arts organizations and goes to the core of exploring what art is and how it is created. An implicit challenge for arts and cultural leadership in an industrial framing is the nature of artists and creative workers in general. Managerial values located around normalization, control, hierarchy and eﬃciency, for instance, can be in opposition to the culture of artists and arts making that rely on experimentation, exploration of risk, artistic originality and respect for the integrity of the work. A further challenge is whether the reality of making money from creative or cultural practice would ensue
New Framings and Arts Leadership
once a commercial outcome is the driver. It is noted that one of the myths of the creative industry model is that everyone has the capacity to make a high income, when, in reality, few do (de Peuter 2014; Gill & Pratt 2008). It is frequently observed that the major subsidizers of artists are the artists themselves and that their practices are often selfexploitative (Gill & Pratt 2008; Stern & Seifert 2007). It may be that the popularity of the creative or cultural industry framing will wane further into the 21st century if it cannot deliver on its economic promises.
Entrepreneurship and Arts Leadership It is said that artists are entrepreneurial by nature (Daum 2005). There are, however, several ways of deﬁning entrepreneurship in an arts context. It is noted, for example, that cultural entrepreneurs are driven by an inner vison where they want the consumer to experience a transcendent experience (Enhuber 2014). Using the Schumpeter model (1934), entrepreneurship can be framed as a process in the arts that arises from innovation with two main foci: creative programming and funding diversity (Rentschler & Geursen 2004). However, it is also observed that there is no consensus about how entrepreneurship is framed in the arts and cultural sector, acknowledging that it can be framed diﬀerently according to the starting point of the users (Hausmann & Heinze 2016). Chang and Wyszomirski undertook a literature survey of the term ‘art entrepreneurship’ and concluded: The three most frequently used meanings of arts entrepreneurship refer to common business meanings of entrepreneurship: new ventures, locating new ﬁnancial capital, and developing new markets. (Chang & Wyszomirski 2015: 22) Certainly, as public arts funding has been seen to decline over the past 20 years, other ways of raising money for arts practice have needed to be explored (Do 2015; Hunt 2015). Entrepreneurial behavior is seen as part of this approach and necessary for arts organizations and arts leaders in this new environment (Do 2015; Hagoort 2004). It is noted that artists who act as business people can be regarded as entrepreneurs or even as ‘artrepreneurs’ (Deresiewicz 2015; Hausman 2010). This term is meant to describe someone who makes money from their art or is a successful artist as well as a smart business person. Talking about the visual artist Damien Hirst and his approach to his work, Enhuber notes: Hirst’s skill to market his art by branding it early and onward with the ideology of “shock” is characteristic of his entrepreneurial approach. (Enhuber 2014: 13) In this way, Hirst garners the attention of an audience that may hate or love his work, but either way will respond to it in a strong and engaged fashion. However, Hirst diﬀers from some other artist entrepreneurs. As his fame increased from the late 1990s, he decided to outsource the making of most of his work to a team of more than 40 craftspeople. He has made himself a ‘brand’ and his work is produced in an industrial mode. This approach has created opposing views about whether he can be called an artist or a businessman (Enhuber 2014).
New Framings and Arts Leadership
Case Study 8.3 MadeIn and Xu Zhen MadeIn is an unusual entity. It was created by the Chinese contemporary artist Xu Zhen in 2009 as a comment on the art market. When he created MadeIn, Xu saw it as a way to focus on creativity. He implied that he was forming the company as he was ﬁnishing his career as an artist and essentially would now be focusing on ‘business’. Xu said that MadeIn was “a contemporary art creation company, focused on the production of creativity, and devoted to the research of contemporary culture’s inﬁnite possibilities”. The name of the entity was a take-off of ‘Made in China’. Initially, Xu said he saw it as a ‘fake’ corporation that was mocking the art market, but it then became a hit within the art market. MadeIn has been compared with the model of Andy Warhol’s Art Factory in New York but is seen as engaged in a complicated relationship with the way art is presented and marketed (Jansen 2013). MadeIn is a successful gallery that shows and sells the work of leading Chinese contemporary artists including Xu Zhen. In 2014, Xu stepped down as the CEO of MadeIn and refocused on his own work as an artist. The boundaries, though, between the entity of MadeIn and the artist Xu are still rather blurred as ‘Xu Zhen’ is a brand of MadeIn. In 2014, MadeIn opened a new gallery in the West Bund or the M50 district of Shanghai, with a focus on promoting the best of contemporary Chinese artists. MadeIn has been part of both the biennale and the international art fair scene since 2009. It hosted work at the Armoury in New York in 2014 and in 2016, and participated in Artissima in Turin, Asia Now in Paris, Art021 in Shanghai, as well as curating an exhibition at the Fondation Louis Vuitton in Paris. This last exhibition was called “Inventing Ritual” and is described on the MadeIn website as a rapid collection of more than 20 works by a range of artists united by one thing: so far they all come from China, and have the potential to cause annoyance both politically and socially. The Ritual is a clocked and moderated Performance that offers an insight on several screens into the potential of a given art production to cause irritation, which on the one hand could be considered ‘typically Chinese’, and yet questions these as a western invention, on the other. (www.madeingallery.com/en) MadeIn is both promoting the work of contemporary Chinese artists and acting as a platform for Xu to undertake other projects. The curator Defyne Ayas says: Not only does Xu Zhen work as an artist, as an artistic director, and curator, but also as a collaborator, as an accomplice, a broker of all sorts, an entrepreneur, an activist, a philosopher, and deﬁnitely as a tastemaker … He is a great artist but also a great mentor. (Ayas quoted in Pollack 2012) MadeIn’s website is: www.madeingallery.com/en
New Framings and Arts Leadership
Klamer describes a model of a ‘cultural entrepreneur’ as someone who is able to merge knowledge and sympathy for the arts with a capacity to market and sell the arts successfully. He further observes, though, that entrepreneurial behavior is celebrated in a context where taking risks is seen as a positive. He cites the North American environment as one that does encourage risk (Klamer 2011). Colbert argues that entrepreneurialism, leadership and marketing are interconnected in the arts, and that entrepreneurship is critical for an arts organization to stay competitive in the marketplace (Colbert 2003). Hagoort also argues that entrepreneurial behavior is important for contemporary arts and cultural leaders (Hagoort 2004). It is further noted that a leader who is entrepreneurial may act diﬀerently from one who is not (Hausmann & Heinze 2016). Griﬃn (2003) asserts, however, that an entrepreneurial arts leader can be associated with unethical behavior and risk-taking. In a rush to make museums more cost-eﬀective and less dependent on the public purse, Griﬃn argues that entrepreneurialism is directly connected with making money rather than seeing it as having a creative and innovative role in arts leadership (Griﬃn 2003). There is a connection here between arguments for entrepreneurialism in the arts and cultural sector, and the impact of policies aﬀecting the arts that stem out of a neoliberal9 framing which places the ‘market’ at the center of everything. Another approach to entrepreneurialism and the arts is framed around the notion of the social entrepreneur. This locates entrepreneurial behavior as one that uses business methods to solve social problems (Thompson & Doherty 2006). For example, Becker frames an arts approach to entrepreneurialism as an inclusive, empowering philosophy that transcends disciplinary bounds and leverages both the intellectual and artistic self. (Becker 2007: 98) In this context, entrepreneurialism is seen as a way of empowerment rather than locating it in the ‘neoliberal’ framing implying ‘reductionism’. In a study undertaken with artists at the Adelaide Festival Fringe (Caust & Glow 2011), the framing of entrepreneurial behavior by artists within the Fringe is seen as a means for self-empowerment, the gaining of more skills and the capacity to be autonomous rather than dependent. The artists talk about how the Fringe provides a launching pad for their artistic careers and develops within them a greater sense of independence and self-reliance as an outcome. As in many cases, the way a term is interpreted inﬂuences the outcomes that ensue. Entrepreneurialism in the arts can have both positive and negative framings. Leaders in art contexts therefore need to be clear about how they interpret an entrepreneurial approach so that they achieve the outcomes that they want. While entrepreneurialism in an arts context can have negative connotations connected with unethical risk-taking and market-driven goals, it can also be connected with a more open outlook that is responsive and creative. In this latter framing, it reﬂects a need to ﬁnd new solutions for creating economic independence for both artists and arts organizations. This can mean that artists are able to be selfsupporting and independent, and not dependent on patrons or donors. In this context, it can be seen as another aspect of a new framing for artists as well as arts leadership.
Final Comments There are many aspects of contemporary society that have changed the making, framing, organizing and leadership of art. The impact of new technology has been instrumental in
New Framings and Arts Leadership
changing the distribution of arts practice, but it has also had a signiﬁcant impact on the making of art and the marketing of it. Understandings around creativity have also aﬀected understandings of appropriate environments for its support as well as appropriate models of leadership that may encourage it. The impact of business and industry models on arts practice has been particularly inﬂuential over the past 20 years, providing both positive and negative beneﬁts. A reduction in government funding has created an environment that encourages artists and arts organizations to think of ways to be more independent economically. This changing environment has demanded that arts leaders stay attuned to the shifting boundaries between art and commerce, and be adept at managing the contradictions that then ensue.
Notes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
www.michaelmanning.net/index.htm www.petracortright.com www.bezor.com.au/#/about?_k=vp2031 www.artdesign.unsw.edu.au/about-us/our-staﬀ/associate-professor-john-mcghee www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2015/jun/09/art-and-science-animating-life For example: http://web.law.columbia.edu/keep-your-copyrights/about Google won the right in 2013 to digitize books in an historic legal ruling in the US against the Authors Guild, where it was argued that it was ‘fair use’ for Google to scan the books without paying copyright. See: www.eﬀ.org/ﬁles/2013/11/14/authors-guild_v_google_fair-use-summary-judgment.pdf 8 http://plateastweets.blogspot.com.au 9 Neoliberalism as an ideology frames society as an economy where everything is about competition including the public sector. See www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideologyproblem-george-monbiot
References Amabile, T. M. (1998) “How to kill creativity.” Harvard Business Review 76 (5), 76–87. Antonelli, Paola (2014) “Biophilia, the First App in MoMA’s Collection.” Inside/Out blog, June 11, 2014, accessed at: www.moma.org/explore/inside_out/2014/06/11/biophilia-the-ﬁrst-app-in-momas-collection Australia Council (2017) Connecting Australians: Results of the National Arts Participation Survey, June 2017. Sydney: Australia Council. Accessed at: www.australiacouncil.gov.au/research/con necting-australians Becker, G. D. (2007) “‘Adventuring’ arts entrepreneurship curricula in higher education: An examination of present eﬀorts, obstacles, and best practices.” The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 37 (2), 87–112. Bennett, T. & Carter, D. (2001) Culture in Australia: Policies, Publics and Programs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bilton, Chris (2007) Management and Creativity: From Creative Industries to Creative Management. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. Birkett, Dea (2012) “Getting in on the act.” Engineering & Technology 6 (12), 62–65. Brooks, Katherine (2015) “7 Contemporary Artists Who Are Engaging With Tech Culture In New Ways.” The Huﬃngton Post, October 30, 2015, accessed at: www.huﬃngtonpost.com.au/entry/a rtists-engaging-with-technology_5632109ee4b0c66bae5b12fb?section=australia Caust, J. (2017) “The continuing saga around arts funding and the cultural wars in Australia.” International Journal of Cultural Policy, 1–15, accessed at: www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10. 1080/10286632.2017.1353604 Caust, J. & Glow, H. (2011) “Festivals, artists and entrepreneurialism: The role of the Adelaide Fringe Festival.” International Journal of Event Management Research 6 (2), 1–14. Chang, Woong Jo & Wyszomirski, Margaret (2015) “What is arts entrepreneurship? Tracking the development of its deﬁnition in scholarly journals.” Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts 4 (2), 11–31.
New Framings and Arts Leadership
Christopherson, Susan (2008) “Beyond the self-expressive creative worker: An industry perspective on entertainment media.” Theory, Culture & Society 25 (7–8), 73–95. Colbert, F. (2003) “Entrepreneurship and leadership in the arts.” International Journal of Arts Management 6, 30–39. Cubitt, Sean (2009) “Art, technology and policy in the twenty-ﬁrst century.” Third Text 23 (5), 571–578. Daum, K. (2005) “Entrepreneurs: The artists of the business world.” Journal of Business Strategy 26 (5), 53–57. de Peuter, Greig (2014) “Beyond the model worker: Surveying a creative precariat.” Culture Unbound 6, 263–284. Deresiewicz, William (2015) “The Death of the Artist – and the Birth of the Creative Entrepreneur.” The Atlantic, January/February 2015, accessed at: www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/ 2015/01/the-death-of-the-artist-and-the-birth-of-the-creative-entrepreneur/383497/ DeSalvoT. (1999) “Unleash the creativity in your organization.” HR Magazine 44 (6), 154. Do, Thuy (2015) “Leadership in a Transition Period: The Case of the Tran Huu Trang Cai Luong Theater in Vietnam.” In: Caust, Josephine (ed.) Arts and Cultural Leadership in AsiaAbingdon: Routledge, pp. 75–85. Ekvall, Göran (2002) “Organizational Conditions and Levels of Creativity.” In: Henry, J. & Mayle, D. (eds.) Managing Innovation and Change. London: Sage, pp. 73–79. Enhuber, Marisa (2014) “How is Damien Hirst a cultural entrepreneur?” Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts 3 (2), pp. 3–20. Fitzgibbon, M. (2001) Managing Innovation in the Arts. London: Quorum Books. Flew, Terry & Cunningham, Stuart D. (2010) “Creative industries after the ﬁrst decade of debate.” The Information Society 26 (2), 1–11. Galloway, Susan & Dunlop, Stewart (2007) “A critique of deﬁnitions of the cultural and creative industries in public policy.” International Journal of Cultural Policy 13 (1), 17–31. Gill, Rosalind & Pratt, Andy (2008) “Precarity and cultural work in the social factory? Immaterial labour, precariousness and cultural work.” Theory, Culture and Society 25, 1–30. Ginsburg, Jane C. (2009) “The author’s place in the future of copyright.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 153 (2), 147–159. Ginsburg, Jane C. (2001) “Copyright and control over new technologies of dissemination source.” Columbia Law Review 101(7), 1613–1647. Goleman, Daniel (1998) “What makes a leader?” Harvard Business Review, November–December, 93–102. Gray, J. M. (2012) “Web 2.0 and collaborative on-line performance.” Text and Performance Quarterly 32 (1), 65–72. Griﬃn, Des (2003) “Leaders in museums: Entrepreneurs or role models?” International Journal of Arts Management 5 (2) 4–14. Hagoort, Giep (2004) Arts Management Entrepreneurial Style. Delft: Eburon Publishers. Hausmann, A. & Heinze, A. (2016) “Entrepreneurship in the cultural and creative industries: Insights from an emergent ﬁeld.” Artivate: A Journal of Entrepreneurship in the Arts5 (2), 7–22. Hausmann, A. (2010) “German artists between bohemian idealism and entrepreneurial dynamics: Reﬂections on cultural entrepreneurship and the need for start-up management.” International Journal of Arts Management 12 (2), 17–29. Hesmondhalgh, D. & Saha, A. (2013) “Race, ethnicity, and cultural production.” Popular Communication 11 (3), 179–195. Hesmondhalgh, David (2002), The Cultural Industries. London: SAGE. Hepworth, Annabel (2016) “Creative community rallies against planned copyright law changes.” The Australian, March 2, 2016 , accessed at: www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/creativecommunity-rallies-against-planned-copyright-law-changes/news-story/ 848dfbb08c27898b96110e12638406f4
New Framings and Arts Leadership
Holden, John (2009) “How we value arts and culture.” Asia Paciﬁc Journal of Arts and Cultural Management 6 (2), 447–456. Hunt, Cathy (2015) Paying the Piper: There Has To Be A Better Way, Platform Papers No. 45. Sydney: Currency House. Jansen, Chiu-Ti (2013) “An Open Letter to Xu Zhen (MadeIn Company): 2014 Armory Show Commissioned Artist.” Sotheby’s Blog, October 8, 2013, accessed at: www.sothebys.com/en/ news-video/blogs/all-blogs/chinese-elements/2013/10/an-open-letter-to-to.html Klamer, A. (2011) “Cultural entrepreneurship.” The Review of Austrian Economics 24 (2), 141–156. Leonard, Dorothy & Swap, Walter (1999) When Sparks Fly: Igniting Creativity in Groups. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. Mintzberg, Henry (1989) Mintzberg on Management: Inside Our Strange World of Organizations. New York: The Free Press. O’Connor, Justin (2016) After the Creative Industries: Why We Need a Cultural Economy. Platform Papers No. 47. Sydney: Currency Press. O’Connor, Justin (2007) The Cultural and Creative Industries: A Review of the Literature. London: Creative Partnerships, Arts Council England. Perkovic, Jana (2017)“Tree of Codes wields dance, music and art to create new spectacle” The Conversation October 20th 2017, accessed at: https://theconversation.com/tree-of-codes-wieldsdance-music-and-art-to-create-new-spectacle-86051 Pollack, Barbara (2012) “Risky Business.” ArtNews, accessed at: www.artnews.com/2012/03/29/ risky-business Pratt, A. (2004) “The cultural economy: A call for spatialized ‘production of culture’ perspectives.” International Journal of Cultural Studies 7 (1), 117–128. Reilly, C. (2014) “Body Image: A fantastic voyage of art and technology (pictures).” CNET, accessed at: www.cnet.com/au/news/body-image-a-fantastic-voyage-of-art-and-technology Rentschler, Ruth & Geursen, Gus (2004) “Entrepreneurship, marketing and leadership in non‐proﬁt performing arts organisations.” Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship 6 (1), 44–51. Rusak, Helen (2016) “Corporate entrepreneurship in the arts in Western Australia.” The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 46 (4), 153–163. Schafer, D. Paul (2015) The Secrets of Culture. Oakville, Canada: Rock’s Mill Press. Schumpeter, J. (1934) The Theory of Economic Development. Boston, MA: Harvard Economic Studies. Senge, P. (1995) The Fifth Discipline. New York: Doubleday. Shorthose, Jim & Strange, Gerard (2004) “The new cultural economy, the artist and the social conﬁguration of autonomy.” Capital & Class 28 (3), 43–59. Smiers, J. (2003) Arts Under Pressure. London: Zed Books. Stern, Mark J. & Seifert, Susan C. (2007) Culture and Urban Revitalization: A Harvest Document. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Thompson, John & Doherty, Bob (2006) “The diverse world of social enterprise: A collection of social enterprise stories.” International Journal of Social Economics 33 (5/6), 361–375. Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M. & Graen, G. B. (1999) “An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships.” Personnel Psychology 52 (3), 591–620. Tiley, David (2017) “Sue Maslin: How to be a leader in a digital world.” ArtsHub, July 14, 2017. Accessed at: www.screenhub.com.au/news-article/features/policy/david-tiley/sue-maslin-how-to-be-aleader-in-a-digital-world-254070?utm_source=ArtsHub+Australia&utm_campaign=2f1d1965ddUA-828966-1&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_2a8ea75e81-2f1d1965dd-302468469 Tusa, John (2004) On Creativity. London: Methuen. Wetlaufer, S. (1999) “Under the big top.” Harvard Business Review 77 (5). Williams, Raymond (1989) The Politics of Modernism. London: Verso. Wreyford, Natalie (2015) “Birds of a feather: Informal recruitment practices and gendered outcomes for screenwriting work in the UK ﬁlm industry.” The Sociological Review 63 (S1), 84–96.
Arts Leadership and Future Challenges
The intent of this book has been to explore many of the current conversations regarding arts, leadership and the connection between the two. There is not one ‘art’, nor is there one ‘leadership’ – there are many. Similarly, there is not one approach to arts leadership either, but many forms and approaches; the earlier discussions about arts and leadership demonstrate its complexity. The arts environment is dynamic and ever-changing, and so its leadership needs to be adroit, resilient and responsive. Arts leaders need to understand their environment as well as their role within it, so they are ready to deal with whatever challenges present themselves. A premise of this book is that arts leadership is diﬀerent because of its context. While generic theories of leadership can apply to the arts sector, particularly in an organizational context, there are also variations because the goals are diﬀerent. Trying to produce a work of art requires particular conditions, such as an environment that encourages risk and one that also allows for failure. There is an essential conundrum in the making of art – the need to explore the new, or ﬁnd diﬀerent solutions while also trying to make a living from that same work. This ﬁnal chapter highlights several future challenges for arts leadership. These challenges are the need to embrace diversity and diﬀerence, the position of women in the arts, the nexus between commerce and art, the continuing decline in resources and the importance of enabling arts access for everyone. The making of art and the experiencing of art can be uplifting, joyful and healing, and any discussion about the arts is important and needs to be ongoing. What the arts do for us, in short, is to enhance and deepen our experience of the world, each other and ourselves, (Grayling 2015: 266)
Diversity and Diﬀerence Issues concerning culture and gender are given prominence in this book because I think they are critical issues for the future. At present, it is not a level playing ﬁeld. It can be argued that arts practice is no diﬀerent to the rest of society – it reﬂects the realities that exist. But arts practice plays a greater role than this. It helps shape society, poses questions and challenges assumptions about our lives, giving it an inﬂuence that is far greater than one of mere reﬂection. That is why dictatorships fear what art might do and intervene to prevent the spread of new ideas and diﬀerent ways of interpreting the world. Arts practice is powerful and unique, qualities to be remembered and respected. Human beings are
Arts Leadership and Future Challenges
often frightened of what might be unleashed by the free spread of new ideas, perceptions and solutions. There is a resistance to change and the embracing of new ideas and of diﬀerent ways of doing things. It is in our nature. Arts leaders, then, have a major responsibility to ensure that they are true to the integrity of their ideas and that they stay strong in the face of ignorance and hostility. There are many instances where arts leaders embrace the challenge and provide leadership in a way that is inspiring and joyful. Daniel Barenboim and Edward Said exempliﬁed this when they began the West–Eastern Divan Orchestra1 (Chapter 5). They provided a locale for musicians of diﬀerent cultures (particularly Arab and Israeli) to come together to learn from one another and make music together. Andrea Montgomery and Terra Nova2 are doing this in Northern Ireland by creating a place for intercultural meeting and exchange that promotes a dialogue (Chapter 2). At the same time, they produce extraordinary theater-making with both professional and non-professional artists from many diﬀerent cultural backgrounds. Cloud Gate Dance Theatre3 from Taiwan and its founder Lin Hwai-min created the ﬁrst modern dance company in Asia. In this process, they embraced many diﬀerent cultural inﬂuences to create work that reﬂects Taiwanese culture using a visual language that everyone can access (Chapter 2). Bangarra Dance Company4 in Australia has been a role model for integrating modern dance with traditional dance and cultural practices, producing the most extraordinary work as a result. It is also enabling indigenous young people to reconnect with their culture and discover who they are through their arts practice (Chapter 4). The National Museum of New Zealand Te Papa5 demonstrates how diversity can be embraced to strengthen and validate a national institution. Te Papa provides a role model for audience engagement, access, ownership and participation (Chapter 7).
Women The book pays signiﬁcant attention to women as leaders and artists because there is a large amount of evidence from all artforms demonstrating that women are disadvantaged in the arts sector, although they are frequently its major participants and consumers. This makes no sense and needs to be addressed by arts institutions, funding bodies, donors, arts organizations, gallerists, publishers, critics, ﬁlm companies and the media. There are women doing amazing artistic work around the world but they are often invisible or given scant recognition. The examples of Maria Balshaw, Simone Young and Toni Morrison are inspirational (Chapter 3). Similarly, the leadership demonstrated by Jeanne Lamon and Tricia Baldwin at Tafelmusik is a role model for successful collaboration (Chapter 6). It is evident that women are often behind the scenes in arts organizations, making everything happen eﬀectively; it is time that they also shared the spotlight.
Commerce and Art There is always a tension between making art and making money. This tension is played out within arts organizations as they attempt to do both. This internal battle is reﬂected in the struggle between artistic leaders who are trying to make artistic work that is meaningful and arts managers who are trying to make it ﬁnancially viable. It is played out within arts institutions over priorities, organizational structures, leadership and goals. It is also played out in the lives of individual artists who need to make a living from their artistic practice.
Arts Leadership and Future Challenges
A large section of the arts world is directed towards making money from art. Some are able to do it without sacriﬁcing what is important to them about their art. The art– commerce relationship can be a driver for both artists and art entrepreneurs. MadeIn6 and the Chinese artist Xu Zhen approach this dilemma with a sense of irony and individuality (Chapter 8). Art entrepreneurs are increasingly evident in diﬀerent contexts and are coming up with innovative solutions for making good art that also makes a reasonable living for them. There is a great advantage in being able to do artwork without feeling beholden or dependent. In recent times, the framing of the arts within either a creative or cultural industry setting has created some tension around what is important in terms of arts practice. It is argued that an industry framing places the arts in a context where they are given more economic value and, by association, more respect. But there are challenges for arts practices to be co-located with sectors that are industry-focused. While some arts practice can ﬁt into an industry setting, many cannot. The arts may at times be about making money, but they also have other qualities that make it diﬀerent. A focus on the rule of the marketplace can also be a short-term approach. A healthy society and a healthy arts ecology is about more than what can sell at the highest price. We need to ask what makes people feel happy, connected and renewed. What will enrich our lives? Is it how much something costs or is it something else? It frequently relates to being deeply aﬀected by an experience or action that opens us to other possibilities. This is where art-making can diverge from commerce. Good arts practice can make money but it is not usually made with that goal in mind. Arts leaders bear a huge responsibility for ensuring that the artwork they are involved with is responsible, sustainable and contributing to human knowledge and growth.
Resources At present, as in every other aspect of society, resources and funding for art-making are unevenly distributed. Some organizations have huge amounts of endowments, grant funding, employees, buildings and capacity to do whatever they wish in their ﬁeld. Others get very little, live a ‘hand to mouth’ existence, and to survive is a constant struggle. This doesn’t mean that those getting little resourcing are doing ‘bad art’ or those getting the bulk of resources are doing ‘great art’. Size does not translate to artistic ‘excellence’. Whether the sector is large or small, there is good arts practice and poor arts practice. But the resources are not distributed by need but by historical patterns. It would make sense therefore if there was more equal sharing of the limited resources that currently exist. Maintaining a huge resource disparity between diﬀerent sectors of the arts makes no common sense. Each part of the arts sector then suﬀers; a healthy ecosystem is one that is equitably well fed and sustained. For instance, a major ballet company could take under its wing several small groups and provide them with spaces to rehearse and other facilities that are hard to ﬁnd. Art museums that are purely focused on collection could also assist art makers in various ways. Theater companies could provide spaces, and personnel, to help with the projects of smaller groups. Theatre Delicatessen7 in England is a role model for how resources can be shared, providing advantages to everyone involved. They demonstrate that it is possible to embrace a variety of stakeholders who will work together to provide mutual beneﬁt, while also making interesting artistic work (Chapter 7). The Alliance8 in the United States is a networked organization working to provide resources and knowledge for
Arts Leadership and Future Challenges
artists and art workers across all disciplines. They are also working internationally to support and upskill others so that they can tell their own stories to the world (Chapter 8). There are already existing examples in other parts of the community, such as cars and bikes that are shared by a whole community with people paying a small daily fee to use them. It makes sense that similar models could be developed in the arts. For example, in the visual arts there could be shared spaces available that artists can work in while accessing facilities such as computers, cameras, studios, kilns and other resources that are needed for particular practices. Similarly, performing artists could have access to studios that provide places to rehearse, develop new work and use resources such as sound and lighting equipment. There are many generous individual art donors who have given large amounts of money as well as other resources to arts organizations and artists individually. This is to be acknowledged and celebrated. However, donations are often accompanied by demands of recognition, inﬂuence and control in exchange for the gift. Giving that does not expect a ‘return’ is often the act that brings the most returns. Resources are unquestionably unevenly distributed. Generous, wealthy people can make a diﬀerence in this regard, but not if their gift is accompanied by too high a price for the recipient.
Enabling Everyone to Experience Arts Practice When people are asked what makes them happy, the response is usually something simple like watching nature recreate itself or observing children play. Survivors of terrible horrors such as the Holocaust and other human atrocities talk about the impact of listening to music for their mental well-being. An Australian Aboriginal Elder (a victim of the ‘stolen’ generation9) once told me that Mozart helped him get through each day. By listening to Mozart as he awoke, he felt better about himself and about others, and he could then carry on. There are many examples of arts organizations that are founded on a premise of making a diﬀerence through arts practice. For example, the community art organization Somebody’s Daughter Theatre Company10 in Australia works with present and former prisoners and marginalized young people to create theater work that is transformational for both the performers and the audience (Chapter 6). The Inema Arts Center11 in Rwanda is an example of how arts practices can be capacity-building and healing within a struggling community. It is working to heal the stories of the past by training young orphans in arts practice, thereby giving them a future that is positive and life-aﬃrming (Chapter 4). The Ubud Writers and Readers Festival12 in Indonesia was founded to help a community heal after unforeseen violence. It is now playing a local, national and global role facilitating contact and exchange with writers from around the world. It is also giving voice to a new generation of young writers from across Indonesia (Chapter 2). The Jaipur Literature Festival13 in India is an example of an arts festival that might be seen to have had a minority appeal. Instead, it has become a populist event embracing diﬀerent artforms, holding international satellite events and attracting many thousands of people to listen and talk about writing (Chapter 4). Throughout the world, there has been a movement towards closing borders and being focused on self-protection. Borderland Collective14 in the United States is working collaboratively to present the images and stories of people who are displaced or living apart from their family and/or friends. They are demonstrating the realities of those caught up in political, social and economic disasters (Chapter 6). Blast Theory15 in England is working in new interactive media with
Arts Leadership and Future Challenges
diﬀerent communities and in multiple locations. Using technology and working in a multidisciplinary mode they are changing the way the world is seen and understood (Chapter 8). The Chinese artist Ai Weiwei is a leader of new and diﬀerent arts practices and someone who has demonstrated incredible individual courage within his own country (Chapter 5). Artists are often pioneers in their work and, by their example, provide leadership for everyone. The arts represent the best of us, which is why they need nurturing, protecting and encouraging. Everyone in the arts needs to take responsibility for this – we are all leaders and we all must set an example. Adler suggests: Art, and artistic processes, have the power not only to oﬀer us hope but to guide us in rediscovering and creating beauty in our fractured world. (Adler 2015: 481)
Notes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
www.west-eastern-divan.org www.terranovaproductions.net http://site.cloudgate.org.tw/eng/theater www.bangarra.com.au www.tepapa.govt.nz www.madeingallery.com/en http://theatredelicatessen.co.uk www.thealliance.media Between 1910 and 1970, many Indigenous children in Australia were forcibly removed from their families because of various government policies. The generations of children removed under these policies became known as the Stolen Generations. www.somebodysdaughtertheatre.com http://inemaartcenter.com www.ubudwritersfestival.com https://jaipurliteraturefestival.org www.borderlandcollective.org www.blasttheory.co.uk
References Adler, Nancy (2015) “Finding beauty in a fractured world: Art inspires leaders – leaders change the world.” Academy of Management Review 40, (3), 480–494. Grayling, A. C. (2015) The Challenge of Things. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
ACCI Gallery 65 activities, creative 94, 103, 150, 152, 157 actors 16, 51, 70–71, 73–74, 84, 91, 116, 118–121, 136; ensemble of 118–119 Adelaide Festival Fringe 161 aesthetics 18, 79, 104, 124, 142 Africa 6, 33, 80, 84, 91 Ailey, Alvin 50, 92 Alcott, Louisa May 52 Alliance for Media Arts and Culture 153, 167 Alliance Française 35 Alsop, Marin 46, 58 Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater 50, 74 Amazon 81, 82 American: Ballet Theatre 9, 73; culture 28, 33; ﬁlm industry 54; Theater 58 Anderson, Laurie x approaches: aesthetic, 15, 21; entrepreneurial, xii, 159, 161; philosophical, 63, 152; reductionist 11, 143 Arab world 27, 30, 31 art and artist entrepreneurs 159, 167 art fairs 8, 77, 79 artforms: 40, 42–43, 49, 51–53, 55, 63–65, 69–73, 77, 79, 84–85, 90–92, 94, 107, 111, 121–122; collaborative 14, 65, 96, 116; and arts organizations 64–88 art galleries 6, 49, 65, 78, 142–143 artistic: collaboration 107, 110, 115, 117–118, 122–124; directors 42, 49–50, 64, 72, 75, 79, 95, 97, 98, 111, 123, 131, 139, 160; leadership 10–11, 40, 50, 52, 63, 64, 68–69, 76, 78, 93, 95, 101, 112, 117, 123, 131, 139, 166; outcomes 13, 17, 113, 130, 133; processes 69, 118, 123, 169; visions 67, 69, 94, 112, 130; work 64, 65, 68, 71, 103, 147, 166 artists: xi–xii, 5–7, 17, 47–48, 63–68, 70–72, 77–80, 89–91, 99–104, 116–118, 120–124, 129–136, 146–149, 158–164, 166–169; avant-garde 101–102; contemporary 78, 157, 160, 162; group of 72, 89, 99, 115, 122, 149; individual 34, 76, 101–102, 122, 153, 166 artists’ cooperatives 65
art museums 4, 11, 43, 59, 78, 98, 135, 142, 167 arts: administration xii, 49, 69, 112, 88, 126; and leadership xi, 3–22, 63, 104, 124, 165; centers 6, 43, 64, 141; contemporary 3, 7, 66, 69, 70, 78, 113, 138; environment 13, 165; funding 6–7, 36–37, 49, 138, 162; governance and leadership of 65, 69; institutions 42, 66, 135–136, 142–143, 166; leaders 13, 14, 17, 21, 63, 66–67, 69, 89, 93, 96, 98, 100, 103–104, 129, 143, 153, 158–159, 161-2, 165–167; leadership roles 40, 48, 81, 98, 153; management xii, 17–21, 39, 58, 68, 69, 86–89, 97, 104–105, 125–126, 144–145, 162–164, 166 ; managers and managerialism 88, 145; organizations 10–11, 15, 17, 37, 63–89, 112–114, 129–133, 135–136, 138–139, 141–143, 147, 153, 155–162, 166, 168; performing 76, 111, 113, 130; practices, 3–8, 10–11, 23, 27–28, 37–38, 40, 90, 93, 102–103, 136–139, 142–143, 149–150, 155–159, 161, 165–169; sectors 3, 14, 42, 64, 68–69, 123–24, 130, 138, 143, 146, 152, 154, 156, 158, 165–167; structure of 64, 68; workers 14, 42, 89, 112, 123, 154, 157 artworks 7, 29, 40, 79, 102, 108, 122–123, 167 Arts Council England 164 Arts Council Movement 22 Asia 3, 6, 19, 21, 28, 34, 38, 74, 79, 84, 104, 160, 166 Asian Civilizations Museum 17, 78 audience engagement 104, 117, 123, 125, 139, 166 audiences 17, 45, 65, 74, 76–77, 82, 102–103, 110–113, 117–118, 120–121, 123, 130–134, 138–143, 146–147, 150–151 auditions: blind 46–47 Austen, Jane 52, 57 Australia 42, 45, 49, 51, 54–55, 59, 74, 79, 86, 88, 121–122, 144, 162, 166, 168–169 Australia Council 23, 38, 51, 56, 58, 88, 100, 137, 147, 162 Australian Aboriginal people 3, 28, 74, 122 Australian Ballet Company 95, 97, 99
Index Australian Opera Company 44–45 Austria 68 authenticity 86, 104, 123, 130 authentic leadership 13, 19, 56, 145 authoritarian leadership 8–9, 11, 13, 31 positional authority 18, 31, 117, 140 autocratic leadership 40, 94, 96, 97, 155 autonomy 77, 97, 148, 164 Baldwin, Tricia 111–112, 166 Bali 34–35, 73 Balinese dance 73 ballet 7, 37, 49–50, 58, 70, 94–97 ballet companies 49–50, 64, 72–73, 95–96, 105, 133, 136, 167 Balshaw, Maria 48–49, 56, 99, 105, 166 Baltimore Symphony 46 Bangarra Dance Company 74–75, 86, 166 Bankside Globe 150 Barcelona Symphony Orchestra 112 Barenboim, Daniel 91–92, 104, 166 Bausch, Pina 50, 73, 92 behavior traits 31–32 beliefs 5, 12, 24, 32, 47, 98, 119, 141 beneﬁts, mutual 131, 167 Benjamin, Walter 4 Berliner Ensemble 119 Berlin Philharmonic 46, 91 Bezor, Annette 147 biennales 79, 160 Bilbao 6, 78 Biophilia 148, 162 Black Swan State Theatre Company 150 Blast Theory 149, 168 Blixen, Karen 52 Blue Star Contemporary Art Gallery 115 board members 51, 66, 68, 129–131, 136 boards 43, 45–46, 66–68, 109, 111–112, 130–131, 133–134, 141 Bolshoi Ballet Company 95–96, 99, 105 books: 7, 52, 53, 81–82; digitize 151, 162 book trade 81–82 Borderland Collective 115, 168 box oﬃce 25, 68, 87 brands 6, 81, 159–160 Braque, George x Brazil 31, 79 Brecht, Bertolt 92, 119, 126 Britain 6, 21, 51, 36, 137, 150 British Council 35–36, 38, 100 British theater 50–51 Broad, Eli 134–135 Broad Contemporary Art Museum 135 Broadway, 25, 51, 52 Brontë Sisters 52 Brook, Peter 89, 92, 120 Buddhist culture 26, 28
budgets 63, 111–112 businesses mainstream 108, 131, 158 business models 86, 129–130, 146 buyers 4, 130, 143 Canada 31, 39, 52, 111–112, 164 Canada Council 137 Canadian Theatre 58 capacity building 153, 168 Catholic Church 11 cave paintings 3, 20 cell phones 27, 70 Central America 115 ceremony 102, 123, 140 charisma 3, 10, 13–14, 18, 40, 92, 94 charismatic leadership 18, 19, 104 charity 55, 64, 137 Cheltenham Literary Festival 82 Cherkaoui, Sidi Larbi 117 chief executive oﬃcer (CEOs) 64, 69, 72–73, 88, 99, 111–112, 145 children 50, 53, 75, 94, 101, 169 China 6, 21, 31, 75, 79, 101–102, 160 Chinese 26, 159, 160 Chinese avant-garde art movement 101 Chinese ﬁlm industry 84 C. H. Nash Museum (CHNM) 141 choreographers 49–50, 55, 70, 73–74, 92, 94, 111, 118, 132–134 cinematographers 54, 84 circus 16, 70, 75, 83 cities 5–6, 19–20, 43–44, 74, 79, 87, 135–136, 149, 152, 157 Clark, Maud 121–122 classical music 46, 71, 75–76, 92 Clore Leadership Programme 99, 103, 105 Clottes, Jean 3 Cloud Gate Dance Theatre 25, 26, 39, 166 collaborations 15, 72, 92, 107–108, 111, 113–116, 118–126, 131–132, 145, 147, 150, 153–154 collaborative: artistic process 109, 116–117, 120, 122, 124, 126, 148; forms xii, 12, 115; leadership 14, 15, 21, 76, 87–88, 94, 107–108, 110, 111–114, 124–126; modes 111, 117, 122; space and structures 114, 123–124 collaborators 72, 111, 115, 118, 122, 132, 160 collections 21, 48, 77, 78, 122, 134, 140, 142, 148, 150, 164, 167 collectives 65, 114 colonizers 6, 25, 27, 35 commerce 8, 85, 162, 165–167 commerce dialectic 157 commissions 49, 51, 152 commodiﬁcation 4, 148 commodiﬁcation and instrumentality in cultural policy, 20
communities 16–17, 23-4, 29, 33–34, 42, 74–75, 81–82, 88, 103–104, 109, 114, 121, 123, 132, 139–143, 153, 168–169 community arts practice 36, 122 companies 13, 26, 29–30, 45, 49-51, 64–65, 72–75, 81–84, 95–96, 114, 121–122, 129, 133, 139, 151, 159 competition 29, 67, 71, 75, 95, 116, 130, 137, 143, 162 composers 76, 84, 113, 118, 151 concerts 33, 83, 112 conduct 45–46, 76, 140 conductors 16, 45–47, 55, 57–58, 76, 91–92, 102–103, 110, 112; female, 43, 45, 47 conﬂict 4, 29, 66–67, 70, 97, 113, 116, 124, 130, 133 Confucianism 129, 145 consumers 4, 82, 159, 166 contexts xi–xii, 7, 10–11, 14–17, 37–38, 40–41, 67–69, 71–73, 93–94, 116–117, 129–131, 146–147, 149, 154, 160–161; collaborative 120; cross-cultural 29; cultural 13, 73, 104; individual1 43; new 146; organizational 10, 129, 165 contingency models of leadership 9, 110 control 42, 47, 63, 66–67, 69, 79, 82, 84, 116, 135–136, 142–143, 148, 150–151, 153, 158 controversy 135, 138, 156 convergence 80–81, 83–86, 147 cooperatives 65, 77 copyright 76, 146, 150–151, 163; agreement 151; control of 150; legislation 37; paying 151, 162 crafts 70, 77, 80, 117 creation 6, 17, 25, 34, 54, 83, 114–116, 123, 146, 150; artistic 34, 54, 148; collaborative 116; original 76, 151 Creative Britain 6 creative: entrepreneur 158; industries xi, 6, 18–19, 58, 86, 90, 114, 146, 156–158, 162–164; management 18, 86, 162; organizations 16, 21, 125–126, 156; process 79, 97, 116–117, 123; roles 51, 53, 55; teams 86, 104; work 68, 75 creativity xii, 3, 6, 13, 16–19, 21, 34, 86, 92, 94, 104, 116–117, 119–120, 124, 137, 147, 150, 155–157, 159–164 creators 80, 82, 150–151, 157–158 critics 8, 53, 130, 166 cross-cultural issues 39, 58 cross-sector analysis 88, 145 cultural: activities 25, 36, 38, 80, 140, 143, 154; backgrounds 33, 142, 166; change makers 88, 105–106; crisis 87, 105; diﬀerences 27, 30, 33, 35, 71; diplomacy 33, 35–36, 38, 39; economics 21, 86, 164; entrepreneurs 159–160, 163; framings 23, 26, 29, 32–33, 37, 38, 42, 130; heritage 17, 140, 141, 156;
identities 7, 25–26; inclusion 142–143; industries 20, 55, 138, 156, 157, 158, 163, 164; institutions 69, 99, 134, 136, 141–142; leadership xii–xiii, 19, 21, 33–34, 35, 38–39, 42, 57, 80, 92, 99, 105, 125, 142, 158, 163; leadership and audience engagement 104, 125; leadership training programs 98; management 19, 39, 86, 163; policy xiii, 18–20, 22, 33, 35–38, 87, 100, 105, 157, 162–163; practices xii, 3–4, 6, 27, 36–37, 72, 158, 166; production 18, 27, 38, 157, 163; tourism 78, 83 culture and arts leadership 11, 23–39 cultures: artistic 67; commercial 19, 24–25; distinct 33, 66; dominant 27, 29; homemade 25, 27; mainstream 24, 54; male 41; popular 142, 149; position of 136; spheres of 24, 38; studio 114, 125; visual 144; within cultures 24, 26; women’s 41 culture wars 7, 18, 20, 162 curating 79, 88, 160 curators 28, 47–48, 55, 78–79, 87, 101, 135, 148, 160; female 43, 48 Da Vinci, Leonardo 147 dance 13–14, 16, 19, 26, 49–50, 58, 64–65, 70, 72–76, 80, 87, 92, 107, 111, 115, 117–118 dance companies 43, 72–74, 76, 93, 95, 100, 111, 132 dancers 16, 49–50, 70, 72–75, 94–97, 99, 116–118, 133–134, 136 DeNeefe, Janet 34 Denmark 31 designers 15, 51, 84, 120–121, 133–134 dialogue 35, 65, 78, 115, 139, 155, 166; intercultural, 74 diﬀerences xi, 4, 25, 28, 30, 42, 64, 67–68, 70, 111, 117, 139, 165, 168; aesthetic, 71, 75 digital world 84, 146, 150, 164 directors 43–44, 48, 50–51, 54–55, 64, 66–67, 70–72, 74–75, 82, 84, 91, 94–99, 115, 118–121, 139; co-artistic 132; managing 69, 72, 111–112, 118; role of 65, 71 Disney Corporation 83 distrust 28, 54 diversity 28, 35, 37, 100, 165–166 donations 37, 64, 135, 137, 168 donors 129, 134–135, 137, 161, 166, 168 dual: executive leadership 21, 88, 126; rationalities within the arts 63 ecology, arts 167 economists 19, 83, 86, 144 economy 19, 37–38, 162 ecosystem 25, 157, 167 editors 53–55, 81, 84
Index education 4–5, 21, 27, 30, 36, 81, 126, 134, 138, 142 egos 93, 95, 122, 155 Eliot, George 52 embodiment of leadership 16, 90, 102 employees 11, 64, 78, 95, 130–133, 141, 155, 167 employment 51–52, 54–55, 152, 154 endowments 112, 167 English National Ballet Company 49 English Youth Orchestra 46 Eno, Brian xi ensembles 45, 116, 118–119 enterprise, social 21, 164 entertainment 56, 84, 132 entrepreneurialism 16–17, 19, 159–164 entrepreneurs 17, 19–20, 89, 159–60, 162, 163 environments xi, 5, 12, 16–17, 25, 63, 78, 85, 107, 119, 151, 155, 161, 165; changing xi, 154, 162; collaborative 109; competitive 75; hostile 142 equity 27, 58, 153 ethnicity 3–4, 27, 38, 139, 152, 155, 163 Europe 5, 45, 48, 74, 79, 136 European: models 6, 136; museums 57 events 18, 20, 28–29, 34, 64, 75, 79, 83, 95, 140, 147 exchanges 17, 30, 74, 132, 136, 166, 168 exhibitions 7, 48, 65, 77–79, 84, 101, 115, 135, 140, 147, 154, 160 expectations: cultural 29, 33, 42, 65; leadership 31, 33, 41, 94 expertise 69, 98, 100, 109, 111, 114, 117, 119, 121, 154 female artists 40, 46, 47, 49–50, 56–58, 77, 94 feminist art criticism 58 festivals 6, 18–20, 33–35, 70, 75–76, 82–83, 86, 149, 154, 162 Filin, Sergei 95–96, 100 ﬁlmmakers xii, 55, 70, 83–84 ﬁlmmaking 54–55, 83–84 ﬁlms 25, 34, 42, 53–55, 58, 65, 70, 74, 83–85, 96, 121, 156–157 ﬁlm sector 54, 85 ﬁnancial challenges 64, 69 Finland 31 followers 9–15, 24, 31, 33, 40–41, 93, 97, 100, 102, 107, 117 founders 26, 34, 67, 74, 80, 122, 131 France 31 French culture 27 funders 50, 66, 98, 129–130, 133–134, 138, 166 funding 7–8, 35–37, 50, 55, 64, 76, 136, 138, 141, 143–144, 167 fundraising 66, 134–135
galleries 6, 47, 49, 65, 77–79, 102, 114, 143, 145, 148; commercial 65; cooperative 65, 79; major 48, 64, 77, 99; new 160 gallery directors 48, 55, 77 gatekeepers 81, 142, 147, 151 Gate Theatre 51 Gems, Pam 50 gender xi–xii, 3–4, 8, 39–44, 46–48, 50–52, 54–55, 57, 59, 81, 139, 146, 152, 155, 165 genres 75 German artists 163 Germany 68, 79, 119 Gilbert and George 122 glass ceiling 18, 43, 56 google x, 27, 162 governance of arts organizations 65–66, 69, 86, 136 government: censorship 37, 90; funding 7, 64, 66, 76, 119, 130, 158, 161; policy 137, 138; subsidy 51, 64, 68, 137–138; autocratic 37; federal 152; indirect arm of, 136–137 governments: 6–7, 14, 20, 36–38, 66, 95–96, 129–130, 133–134, 136–137, 157 Graham, Martha 50, 92 Grass, Gunter 90 Greer, Germaine 47 Great Britain 6, 21, 48, 51, 137, 150 Greece 41 groups 16, 28–31, 33, 53–54, 65, 67, 71–73, 75–77, 89, 99–100, 107–109, 111–115, 117–119, 121–123, 129–132, 149, 153–155, 167; cultural 29; ethnic 52, 152; stakeholder 133 group think mentality 13 Guerrilla Girls 47, 48, 57 Guggenheim 6, 78 Havel, Vaclav 91 Hermitage Museum 78 hierarchical behavior 11, 31, 41, 68, 78, 155 hierarchy 11, 69, 109, 112, 114, 124, 155, 158 Hindu culture 28 Hirst, Damien 77, 108, 125, 159, 163 Hockney, David 108, 125 Hollywood industry 85 Hong Kong 79 Hyper-capitalism 8, 18, 22 ideas 7, 17, 32, 54–55, 70, 93, 97, 102–103, 114, 116, 130, 149–150, 166 ideologies 6, 159 ignorance 91, 166 imagery, computer-generated 147 improvisation 113, 115, 121 income 17, 66, 68, 71–73, 76, 157–158 India 26, 31, 82–83, 168 India Art Fair 79
Indian ﬁlm industry 84 indigenous people 122, 140, 166 Individual artforms 65 Individualism/Collectivism 30 individuality 116, 167 individuals 14, 16, 18, 23, 30–31, 69, 71–72, 76, 89–104, 106–107, 109, 111, 116–117, 122, 152, 158 Indonesia 3, 34–35, 73, 168 Indonesian arts 34 industries 6, 57–58, 68, 83, 112, 157–158 industry: framings 156, 158; models xii, 158, 161 Inema Arts Center 80, 168 inﬂuence: cultural 28, 75; direct 130, 135; idealized 9, 13, 40; major 8, 77; stakeholder 129 informal recruitment practices 59, 164 innovation 16–17, 19, 22, 56, 70, 86, 94, 110, 116, 153, 155, 157, 159; management 22, 86, 104 institutions 7, 16–17, 44, 67, 81, 135–137, 139, 141, 143, 157 instrumental beneﬁts, 6 integration 4, 9, 74, 156 intellectual property 151 intelligence, emotional 12, 15, 98, 109 interactive media 149, 168 internet 27, 70, 76, 80, 149, 151 investment 25, 84, 131, 144, 151 Iran 30, 104 Ireland 73, 131 Irish theater 51, 57 Israel 31, 91, 104, 166 Jaipur Literary Festival 82–83, 168 Jamison, Judith 50 Japan 30–31 Japanese ﬁlm industry 84 Jazz bands 87, 116, 125 Jazz musicians 69, 76, 117 Kahlo, Frida 89 Kaiser, Michael 89 Keynes, John Maynard 6, 22 Kneehigh Company 114 knowledge, 14, 53, 69, 77, 92–93, 98–100, 102, 104, 110–111, 114, 116–117, 120, 139, 141–142, 151 Koons, Jeﬀ 90, 102 Korea 31 Lamon, Jeanne 111–112, 166 languages xii, 25, 30, 45, 53, 72, 130, 140; visual, 75, 166 Latin America 31, 79 Leader-Centered model 32
leader eﬀectiveness 20, 32 leaders: xi–xiii, 8–13, 31, 40–43, 45–46, 53–55, 85–87, 89–90, 92–104, 108–109, 112–113, 116–117, 119–120, 130, 155; artist/artistic 10; artists and arts 17, 35, 103, 129, 146; arts/ cultural 67, 100; charismatic 13–14, 92–93; designated 11, 31; female 40–41; individual 13–14, 16, 92–93, 108; natural xi, 88, 106; organic 110, 117; organizational 69, 99; role of 92, 96; transformational 9, 13; change of 18, 104, 169 leadership: act of xii, 18, 67; and culture 30, 57, 130; and decision-making 86, 104, 125; and gender 40–42; and management xi, 10, 65, 68; art of 20–21, 105, 125; charismatic 21, 88; covert 21, 58, 87, 105, 109–110, 126; the dark side of 19, 104; deﬁnitions of 67; distributed 20, 107–108, 113, 125; dual 21, 88, 113, 126; eﬀective 8, 32, 41, 69, 125; embodied 3, 18, 102, 104, 124; individual 14, 155; organic 110, 116; participatory 112–113; practice of xi, 10; process of xi, 14–15, 17, 108–109, 116; providing 38, 115, 131; servant 12–13, 20; sharing 65, 107, 124; successful 32, 40–41; transformational 13, 33; behaviors 9, 13, 111; 41; framing 15, 118; journey 16, 67; literature 10, 41; partnerships 107; skills 8, 69, 98; leadership models: xi, 8–10, 15, 23, 32, 66, 94, 96, 108, 113, 118, 161; autocratic 68, 94; dual 72, 113; heroic model 8; individual 110; male 94 leadership position 11, 42, 100; artistic, 69 leadership roles 40, 42, 45–46, 48, 50, 54, 70–72, 76, 90, 96–101, 104, 111, 149, 152, 154 leadership style 8–9, 13, 33, 39, 40, 56, 59, 96, 105, 110, 155; inclusive, 41; transactional, 11, 33, 40 libraries 80–81, 88, 131, 143, 150, 156 liminal space 71 Lincoln Center 43–44, 74 literature 8–10, 12–14, 16, 18, 34, 38, 52–53, 59, 65, 70, 82, 89, 94, 107, 113, 155–156, 164 live performance 149–150 London xiii, 18–22, 38–39, 43–44, 46, 48, 50, 86–88, 99, 104–105, 123, 125–126, 145, 149, 163–164 London Symphony Orchestra (LSO) 43–44, 76 Los Angeles 19, 134, 144, 150 Machiavelli, N. 8 MadeIn and Xu Zhen 159–160, 164 Male: conductors 57; dancers 50, 95 Malta 19, 38–39, 57, 105 management xi–xii, 10–11, 19–20, 43, 45, 63, 65–69, 86–87, 98, 124, 126, 130, 133, 143–145, 162–164; corporate 68; leadership
Index and arts 87, 126; scientiﬁc 63, 85; theorists 5, 15, 68-69 managerialism 69, 85, 88, 130, 137, 143, 145, 158 managers 10, 17–18, 67, 69, 77, 109, 111–113, 116, 124–125, 131, 155–156 managing: 19, 22, 86, 104, 109, 113, 125, 129, 162; innovation 19, 87, 104, 125, 16; professionals 21, 58, 87, 105, 126; stakeholder relationships 130 Mapplethorpe, Robert 7 markets, 6, 17, 28, 47, 77, 81, 145, 147–148, 158–161 marketers 19, 66, 144 marketing 13, 67, 76, 84, 130, 160–161, 164 marketplace 6–8, 18, 20, 24, 77, 137, 160, 167 Martha Graham Company 13, 74 Marx, Karl 4, 20 masculinist assumptions 54 Masculinity/Femininity 30 measurement 19–20, 66, 104, 138 measuring the value of culture 20 media: 23, 28, 56, 83, 86, 121, 129, 132, 137, 166; popular 28, 89; social 76, 80, 147, 149, 154; arts 70, 153; sector 84–85 mediums, digital 82 Metropolitan Museum 142 Metropolitan Opera 150 Mexico 31, 115 Michelangelo 108 Middle East 79, 84, 91 models of leadership 3, 8–9, 11, 14–15, 64, 66, 109–114, 116–117, 119–121, 123, 126, 136–137, 139, 157–158, 160; co-leadership 14; collaborative 85, 116; collective 77; corporate 66–67, 69; couple 15; gendered, 129; governance 66; theoretical 9–10, 32 Modern Art 43, 48, 78, 85, 148–149 Modernism 145, 164 Modern: leaders 96; society 22 modes: multidisciplinary 169; of working 111, 124 money 7, 17, 50, 63, 78, 84, 133–134, 143, 159, 167–168; making 10, 132, 158, 161, 166–167 mores 23, 25, 33, 54, 95 Morrison, Toni 53, 58, 166 Mozart, Wolfgang 76, 90, 168 museum directors 47 Museum for Contemporary Art in Sydney 43 Museum of Modern Art in New York (MOMA) 44, 43, 48, 78, 85, 148 museums 6, 20, 28, 43, 47–48, 64, 98, 115, 135, 140–143, 145, 149, 156, 161, 163; new 140 music xiii, 3, 5, 70, 74–76, 89–91, 102–103, 107, 110–11, 115, 118, 150–151, 156–157, 166, 168; baroque 111; contemporary, 76
music directors 45–46, 55, 57, 64, 84, 91, 111 musicians 45–47, 70–71, 75–77, 92, 102, 109–112, 116–117, 120, 136, 148, 166 music world 45, 75–77 narcissism 13–14, 93–94, 116 National Endowment for the Arts 8, 21 National Gallery of Great Britain 122 national museums 135–136, 140 National Museum of New Zealand 139, 166 National Theatre of Great Britain 51, 119, 150 Nazi period 7, 79, 91 negative critical responses 54 neoliberalism 69, 85, 162 Netherlands 31 networking 146, 152, 154, 157 networks: 54, 152, 154; online 152–153; social 141; and arts leadership 152 new: forms 24, 92, 147, 149; framings xii, 150, 161; spaces 21, 149; technologies and arts practice 146-147 New York Ballet 49 New York Museum of Modern Art 149 New York Philharmonic (NYP) 43–44 New Zealand 139–140, 166 not for proﬁt arts models 10, 64, 144, 145, 158 North America 6, 160 Northern Ireland 29, 166 Norway 31 Norwegian National Museum 86, 104 Nova, Terra 29–30, 166 observation 33, 117 observers xi, 4–5, 11, 28, 115 Oceania 6 online retailing 82 opera: companies 11, 64, 76, 93, 118; grand 65; opera houses, 4–6, 18, 45, 136; major international 118; performances 150; orchestras 43–46, 57, 64, 76, 91, 109, 111–112, 136; major 43, 45, 76; symphony, 64, 76 organizational: behavior 19–20, 104; models xi, 11, 72, 85, 143 organizations 10–11, 13–14, 16–19, 21–22, 43, 63–72, 75–76, 85–86, 98–99, 112–113, 129–131, 138–139, 141, 153, 156; artists and arts 143, 147, 153, 157–158, 161–162; community art 168; complex 109; cultural 67; culture-oriented 145; innovative 16, 156; large 64, 70, 107; networked 167; touring 76 orientalism 25, 39 Orwell, George xii, 90 outcomes: commercial 157–158; creative 16, 94, 117–118, 156; economic 5; educational 6, 64; entrepreneurial 16; gendered 59, 164; intangible 7; measurable 7; tangible 137 ownership, 120, 166; sharing 111
Paciﬁc island women 42 painters 70–71, 80 Page, Stephen 74–75 Palestine 30, 91 Paris Opera 65, 86 participants, 4, 14, 25, 27, 29, 34, 42, 109, 114–115, 118–120, 122, 124, 142, 146, 154–155; active 123, 150; engaged 138 participation 51, 113, 117, 144–145, 153, 166 patrons 14, 20, 47, 136, 145, 161 peers 65, 77, 90, 98–101, 103, 109 perceptions 14, 29, 31–32, 40–41, 45, 92, 145, 166 performance measurement 66, 138, 144 performers 34, 71, 117–118, 121, 123, 150, 168 performing arts organizations 145, 164 philanthropy 24, 66, 76, 135, 144 philosophy xi, 7, 64, 114, 140, 161; ancient 123; extreme 90 phones, mobile 27, 149 photography 77, 101 physical space 142, 146 physical theater 75 Picasso, Pablo 77, 79, 90 Pina Bausch 50, 73, 74, 92 Pina Bausch Company 74 players 14–15, 36–37, 43, 71, 75, 81, 82, 107, 109–110, 117, 120, 123–124, 129, 149 playwrights 51, 58, 119, Poland 48 politics 6, 21, 145, 164 popularity 85, 138, 158 positional leaders 10, 12, 69, 109 power: bargaining 131, 151; colonizing 25; ﬁnancial 131; soft 36, 39 practices: artistic 8, 71, 94, 154, 158, 166; arts and cultural xii, 3; commercial 158; creative 146; embodied 16 Praagh, Peggy Van 49 privacy 30, 52, 151–152 private: public partnerships 153; sector models 11; support 64, 66 privatizing culture 22, 88 producers 54–55, 84, 131; executive 54, 152 proﬁt: models for 25, 64, 83, 133, 157–158; programming for 76, 138–139, 142 promotion 28, 36, 77, 102, 147, 153–154 public: bodies 130, 137; culture 20, 39; goods 24, 36; policy 19, 156, 163; productivity 88, 145; sector 41, 85, 143, 144, 162 Public Theater in New York 135 publishers 22, 80–82, 151, 166 publishing 53, 156–157 race 4, 27, 38, 81, 152, 163 Random House 81
realities 14, 27, 40–41, 77, 93, 97, 113–14, 158, 165, 168 recital halls 76 recognition 9–10, 25, 33, 35, 40, 43, 48, 53, 99, 113, 119, 124, 143, 153, 168 reductionism 161 regeneration 25, 138 regions 27–28, 33, 53, 78–80, 85, 152, 157 regulations 11, 37 rehearsals 71, 72, 102–103, 119–120 rehearsal spaces 71, 74, 97, 155 relationship marketing 138, 145 relationships 5–6, 9–10, 12, 15–16, 18, 25, 27–28, 30, 67–68, 112–113, 117–118, 129, 131–132, 141, 143 religion 7, 25 repertoire 74, 110 resistance 45, 47, 152, 166 resources 20, 81, 147, 153–154, 165, 167–168 responsibilities 12, 14, 50, 53, 65, 68–69, 78, 99, 103–104, 116, 120, 123, 139, 142, 152; collective 77; organizational 113; shared 124 responsible leadership 22, 145 reviewers 52–53 risks 66, 69, 103, 145, 158, 160, 165 rituals 25, 72, 160 role models 13, 20, 53, 89, 163, 166–167 role: 3, 5–6, 10, 14–16, 34–37, 45–51, 63–66, 68–69, 75–76, 85–86, 92–93, 95–100, 109–112, 138–141, 145–147; administrative 51, 69, 78; artistic 68–69; cultural 5; decision-making 55, 107; dominant 136, 155; innovative 161; leader’s 93; positional 101, 109; senior 42, 53, 69; women’s 55 Roy, Arundhati 90 Royal Ballet 49, 95 Royal Court Theatre Company 51 Royal Opera House in London 43, 44 Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) 7, 50, 51, 72, 118–119, 125 Russia 31, 95, 105, 119 Rwanda 80, 168 Rwandan artists 80 Said, Edward 56, 91, 166 salaries 42, 96 sales 77–80, 82 Sand, George 52 Scandinavia 31 schools 73, 75, 101, 130, 137 scientists 12, 147 Scotland 137 Screen Australia 54–55, 58 sculptures 70, 77, 80, 135 cultural sectors 33, 67, 90, 97, 156, 159, 161 senior leadership roles 42, 43, 44, 91 separation 4–5, 10, 16, 102, 156
Index sexism 43, 46, 48, 58 sexual politics 58, 88 Shakespeare, William 29, 89, 120, 135, 150 shared leadership 14, 21, 107–108, 113–114, 117, 126 shared studio spaces 114 shareholders 104, 129 Shepherd, Mike 114 Shivalingappa, Shanatala 117 Singapore 78–79, 90, 150 Singaporean society 91 skill base 73, 97–98, 153 skilled knowledge workers 109 skills 46–47, 66, 68, 73, 75, 86, 88, 97–98, 100, 103–104, 107–111, 113–114, 116–117, 119, 123–124; level of 73, 116 Slavic countries 31 Smaller Arts Organizations 124 Smithsonian Institution 135 social development 33, 64 social entrepreneurs 17, 161 social impact 6, 20, 153 societies 21, 25, 44, 46, 47, 58, 87, 88, 163, 36, 86, 104, 125, 126, 164; civil, 36; collectivist, 30–31, 33; contemporary, 4, 97, 161; individualist, 30 Somebody’s Daughter Theatre Company 121, 168 spaces 3, 7, 11, 15–16, 25, 28–29, 65, 71, 77, 79, 131–132, 140–142, 148–150, 153, 167, 168 Spain 31, 48, 91, 130, 145 specialist auction houses 79 specialized knowledge workers 41 sponsors 14, 129–131, 133–135, 137 sponsorship 82, 131 staﬀ 76, 78, 95, 103, 114, 131, 139–141 Stakeholder Approach 129, 144 stakeholders 13–14, 17, 66, 68, 104, 129–138, 141, 143, 145, 167 standards 86, 100, 147 Stanislavski, Konstantin 119, 126 strategy 13, 33, 84 street circus 75 Stretton, Ross 95, 97 string quartets 76–77, 87, 117, 125 studio, 71, 73–74, 79, 87, 101, 114, 122, 168 subscribers 101, 138–139 support: public 156; staﬀ 73–74, 76 Sweden 31, 55 Sydney Opera House 43–44 Sydney Symphony Orchestra (SSO) 43–44 systems: belief 7, 32, 43, 66; theory 15, 18, 129, 143 Tafelmusik Baroque Orchestra 111–112, 166 Tagore, Rabindranath 89
Taiwan 25–26, 33, 166 Taiwanese culture 166 Tanzania 153–154 taste 4, 81, 139, 147 Tate Britain 6, 43, 44, 48–49, 56, 99, 105, 140–141, 145 taxpayers 137, 143 Taymor, Julie 54 teachers 46, 94–95 teams 14, 79, 84, 89, 94, 103, 107–8, 116, 122, 154–155, 159; self-managed 87, 125 technologies xii, 3, 27, 70, 76, 86, 146–50, 153, 163–164, 169; access to 27, 70, 146; new 24, 146–151, 161, 163; use of 147, 150 television 74, 150, 156–157 tension 63, 113, 124–125, 130, 166–167 Tharp Kenneth 73, 99 Tharp Twyla 50 Theater: collectives 114; companies 43, 51, 68, 72–73, 93, 98, 111, 121–122, 136, 139, 167; directors 55, 89, 92, 94, 97, 155; performances 82, 123; theater spaces 72, 121, 142; work 118–119, 168 theaters 5–6, 50–52, 56, 70–72, 74, 76, 84, 89, 92, 94, 115, 118–121, 123, 139, 150 Theatre Delicatessen 131–132, 167 Théâtre Denise-Pelletier 21, 88, 126 Theatre Royal Stratford East 123, 125, 139, 142 themes 102, 115, 125 theory 27, 38–39, 87, 162–163 thinking xiii, 6, 17, 29, 89, 92–94, 130, 136 time xi–xii, 24, 26, 28–29, 42–43, 50–51, 71, 75–77, 79–80, 89–90, 102–103, 114, 116–121, 152, 166; period of, 71, 118, 121, 131 traditions 21, 73–75, 120, 122 traits 31–32, 164 transactional models 3, 9, 11, 15, 141 transformational models 3, 5, 9, 11, 13, 33, 40, 92, 168 transparency 12, 97, 137 trust 12–13, 36, 54, 101, 113, 118–119 Tzu, Sun 8 Ubud Writers and Readers Festival 34–35, 168 UK arts festivals 22 UK ﬁlm industry 59, 164 understandings xi–xii, 3–5, 23, 27–29, 33, 35–37, 39, 69, 100, 103, 115–117, 129, 139, 142, 161; shared 114, 136 Union Dance Company 73 United Kingdom 6, 35, 46, 49, 55, 66, 72–73, 91, 95, 99–100, 103, 114, 138, 141 United States 8, 24, 27, 31, 33, 46, 49, 51, 53, 55, 64, 66, 81–82, 91, 115, 135, 136, 140, 153, 162, 167–168
values xi, 4–6, 10, 12, 24, 27, 32, 41–43, 65, 98, 129, 131, 138, 141, 143–144; architecture of 18; conservative social 24; core, 70; cultural 20, 24, 31, 33, 35, 131, 157; cultural organizations 141; economic 131, 167; internalized 31; monetary 78 Van Gogh, Vincent 77 Van Gogh Museum 78 Venice Biennale 79 video 70, 77, 101 video games 83, 148 Vienna Philharmonic 45–46, 57–58, 91, 105 Vienna State Opera 45 virtual: spaces 148, 154; worlds 146, 149 visionaries 10, 103 vision xiii, 9, 12–13, 45, 63, 89, 94, 96–97, 100–101, 103, 111–112, 118, 120, 124, 129; clear 68, 96; leader’s 13, 120; shared 9, 113 visual arts 7, 8, 47–48, 65, 70, 77–79, 89, 122, 150, 156, 168 volunteers 34, 131, 139, 141 Von Karajan, Herbert 91 Walker Arts Center 140, 142 Walt Disney Concert Hall 135 weaknesses 31, 93, 100, 156 wealth 5, 78, 81, 88, 142 wealthy arts benefactors 134, 135 web 18, 36, 147, 163 Weber, Max 18, 119, 126 web of relationships 143
Weiwei, Ai 101–102, 105, 169 West-Eastern Divan Orchestra 91, 92, 166 Western: bias 32; classical tradition 72; countries 42, 52; culture 4, 34; framework 23, 34, 129; leadership 23, 32 Whitechapel Gallery in London 48, 57 Winterson, Jeanette 49 Women: 40–43, 45–59, 80–81, 121, 126, 152, 166; artists 47–48, 55, 57; black 53; choreographers 50, 58; curators 48, 58; directors 50–51; employment of 50, 54; enabled 52; in ﬁlm sector 152; invisibility of 42, 47; in literary arts 52; leaders 50, 54, 57; museum directors 48; musicians 45, 47; occupying senior arts leadership positions 42; playwrights 50–51; position of 42, 46, 49, 53–55, 165; stories 57; survey of 51; theater directors 51; rights 55, 91; writers 52 Women and Arts Leadership 40–55 working spaces 65, 79–80, 154 workplaces 14, 32, 41, 155 workshopping process 120 writers 15, 27, 35, 50–55, 68, 70–71, 80–84, 89, 108, 114, 117–118, 121, 152, 168; black 53; contemporary 15; female 51 Young, Simone 44, 59, 166 YouTube 27, 147 Yugoslavia 89 Zhen, Xu 159–160, 164