WNYC Podcast: In the Arts it’s Rookies versus Veterans
WNYC recently broadcast a segment that touched on the “grey-ing” of the non-profit arts sector. It’s a familiar subject that most artists have heard plenty about: The audience for the arts is gradually getting older and unless an effort is made to engage a younger demographic, many art institutions will die with its patrons.
But this debate focuses specifically around arts leadership: Are seasoned veterans more equipped to run arts institutions than younger administrators with new (and potentially controversial) ideas? What can the arts industry do to cultivate younger leaders and what is their place in the institutions’ future.
Here’s the summary of the debate from their website:
If it’s too loud, you’re too old. That’s the old rock ‘n’ roll saying. But many believe veteran experience counts in running arts organizations. Others say fresh blood is needed at a time when the arts need to reach younger audiences. In this week’s “Soundcheck Smackdown,” Lee Rosenbaum, a veteran cultural journalist who blogs for Artsjournal.com; and Barry Hessenius, author of the study “Involving Youth in Nonprofit Arts Organizations,” square off on the topic.
Listen to the full audio here.
Tags: age, audio, cultural policy, new models, non-profit
[...] WNYC Podcast: In the Arts it’s Rookies versus Veterans [...]
A great segment, and certainly an urgent topic in the arts. The debate as framed by NPR focuses primarily on how an organization’s choice of leader influences audience loyalty. Like Lee Rosenbaum, I don’t quite buy that there’s necessarily a correlation between a younger leader and his/ her ability to attract younger audiences or constituents. It depends on the organization, and to a great extent, on the artistic discipline we’re talking about. For example, audiences at orchestras and opera companies- institutions steeped in tradition - may respond favorably to an “elder statesman/ woman” leader no matter what their age. Audiences at an experimental theater company, however, may view an older leader as a sign that the company has lost its edge, and communicate likewise with their feet.
Besides audience appeal, there are other factors that play into leadership choice that are rarely addressed sufficiently - in this discussion and elsewhere. One such factor is funder relationships: sometimes when a company hires an older leader instead of a younger one, they’re not only hiring knowledge and experience, they’re hiring the PERCEPTION of said knowledge and experience, from the point of view of the funding community. They’re aware that, when they go into a meeting with the XYZ Foundation, an older leader may command a higher degree of respect than a younger person. Obviously I’m generalizing here (older leaders don’t necessarily command more respect than younger ones AND not all foundations think that way), but a leader’s reputation with funders is certainly a legitimate concern for organizations to have.