huffingtonpost.com: I have been approached several times in the last few months by arts organizations and by executive search firms looking for new executive directors. While I am not a candidate, I am usually asked to recommend others who might fill the position and am frequently asked to comment on other candidates who have already been approached.
It is surprising how many times I hear the same names and how few new names are ever mentioned.
The people mentioned most often are those doing a stellar job in high-profile jobs who have no intention of leaving their current positions.
9 comments:
This article creates a lot of mixed feelings for me. First off, as someone interested in arts management, I want people like the author of this article to see me and take a chance and hire me. It gives me hope that there are people like this author who see the worth in young and passionate managers. At the same time, it appears as though the general trend is to hire older, "more experienced" managers regardless of their previous failures. The arts seem to be the only field where people are so willing to ignore failures over experience, which is a rough place for recent college graduates. We are here in an environment where what you did before you came to college doesn't matter (aka, experience), but most all of your failures are apparent and critiqued. It's concerning that people are scared to hire new and young managers, but like I said before, the author gives me hope that eventually people will hire younger managers because the failures of their seniors will create a necessity for us.
I definitely agree with Kelly and had similar reactions to this article. I applaud the author of the article for shedding light on the art's trend to hire older, more "big-name" type arts managers. However, it certainly seems as if the same names are being thrown around, and companies are choosing managers from more prestigious companies over managers with the most promise and talent to succeed. Hopefully, more people will begin to have the same outlook as the author of this article, as there are many young individuals who have the potential to change the art industry into something truly remarkable. Also, age does not translate to a good leader in any industry, and while younger people should respect their elders, this does not mean that young people are incapable of doing great things, in big positions, whether the company they're working for is big or small.
I found the fact that there's "regional-phobia" (fear of hiring managers from smaller regional theatres because of perceived lack of experience on your scale of production) most interesting in this article. According to this article, if you don't have experience with the largest companies, you will never work for those largest companies, and I really hope that's not the case. An artistic manager from a smaller theatre develops things companies with large budgets never do: shrewd, careful and calculated business sense, the driving of a successful informational and capital campaign, likely intimate work with artists and close personal relationships with donors and board members, and the ability to program the theatre with a real sense for what will sell to the public and will still fulfill their artistic vision (the first being the only way the company stays alive, the second being the way they stay engaged in the arts and begin seeking larger jobs). I am very proud to have received a lot of real-world education from a series of short-engagement regional positions and internships - I feel like there's more ability (or need) to dive right in and be really active and effective to keep the company afloat, where managers in larger companies may be worked around if they are as ineffective as these transient managers are.
i have a lot of friends who is studying art management in the US. To be honest, i really don't know what a art manager should do. i saw only two situations. first one, some of them get into a really great progrem, like the art management progrem in the Columbia University, they just do everything that seem like a producer should do and use 3 years to figure out what exactly they are doing. the second option is a little bit sad, thay didn't get into a good program, they just got admitted to a normal university. and everyday they fake there is a show and they have to do something to sell it. otherwise, they spend tons of time to go shopping... so i get confused what exactly an art manager should do. in my imagination, an art manager should manage the whole field of this kind of art or run a art company and their main job is do things with the govern and deal with a lot of stupid policies.. their job should be really important, cause they are the connection between theater and the govern, but i do suspect is there any one who is good enough for this?
I agree with what Kelly, and Jess had to say. I am approaching this article as someone who is not experienced in particularly management/ solely a career in management, and feel that this sentiment carries over in most all aspects of theater, the arts- the business world itself! Once an employer has a trusted employee that has suited one's line of work for a while- it is difficult to give that person up, especially if they have been benefitting the company for quite some time. Nevertheless- it is so important to support young professionals! I know that certain companies love getting a surplus of students to intern/ work for them, the real riddle though is getting hired for a position that has been held by people with a greater years of experience. I understand why keeping a professional that knows the system, the history, the anything of how any organization/ firm runs makes sense, but for new up and coming companies, such a sentiment does not make as much sense.
Yes! This is something that so many more employers need to be aware of, be it in the specific field of art managers, or the arts in general, or simply across the board in all possible jobs. Challenges can come up in smaller companies and be just as much of a learning opportunity as those encountered in big-name organizations. This is just the perpetual challenge met by younger job-seekers trying to outshine those who may have experience that is seemingly more valuable but, as this article points out, ultimately less successful.
I believe that the young generations are going to be the future of theatre/arts management very soon. I believe that this article points out many great things. I also believe, however, that the "older" arts managers will not be the ones to bring the new styles of theatre into their venues. Theatre is clearly constantly changing. The new styles of theatre that are emerging are challenging and are huge risks. I believe that the only possible way to get this style of theatre recognized and "Normal" is to let it happen. Take a risk. I don't see these "older and wiser" arts managers as being the ones that are willing to take these risks. However, they have kept the theatre alive for quite sometime...
From the point of view of someone who will soon be going into the field, I can't say that I really disagree with what this article is saying, this being said I do understand that it sounds risky for organizations to hire someone with little experience to run their whole company.
The thing that I am more confused is why their aren't more senior arts managers in general. I guess it's because it is a newish field and there are not a ton of top theaters, so the demand for older arts managers is low. Also because companies will pick someone good and cultivate them so that not a lot of arts managers have worked in the field at that level.
I think that what is important to realise about this article is that there is a difference between being young and not having experience. You can be very young and have tons of experience as well as a degree (MFA/BFA). However I don't think that someone who has recently graduated with a Bachelor degree and with probably 1 year in the arts management business would be the best candidate as an executive director in a company which has been around for a long time, where they will have to figure things out on their own. Maybe as an assistant 1st would be better. That is asking to be thrown under a bus. However, it could work out well, who knows. What I do love about the article, which everyone else has mentioned is the fact that seasoned managers, who may not be the best at their jobs would sometimes be given a chance before the younger experienced candidate. I applaud the writer for pointing out this ridiculous fact.
Post a Comment