That Door is Hardcore

The Architectural Review 2009 Emerging Architecture Awards

The Architectural Review, a monthly design publication based in the United Kingdom, recently announced the four winners of its annual Emerging Architecture Awards at a ceremony held at the Royal Institute of British Arts in London. The awards are meant to highlight designs produced by young firms across the world. This year’s winners, published in the December issue of Architectural Review, include projects from India, China, Ireland, and Spain. The overall 2009 winner was in fact not a building but a door—the Curtain Door—designed by Matharoo Associates of Ahmedabad, Gujurat, a state in western India. Ahmedabad itself is a city famous for its architecture, with the Museum at Ahmedabad and the Shodhan House by Le Corbusier and the Institute of Public Administration by Louis Kahn. Matharoo Associates’ winning door design is at a diamond merchant’s house in Surat, another city in Gujurat.

www.arplus.com

www.arplus.com

The door, about 17’ tall and 5’ wide, is made of forty planks of Burma teak wood, each ten inches thick. The door sits on one hinge, designed with a combination of 160 pulleys, 80 ball bearings, a counterweight, and rope. The planks are carved out to accommodate these mechanisms, and are aligned directly on top of one another when the door is closed. With the pull of a single handle, the planks fan out to create a curved opening through which people can pass. The door is functional, sculptural, sexy, and decidedly spatial; it allows easy movement between outside and in, and creates an interesting interior surface that seems to grow out of the wall.

In architectural conversations, the curve often denotes “organic” design. The Curtain Door epitomizes this notion, and is described by the Architectural Review as “a jewel-like model of technical and constructional ingenuity” (www.arplus.com, December 9, 2009). The door is massive but conveys lightness; it looks simple but requires complex engineering. It achieves a self-contradiction for which modern architecture seems to strive, occupying two, and perhaps more, paradigms at once. It’s organic form, a sinusoidal curve turned vertically, is not out of place in its linear surroundings. The door becomes an installation in the house, doubling as an entryway and a piece of art.

The chairman for the competition, Architectural Review editor-in-chief Kieran Long, was joined by architects Elizabeth Diller (Diller Scofidio and Renfro, New York), Yvonne Farrell (Grafton Architects, Dublin), Thomas Heatherwick (Heatherwick Studio, London), and Tony Fretton (Tony Fretton Architects, London) in deciding the four winners of the competition. Matharoo Associates was awarded the prize along with Li Xiaodong of China, who designed a Bridge School for the rural Fujian Province; Odos Architects of Ireland, who created the Knocktopher Friary in Knocktopher, County Kilkenny; and José María Sánchez García of Spain, who designed the Sports Research Center in Guijo de Granadilla, Spain. The four projects display a cross-section of contemporary architecture showing the diverse functions and talents that the discipline requires, and is a reminder that today, our professional framework is truly and inescapably global.

One on One with Jazz Legend Stanley Clarke

Exploding into the jazz world in 1971, Stanley was a lanky teenager from the Philadelphia Academy of Music. He arrived in New York City and immediately landed jobs with famous bandleaders such as: Horace Silver, Art Blakey, Dexter Gordon, Joe Henderson, Pharaoh Saunders, Gil Evans, Stan Getz, and a budding young pianist composer named Chick Corea. [Ivan Bodley]

Now 58, the dynamic bassist has recently released his first acoustic bass album with sidemen Lenny White (drums) and Hiromi Uehara (piano). I had the pleasure of asking Clarke about personal development, the music industry, and jazz in general as he toured to promote his latest album, Jazz in the Garden [Heads Up International Records].

DT: How was your gig in Minneapolis with Hiromi and Lenny White?

SC: Gig was great, I really like this place [Dakota Jazz Club in Minneapolis, MN] because it’s a real jazz club. When I was coming up in the 70’s there were 6 times as many serious jazz clubs like this as there are now, where you go and stay a couple days and you play, then go to the next place and play a for few days. That’s kind of how we did it. You’d play a week in Philly, a week in NY, a week in Baltimore, a week in Chicago, a week in Detroit, you could literally walk across the US east to west, or vice-versa, just playing.

But a lot of the acts around the time I was coming up, we got more popular so therefore we had to play more concerts, every night a different city. But it’s nice to go some place and stay a couple days, its better for the music.

DT: How have you seen the industry change since the 70’s when you were starting out?

SC: Everything changes as time goes on. Since the 70s, the industry’s changed 4, 5 or times. Where it lands, I can’t tell you. The artists my age, we just continue and do our thing and don’t have much say in how the business is set up. The guys that run clubs and promoters, for the most part, their purposes are in commerce, to make money. But most people come out (to be artists) because they have something to say, a legitimate idea or even a beef. I used to love the early hip-hop music because these guys had beef with their surroundings, what they were doing, how people looked at them…they projected that in music. That genre was a creative act.

The artists have an art purpose. There are a lot of really cool promoters and club owners who love music and they do it for the music. The typical jazz club, like [the Dakota Jazz Club] does it for the music. The best club owner is one who recognizes the kind of music that he wants to promote, and he builds his business around the best and most effective way to get this music out there, so guys like me can have a club.

Where it ends up and how it changes is up to those guys. It’s not that were at the mercy of these guys, but kind of in a way you are.

DT: You’ve done some soundtrack and composing work, how do you balance your work as a jazz musician with more commercial opportunities?

SC: Where I come from, I don’t really think about music in styles or genre. When I grew up, the musicians I played with were called jazz musicians. Whether it was Stan Getz, Miles Davis, Art Blakey…that’s my language. I don’t wake up and say, “Yeah I’m going to play jazz today,” that’s just what I do. If somebody wants to embrace it in the pop world, great. But I don’t really sit down and think about it.

DT: This is your first acoustic bass album as a leader [Jazz in the Garden, Heads Up International]. What kind of energy has your experience with acoustic and electric bass brought to the performance?

SC: Again, when I started out I played mainly acoustic bass. It’s natural for me, I don’t think analytically about the differences in what I’m playing. I understand why you’d ask the question because you’re outside asking the question.

For example, you’re a saxophone player. So let’s say you play the shit out of the sax, you’re considered one of the great saxophone players of our time. You’re not going to be sitting at home thinking, ‘well am I going to play in a pop band today? Am I going to play jazz?’ If your stuff is that good, people are going to call you and whatever situation you find yourself falling into, that’s it. You’re not going to sit and think and debate if you want to take the gig, the opportunity shows itself.

Learn your instrument. That’s the advice that I give to anybody that’s young and out there trying to do something. You can waste your life trying to figure out what group you’re going to fit into. If you are a trumpet player, you play the shit out of the trumpet. Period.

And believe me, if you’re great, the genres and the people will find you. The point is, you don’t sit there while you’re learning music and think, ‘I’m going to learn how to be a jazz trumpet player, I’m going to learn how to play rock saxophone.’ That’s such a thin, shallow way of learning the saxophone. Just learn to play the damn saxophone and go as far as you want to take it, but be the best at it.

DT: How did you choose Hiromi Uehara for this album?

SC: I’ve heard about her from Chic Corea, and she’s good. She’s good at what she does, she’s tremendous. Tremendous technical ability, that’s exciting for me. I like to be with what’s happening, and when we get on stage shes very unpredictable. The only thing I know, that I can predict every night, is that she’s going to be exciting. What kind of excitement, one never knows.

But she’s a very accomplished classical musician, she’s one of those [classical musicians] I really like who took the time to study theory and get into other things. She’s really done a lot of homework to be so young, a LOT of homework.

DT: You talk about not being genre-specific, but suppose a classically trained violinist who has never been taught jazz now wants to learn? How does he learn without thinking ‘I’m going to learn jazz?’

SC: For me, if you’re going to be a great violinist, you have to include Jean-Luc Panty in your training. Jean-Luc Panty the French violinst, and Stéphane Grappelli from France, those guys redefined, or defined, jazz violin. If you’re going to play violin and you want to be a great violinist, you need to have them as part of it.

For me, a guy who plays [strictly] classical violin may come into my world as a great violinist, but to a jazz musician he might not be looked upon as a great violinist. He’ll be looked upon as a guy who plays classical music extremely well. He plays that concerto that he’s been working on for 20 years, great. But then if you ask the guy to play on a Bb chord, to an a minor7 to a D7 to a gm, he’s going to be lost in space and won’t have a clue what to do.

But what I’m finding, guys that the young guys that are your age (23) and even younger, it’s really encouraging to see those players embrace other music. I know a lot of classical violinists that like to play in rock bands, or love to play bluegrass because its build for the violin. Just learn your instrument and everything around it.

DT: What advice can you give about being a bandleader and choosing the right people to play with?

SC: For me it’s an ongoing learning experience. I’m always fascinated at what happens to me when I come and play with somebody new. Even playing with Hiromi, she’s like an amazing racehorse piano player. Some people can’t even fathom having half the technique that she has. That does something to you, it makes you step up your game.

What I get the most out of playing with other musicians is how they affect me. The way I play and what I do, how I see music is how I see and how I play. But when I play with other people, I am always affected in a positive way.

DT: What’s some other advice and practicing and joining bands, and finding your unique sound

SC: First of all the concept of finding your unique style, people should never even mention that, you should never even say those words. Psychologically it gives you a wrong item in your brain, as if you need to find a unique style. You don’t have to find anything; it’s already there and just has to be developed.

There’s a common denominator of all these great musicians that I’ve known, and its that they’ve fully developed themselves as artists, and they’ve gotten over the majority of the mental hang-ups they’ve had.

One of the really big components of being a unique musician is courage. Some guys, just naturally play weird. If you’re in a position in a band and people are putting you down because you look weird, or sing or play weird, and you buy into it, you’re done. You’re probably throwing away millions of dollars because maybe if you continue…even pop bands or bands on MTV, you may look at these guys and say this guy is weird, but these guys were always out there. It’s just that they didn’t give a shit about what somebody else said was music.

The way you play is the way you play, and you have to develop yourself. No two people play the same unless they’re trying to.

If you are looking for a unique sound, already it’s almost an oxymoron in concepts. If you’re looking for something that’s unique, in a way you’re saying that its there already. Why would you be looking for something if you don’t think its there? So if it is there, that [sound] was already created by something or someone. So therefore, the argument is won – the sound or style is not unique because it exists already.

You should want to develop something that’s not really there. If you look at yourself like you’re a gemstone and you have all this dirt and shell and this cocoon of mess around you, you just need to pull this stuff off and that’s what practicing does, you shed all the bullshit and feel good about yourself. All these great musicians [Wayne Shorter, Miles Davis] have a great sense of well being because they’ve shedded a lot of bullshit and psychologically they’re in a place where they say ‘this is it, this is what I do.’ That’s the beautiful thing about art.

That’s my place. To young people, forget about looking for something unique. Just pick up your instrument, get up and practice, have good thoughts and be positive, and try to spot as many assholes that are in your life.

DT: What advice to you have for playing in bands/with other people?

SC: I think that when you’re young, I think that the best bands to play in are with the guys that you get along with the best. Because when you’re young, you’re impressionable and don’t have the armor of a guy my age who’s been kicked around a bunch, you want to be with someone who you can grow with.

You don’t have to play with the greatest virtuoso, you might grow much better at a faster rate with a guy who really likes how you play, you like how he plays, and at the same time you want to get better so you’re listening to records, going to classes at school and studying…I grew up with a bass player names Charles Fambro, and we went all through school and we studied together. I thank him and actually credit him for my playing. He’s not a virtuoso bass player, but he was there for me. We listened to all the records together. If he was an asshole, I probably wouldn’t be the player that I am today. You don’t want to be fighting people when you’re young, that’s my point. You need to really keep it cool.

You’ll have plenty of time to be fighting, but you want to be really good before you do that.

DT: What did you practice when you were young?

SC: When I was younger, I practiced a lot. I practiced as many hours as I could as day. During school times, I practiced 3 or 4 hours a day. I was not a very good student. When I went to high school, there was one school in New York called School for the Performing Arts, and that’s where I should have been, but that didn’t exist in Philadelphia.

I was doing chemistry classes, years of calculus, endless classes that have nothing to do with what I’m going to be doing in my life. I should have had strait English, History, Math, and that’s it, maybe a basic Science class. So I used to cut classes to practice, but I had a music teacher who understood. But I passed because I excelled in music.

There’s a lot of power in excelling, in having excellence. I always tell musicians, if you want to be really respected in the world, you could have just two cents in your pocket…If you stand in a room with Donald Trump, and next to him is Miles Davis or Vladimir Horowitz, and you look at the respect meter, it’s going to go to Miles and Vladimir Horowitz, they’ll be neck and neck, and Donald Trump has more money than these guys ever had.

For me, the respect game is important. It’s a nice feeling to be respected for something. You’re given a certain pass because you’ve put the work in and someone recognizes that you’ve sacrificed a lot to be good at something. And man, there’s nothing like it, not all the money in the world.

For more information on Stanley Clarke, click this link to go to his website. His Album Jazz in the Garden can be purchased here.

Too Close for Comfort: The Modern Concert Experience

For a variety of reason – some metaphorical, some literal – I find the experiences of air travel and concert going strangely similar. The ticket costs more than you hope to pay, the service is frightful, you are inevitably seated next to the loudest person in attendance, and following the experience, you have been (or ought to have been) completely transported. In much the same way that airlines have managed to distract its patrons from the absolutely terrifying realities of flying (the cabin wall is usually no thicker than 3 inches!), performing arts organizations have removed so much from the concert experience that most people fail to grasp the humanity and the social bonding that once defined concerts.

There are, of course, two schools of thought when it comes to the concert experience. Both of these schools happen to be the progeny of the administrators, not the public, which is good reason to dismiss both schools, or drop out I suppose. The first is that a performance of the fine arts is a hallowed and scared experience that demands absolute concentration. Lights are blacked out, seating is cramped so as to prevent snoozing, and a strict code of etiquette whereby coughs are stifled until the pause between movements. Despite the snarky way that I’ve painted this picture, I am a subscriber of this school.

The second school is perhaps more in touch with the human touchy feely side of the concert experience, which, being a Midwesterner, I instinctively avoid. As it is with nearly all pop music today, the concert experience of yester-year was a participatory experience, with the masses communing, in a way, with the music, the performers, and each other. It might be argued that this experience is what drives popularity. It is certainly easier to personally connect with an art form when it is sweating all over you and spilling beer on your backpack than when it is dispensed carefully from the other side of a velvet rope, but what is lost in that experience?

Sitting in a meeting today, a rather telling question was asked. We have a new program that will take place outside of the usual theatre in what has been termed a ‘found space’ (think Opera Under the Overpass, but with more Chiavari chairs), and without the austere surroundings, someone asked if patrons could take their wine into the performance. The discussion went very quickly from logistical to philosophical (“Is this the kind of company we want to be?”). Perhaps the dignity of some performance settings are appropriate for the kind of social exchange which wine and words tend to spark, but there is also something to be said for the last bastion of silence and attention where every flavour of a masterpiece can be experienced.

In keeping with habit, I am unable to pose a solution or even a firm position on the matter. I merely thin k it’s a worthwhile idea for discussion.

At the premiere of Mozart's Die Zauberflöte.

The Role of the Arts Critic: Wading in the Stream of Individualism

Fresh off an opening weekend at the opera, I have been scouring the local media for coverage and reviews of our performance. While I myself am pleased and proud of the show that went up on Friday, I cannot help but feel the need for that validation given out by the oracles of art: the critics. But this is all wrong! Critics don’t write for the artists or administrators; they write for the public who seek the advice and opinions of a learned taste-maker. Or do they? The role of the art critic has become so vague that many are left to question not only who reads the reviews, but why they read them?

Let’s begin by thinking about who used to read the reviews. The answer is simple: everyone, with the exception of the proud few who “don’t read the reviews”. The critic as cultural aficionado was respected for their informed opinion, and received nearly endless buy-in from their readers. A good review spurred ticket sales; a bad review meant a catastrophe at the box office. There’s no telling when this golden age ended, but it surely has.

Fast forward to present day. Do any of us form our opinions or tastes based on the recommendations of some distant and allegedly qualified expert? That very notion flies in the face of the predominant individualist movement. We all prefer to make up our own minds, or at most, consult a trusted friend or colleague. Perhaps this is the result of generations of over-parenting, or the notion that anyone’s opinion can be bought. Whatever the case, arts criticism, at least in the formalized, printed version, finds itself in the previously foreign land of obscurity. More and more media outlets are firing their arts commentators or relegating them to a 3-in column above the funnies. So what, if anything, is to be done? I feel like I do too much pontificating on this blog, so rather than suggesting another ‘best practice’, I say this: Critics of art and music provide vital feedback for artists, they engage the audience in a dialogue about the art, and most importantly and counter-intuitively, they help us to form our own opinions. art-critic

Solar Decathlon Participant Response – Part 2 of 2

I recently spoke with Cornell University Solar Decathlon participant Spencer Lapp about his reactions to the Department of Energy’s Solar Decathlon competition, which ended on October 16, 2009. Lapp’s primary focus was to design the kitchen appliance module for the Cornell house, and also assisted with construction and other duties during the 2008-2009 academic year. He attended the competition in Washington, D.C. with the Cornell team, where the house placed 7th out of twenty. Technische Universität Darmstadt (Team Germany) were the overall winners, presenting a rectangular, two-story design they called “surPLUShome.”

Discussing the experience on the National Mall, Lapp was generally impressed by the variety of designs. Organization is an important aspect of a successful and competitive house (especially in areas like leadership, public relations, communication, and transportation); Lapp thought that each team handled their logistical issues skillfully, and competed with both rigor and courtesy.

By getting so many students from so many different parts of the globe involved, the competition succeeds in raising awareness about current problems in design efficiency. In the 2009 competition, the crucial event was “Net Metering,” in which the house is fitted with a meter to calculate its energy output. These numbers were tabulated on the last day of the competition, and decided the overall winner. Lapp suggests that while energy output is important to each solar house, the competition is weighted too heavily in this particular event. In his opinion, in coming years, the Department of Energy could think about redistributing the points in the ten different competitions to give more importance to issues like architecture and engineering. Currently, the Architecture and Engineering events (along with five others) are scored out of 100 points, while the Net Metering competition is scored out of 150 possible points. The remaining two events are scored out of 75 points. This means that Net Metering accounts for 15% of a team’s total score, which Lapp feels is too much.

rice

Rice University's ZEROW HOUSE

One issue that Lapp feels was not addressed properly was that of cost efficiency. He said that Rice University, for example, created a functional and livable home called ZEROW HOUSE for about $100,000, but placed 8th in the competition after attaining a low score in the Home Entertainment event. This particular event requires that the solar home provide power to a television and computer for a specified period of time. The affordability of the home was thus trumped by its poor score in an event that caters to the more frivolous items in the home. On the Solar decathlon website, the Rice University team describes their project: “Instead of building a house just for the competition, [we] designed a home they could give back to the community. The team has already negotiated an agreement with Project Row Houses, a local community development organization, to give the ZEROW HOUSE a permanent home in Houston’s Third Ward after the competition.” ZEROW HOUSE was the only competition entry to cost less than $250,000. By contrast, the winning house cost in the range of $650,000 – $850,000.

When discussing the judging, Lapp said that he would have liked more feedback on particular events, especially in Architecture. He also suggested that, while the single-family residence is a good place for students to innovate, the ideas about energy efficiency could be expanded to building types that are not privately-owned. Community centers, schools, libraries, museums, and other civic institutions would benefit greatly from the ideas that the Solar Decathlon competition generates. Lapp hopes that in the future, the competition will encourage the use of solar efficiency beyond the home.

El Sistema Comes to the U.S.

jabreu_lg

Dr. Abreu, image courtesy of www.tedprize.org

The now world-famous educational program that has revolutionized music education and brought us super stars like Gustavo Dudamel and the Simón Bolívar Symphony Orchestra has finally arrived in the United States.  The New England Conservatory of Music, located in Boston, has been exploring this partnership for several years. Dr. José Antonio Abreu, the founder of the Venezuelan based foundation, was awarded an honorary doctorate by the conservatory in 2002, and in 2007, the Simón Bolívar Symphony Orchestra under the direction of ‘the Dude’ himself performed at NEC’s Jordan Hall.

The program, titled El Sistema USA, is beginning by educating 50 ‘fellows’ over the next 5 years, who will each institute “núcleos” around the country, typically where music education is limited or non-existent. The first class of ten arrived in Boston for the start of classes last week, and their diverse backgrounds and common desire to replicate the ingenious program make for a hopeful and exciting group of folks.

I am, admittedly, a cynic in many things, and tend not to be caught up in hyped-up news items. But I have to say, I’ve never felt so hopeful, nay, joyful, about anything of this nature. This fresh approach of music education represents not simply a positive change for music education, or even for classical music, but ultimately for American society. I am neither the first nor the last to do so, but with all my heart, I wish those 10 students at NEC the very best of luck in this most important mission.

Visa Regulations: Straining Cultural Exchange in America

Taiwan+Visa+ApplicationAs a way to organize my thoughts for an upcoming presentation, and also for the erudition of you, the faithful readership, I’d like to discuss visa restrictions in the U.S., with a primary focus on artists.

The current process for acquiring work visas for international artists is unnecessarily long, difficult, costly of time and money, predicated largely on whim and objective decision, and carries no guarantee for success. The economic effects of receiving a rejected visa application can be devastating for both the traveling artist and the host organization. Furthermore, the application processing time line precludes the possibility of a “back-up plan” since the application process is so lengthy.

I understand the perceived need for border security and protection against defectors, but this issue not only represents a strain on cultural organizations, particularly world music organizations, who rely on talent from abroad, but also sends an extraordinarily-negative message about the American opinion of art and cultural exchange. Now, as it did during each of the previous wars in which the U.S. was involved, art needs to serve as an ambassador (think van Kliburn, Bernstein, Maya Lin).

Here are some suggestions for reform, courtesy of Americans for the Arts:

-UCIS visa application forms O and P should be updated to more accurately reflect the nature of artists’ work.

-Training of UCIS employees should be reorganized and made uniform so as to eliminate bias and objectivity where possible.

-Reduce the application turn-around time and Premium Processing fee (currently $1,000) to reduce economic risk to struggling arts organizations.

To advocate for this issue, contact your state congressman or Americans for the Arts representative.

Solar Powered Homes Grace the Grounds of the National Mall – Part 1 of 2

This week marks the bi-annual Solar Decathlon competition, a design/build contest for college and university students across the world. Hosted by the federal Department of Energy, the Decathlon challenges student teams to design and build an entirely solar-powered residence. Ten competitive categories, from design and engineering to efficiency and marketing, offer a wide range of problems for students to collaboratively solve. This week, twenty single-family houses have been set up on the National Mall to offer provocative and diverse solutions to the problems of design efficiency.

Team California's competition entry (Stefano Paltera/US Dept. of Energy Solar Decathlon)

Team California's competition entry (Stefano Paltera/US Dept. of Energy Solar Decathlon)

The Decathlon project began in 2002 with fourteen competing teams from the U.S. and Puerto Rico, and in the last few years has expanded to include teams from Spain, Germany, and Canada. Students are given two years to design and produce a solar-powered single-family residence, which must be built and tested locally and then disassembled, shipped to Washington, D.C., and reassembled for the competition. The houses include sleeping, dining, entertainment, leisure, and garden spaces. This year, the houses must provide dinner and a movie for a party of eight. Houses should adapt to day and night conditions, storing energy from the sun during the day and expending that energy for heating and cooling, hot water, and electricity during the day and night.

The competition highlights the need for young architects to discuss and discover new methods of energy efficiency; moreover, it shows that architectural aesthetics need not be sacrificed for the sake of efficiency. A number of designs this year move beyond the typical “box house” to create more varied and interesting plans. Collaboration is extremely important, and many of the teams consist of undergraduates and graduate students, representing architecture, landscape architecture, interior design, engineering, and business. In some cases, students from two schools in the same region have teamed up to compete.

The "rustic-chic" Cornell University entry (Photo: www.solardecathlon.org)

The "rustic-chic" Cornell University entry (Photo: www.solardecathlon.org)

On October 16, there will be a clear winner, but the goal of the competition is to articulate ideas about how to create livable space that relies on resources that already exist. For example, students are encouraged to reclaim materials (such as wood and metal) from existing buildings and use them for interior and exterior finishes in their competition designs. The team from University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign took wood from a Midwestern barn and used it as exterior siding for their house; Cornell University reclaimed wood from bourbon barrels to create living room furniture. The Decathlon supports student ideas and generates awareness about energy efficiency, which, as we move into the 21st century, will become a more pressing need.

Fiscal Responsibility and the Arts

Soprano Kelly Kaduce in the 2009 OTSL production of "Salome"

Soprano Kelly Kaduce in the 2009 OTSL production of "Salome"

Just in the nick of time, and just as has always happened, a new class of arts administrators are coming to the fore with creative solutions to their organization’s financial woes. This is not a new concept, as arts leaders have been constant observers of the duel bottom line (finances vs. artistic integrity). If they hadn’t, we’d be in a very different place today. The shiny side of the dull, recession-weary penny is that the arts are doing more with less, and are reflecting on their products, taking nothing for granted.

The Opera Theatre of St. Louis recently announced their 34th consecutive season ending with a balanced budget while still producing one of their most artistically pleasing seasons yet. Boston Lyric Opera overcame a significant deficit to balance the budget, and added productions in the process. These are, of course, the happy stories, which are unrepresentative of the larger picture. Several visual and performing arts institutions folded, and not always as a result of mismanagement.

So what makes some companies float while others flounder? No idea. But the thing that arts organizations who survive such times as these all seem to recognize is that, as the famed dramaturg John Conklin writes, “Adverse circumstances offer surprising opportunities to distinguish a Company and build more meaningful relationships with audiences, providing a strong foundation of fiscal responsibility and dedicated stakeholders exists.”

The Nutcrackers and La bohème’s that I so frequently decry are not the foundations of great art, but the crutch upon which we think we must rely. Creativity and responsible management are the true solution.

The Case for New Productions

For every art form and medium, the artist must constantly strive for progress. Even now, our Enlightened forefathers call out, “Macht Neue!” from their graves. Whether this means birthing new works, or finding ways to translate celebrated masterpieces, artists and patrons must now, more than ever, seek to enliven the progress of art.

The focal point of this discussion is, of course, the Metropolitan Opera’s opening production of Puccini’s Tosca, and the many and varied responses to it. Perhaps the most striking an cogent of these responses came from the Met’s Peter Gelb and from the NY Times columnist Anthony Tommasini, who fire a shot across the bows of opera WAGs everywhere: art moves forward, so get over it!

Especially now, as art in America is once again shunted to one side so that ‘the necessities’ can be supported, art administrators and especially patrons play a key role in calling for that which will make art relevant and vital; new works. The logistical considerations of new productions whilst the box office numbers are in the tank are numerous, but another Monet exhibition, Nutcracker, or Beethoven cycle, will do little for the arts in the long run.

If I were to have the privilege of reading a music history text a hundred years after my death, I for one would like to see more from our time than nostalgia and cautious subsistence.