The Clyde Fitch Report

We're Moving! Visit the New Site of The Clyde Fitch Report!

2009-03-18T21:41:00.004-04:00

Update your bookmarks!
Update your blogrolls!

After more than 1,200 posts on blogspot, The Clyde Fitch Report is moving.

You can now find The Clyde Fitch Report at http://www.clydefitch.com/ and http://www.clydefitchreport.com/. (Same URL.)

Come to the new Clyde Fitch Report! Send your comments to the new site! Tell me what you think!

And thanks, my dear readers and dear, dear Clyde. You're all the very best. :-)

While the Burst Housing Bubble Destroys America, He Says "Build, Build, Build!"

2009-03-17T23:48:00.006-04:00

This post is cross-posted at the beta Clyde Fitch Report. Do check it out and send comments.

I didn't want too much time to elapse before commenting on an op-ed that ran in the Times last Sunday. It's written by a man named Charles J. Urstadt, and before I write a little bit about who he is, let's take a good look at his piece, in which he writes that "land expansion is now the key to our economic recovery." In fact, he says, there are five ways Manhattan (I guess the other four boroughs can sink into the sea) can grow:

1. Develop Governor's island. Among other things, "The success of Battery Park City shows that this can be done without government money: building owners would pay ground rent and payments in lieu of taxes (known as Pilot payments) to an organization not unlike the Battery Park City Authority, which would then deduct operating costs and pay the “profits” to the city." And yes, Urstadt addresses, rather flimsily in my view, the accessibility issue.

2. Tear down Pier A at the foot of Manhattan: "Better to replace the pier with a five-acre quay similar to the Circular Quay in Sydney. A quay could serve as a central ferry terminal, which would pay for itself with fees paid by the ferry boat operators."

3. Develop the South Cove of Battery Park City, adding two acres to Manhattan: "By simply extending the existing bulkhead, eliminating the cove and filling it with sand — as we did to create the rest of Battery Park City — we would have the base for an iconic building....Again, ground rents and Pilot payments would more than pay for the bulkhead and landfill with no expenditure of taxpayer money — and a monumental building on that new land could also produce a substantial profit for the city."

4. Develop 50 more acres of landfill in the Hudson River on the West Side, north of Battery Park City: "The cost of the landfill, as well as of the public park and recreational spaces that would be part of the new area, could be reimbursed from ground rents and Pilot payments collected from private developers. I have been advocating this additional landfill project for some time and have been faced with the bogus argument that it would kill the fish." Oh, and by the way, Urstadt says that "fish actually prefer the nooks and crannies of the rock formations surrounding Battery Park City’s north marina" and that "not a single fish was killed as we filled the original 92 acres of Battery Park City." (This may be giving you a clue as to who Urstadt is.)

5. Fill in the Harlem River: "....if we were to drain the Harlem River, we would actually restore the land to its original state....eventually the entire area would have some 3,000 acres that could be used for parks, schools, businesses and homes."

Notice how Urstadt referes to housing last. As if people matter less than buildings. Well, this man would know: he was the chairman of the Battery Park City Authority from 1968 to 1978, as per the tagline on the Times story. More pertinent, though, Urstadt is the author and/or purveyor of many anti-renter, anti-apartment dwelling law and guideline in New York City. In short, he is the reason your rent is so high. Check out this page on tenant.net:

The Urstadt Law, named after Charles Urstadt, former Governor Nelson Rockefeller’s housing commissioner, was enacted in 1971 as part of Rockefeller’s vacancy-decontrol legislation. It specifically barred New York City from adopting rent limitations that are “more stringent or restrictive than those presently in effect” even as the housing crisis deepened.

As a result the democratic will of New York City residents is frustrated and the local legislature left powerless to address local housing conditions. From the vacancy-decontrol disaster of the 1970s to the weakening of rent and eviction protections in 1997, New York City real-estate interests have been able to use campaign contributions to buy support from upstate legislators—while city voters are ignored. The Urstadt Law is the basis for a pending lawsuit by property owners challenging a New York City law concerning building valuation that prevented landlords from giving enormous hikes to New York City’s 70,000 remaining rent-controlled households. It also restricts the City Council from reversing the massive deregulation imposed by the state legislature in 1993 and 1997.

By preventing the City Council from acting to preserve affordable housing, the Urstadt Law is an unconscionable restriction on the democratic “home rule” of New York City residents. It restricts our ability to control our policy and our destiny on a strictly local issue.

…But even though the ETPA reversed Rockefeller’s vacancy-decontrol measure, state courts have held that the Urstadt Law remains in effect and prevents cities “having a population of one million or more” (i.e., New York City) from enacting stronger rent regulations without the approval of the state housing commissioner. The Urstadt law does not prevent cities from exercising “police powers” to protect life, health and safety by regulating building conditions, evictions and other areas where health and safety are involved.

Charles Urstadt’s curse on New York City tenants did not stop with the 1971 law which bears his name. A major real-estate owner, he was one of the architects of Governor George Pataki’s 1994 transition platform, which made explicit the intention to end rent and eviction protections entirely, a promise which took giant steps toward realization in the Rent Regulation Reform Act of 1997.

Here's an excerpt from another story -- this one from Gotham Gazette -- on this paragon of urban development:

Ask most housing advocates what one move would improve the lot of tenants in New York City, and they would answer: Repeal of the Urstadt Law. The state law, which then-Governor Nelson Rockefeller pushed through in 1971, and which Governor George Pataki strengthened in 2003, is named after Rockefeller’s housing commissioner, Charles Urstadt. For more than three decades, it has effectively handcuffed the city when it comes to dealing with the main problems facing housing here -- rents and evictions.

That is because the law largely took control of rent regulation out of the hands of the city government and gave it to the state legislature. The legislature, a body with many representatives from upstate districts that have few renters, has weakened rent regulation laws year after year. Changes in the rent regulation laws have resulted in what some estimate to be more than 100,000 rent stabilized apartments in New York City becoming “decontrolled” – the rents hiked up to whatever the landlord wants to charge.

Oh, and Mr. Urstadt appears to live in Connecticut. Go figure.

My Name Is Kareem Dale and I Am Going to Be Your Arts Czar

2009-03-17T23:43:00.002-04:00

This post is cross-posted at the beta Clyde Fitch Report. Do check it out and send comments.

There is much buzz in the InterTubes that President Obama has appointed the long-awaited, much-hoped-for Arts Czar.

Personally, I hope it's true.

And if it is true, his name is Kareem Dale, and here's a story on his appointment, which is based on a report that was published in the New York Times over the weekend, which I am herewith giving to all of you:

President Barack Obama has established a staff position in the White House to oversee arts and culture in the Office of Public Liaison and Intergovernmental Affairs under Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser, a White House official confirmed. Kareem Dale, right, a lawyer who last month was named special assistant to the president for disability policy, will hold the new position. Mr. Dale, who is partly blind, previously served as national disability director for the Obama campaign. He also served on the arts policy committee and the disability policy committee for Mr. Obama when he was a senator from Illinois. Bill Ivey, who served as the administration’s transition-team leader for the arts and humanities, said he was encouraged by the appointment and would meet with Mr. Dale next week. “It’s a big step forward in terms of connecting cultural and government with mainstream administration policy,” Mr. Ivey said in an interview on Friday. The White House declined to describe the position in detail, since Mr. Dale’s appointment has yet to be formally announced. Mr. Ivey, a former chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, said he expected that the job would mainly involve coordinating the activities of the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute of Museum and Library Services “in relation to White House objectives.” Although there have been staff members assigned to culture under past presidents, they usually served in the first lady’s office, Mr. Ivey said.

Of course, not everyone is terribly comfortable with this choice.

Talking About the Community Board Meeting on the Indie Theater Scene

2009-03-17T23:35:00.003-04:00

This post is cross-posted at the beta Clyde Fitch Report. Do check it out and send comments.

I found this story about the recent Community Board meeting on the indie theater scene to be a good summation of everything I heard about the meeting. And I'm thrilled it happened -- and I applaud Paul Nagle and all the folks at the various community boards for coming together and making it happen. So it is in the spirit of that positive vibe that I will offer a confession: I thought about attending the meeting until the very last minute. In fact, I was having drinks with the head of a very well known OOB theater just around the corner from the meeting. But I didn't go. I didn't go because no one from the press was on the panel -- and it was made pretty clear to me that a press representative was not welcome on the panel or, for that matter, in the audience, or at least not especially. It left me a little miffed.

I understand the reason for the meeting was, as the article states, to "hold a joint forum on how to keep small theaters thriving in New York City," and that the question of press coverage of the OOB scene is not necessarily the key thing to keeping the sector afloat. I fully realize that real estate and funding -- well, those really are the big issues, as they always are, it seems, and as I suppose they always will be. But some of us -- and here I graciously cede much of the credit to Martin and Rochelle Denton -- have been covering the sector for years and in myriad ways. And if you don't get the word out, especially about indie theater -- and yes, dear fellow bloggers, this means you, too -- you don't get butts in seats. We help drive butts in seats. We promote the hell out of the sector. We identify the magical and the mysterious, the major and the minor, the rising and the risen. And one of us -- not me, just one of us -- belongs on that panel. Because the question of coverage is vital. And the community boards should have known it.

Indeed, the organizers of the event, if the article's narrative is to be our guide for this post, understand the role that press and publicity plays. Consider the third paragraph:

Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer told a crowd of more than 300 theater buffs, community advocates and elected officials gathered at the Players Club in Gramercy Park on Feb. 17 that he realizes the importance of a flourishing theater scene to New York City’s economy. Stringer said politicians in the past have viewed theater as an industry that would sustain itself and always remain in New York City. Tourists don’t come to the city to see its big buildings, he said. “They want to see our art and our talent and they also want to get a peek at us.”

How do they find out about such art and talent, hm? Isn't press one way? Here are some other paragraphs on who spoke at the meeting:

John Clancy, executive director of the League of Independent Theater, said if he had to rate the entire independent theater sector, he’d say companies are currently doing “fair to really, really, really awful.”

Virginia Louloudes, executive director of 350-member organization ART/NY, said that the 250 members who produce in spaces they don’t own are “probably the healthiest.” However, she sees the crisis as an opportunity and “the beginning of a new era.”

Anthony Borelli, Stringer’s director of land use, said that the city and local community boards can and are doing things to help small theaters. An old school building in Harlem, for example, is being converted into affordable housing for artists and their families, because the city was made aware of local priorities and “was lobbied from the very beginning.”

Paul Nagle, director of communications and cultural policy for Lower Manhattan City Councilmember Alan Gerson, said their office has sent legislation to Albany to create a property tax abatement for commercial landlords who rent to nonprofit theaters. Nagle noted it takes surprisingly few people to move a politician and encouraged people to band together.

Isn't it true, in the case of what Nagle said, that coverage of that legislation is key to raising awareness of it? True, the paper Chelsea Now, which published this story, covered the meeting. But coverage should have been widespread.

Here are some videos, available via YouTube, from the event:

I hope there will be more such events and that press people, in particular those who have perenially contributed to the sector, will not be ignored. Simply because doing so is a waste of resources, and really rather a shame.

Congressman George Miller to Hold Hearings on Fiscal Impact of Arts and Music Industry

2009-03-17T15:22:00.005-04:00

This post is cross-posted at the new Clyde Fitch Report, which is in beta. Do check it out and send comments.

Just received an email from Mike Kruger, Online Outreach Specialist for Congressman George Miller (D-CA), who chairs the House Committee on Education and Labor. On Thurs., March 26, Congressman Miller will convene a hearing at 10am on "The Economic and Employment Impact of the Arts and Music Industry." I am currently trying to determine whether I can attend, but I am told that the hearing, which is open to the public, will also be webcast live as well.

I'll post more information as it becomes available to me, including the list of witnesses, which is still to be announced.

More and More Conflicting Natasha Richardson Reports

2009-03-17T15:05:00.003-04:00

This post is cross-posted at the new Clyde Fitch Report, which is in beta. Do check it out and send comments.

First, Time Out New York reported that Natasha Richardson, one of the great actresses of our generation, appeared to have succumb to her injuries as a result of a skiing accident. Now, per The Huffington Post, Time Out has taken down the original post.

Meanwhile, People has posted its own account of Richardson's accident. And Gawker is reporting that Time Out has scrubbed and apologized for its original post and that, in fact, Natasha Richardson is brain dead.

And Gothamist is now reporting on this, too.

Arts Journalism, Say Arts Journalists, Isn't Dying -- It's a Poltergeist

2009-03-17T14:47:00.004-04:00

This post is cross-posted at the new Clyde Fitch Report, which is in beta. Do check it out and send comments.

Tom Jacobs, who wrote for me at Back Stage until a combination of things -- mostly the ill-advised elimination of a freelance budget -- made that an impossibility, has a fascinating story up on Miller-McCune.com called "Will Critique Work for Food." The website is the digital platform of the Miller-McCune Center for Research, Media and Public Policy, and the piece is on arts journalism and what has happened and is still happening to it. But the story isn't about the writing itself so much as those who put their fingers to keyboard and type away:

The situation is most dire for the journalists themselves, who find themselves no longer able to make a living pursuing their passion. But it is also of great concern to arts administrators, who are just now coming to grips with the impending cutoff of one of their strongest lines of communication with the community. After complaining for years of unfair or insensitive reviews, they have come to the realization that the only thing worse than getting criticized is being ignored.

Arts journalism in the United States will surely survive — but in what form? To explore that question, Miller-McCune.com spoke with number of people in the arts, journalism and academia, including Doug McLennan, the founder and editor of artsjournal.com. That site, which celebrates its 10th anniversary in September, aggregates arts stories from newspapers around the world. It also provides a forum for a variety of bloggers who write with intelligence and style on different disciplines.

A former staff writer with the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (the industry's most recent print casualty, which became an online-only product as of March 17) and Seattle Weekly, McLennan also heads the scaled-back National Arts Journalism Program, and in that capacity he has been tracking some disturbing figures. He estimates that in 2005, there were approximately 5,000 staff positions on American newspapers that involved writing about the arts. These include critics, feature writers, reporters who cover cultural news — and the many journalists who juggle all three of those roles.

Today, he estimates that due to layoffs, cutbacks and the closure of several prominent papers (including, another recent victim, Denver's Rocky Mountain News), that number is down to 2,500. That's a 50 percent decline in only four years — a disproportionate loss even for an industry in decline. (Advertising Age recently
estimated that one newspaper job in four has been lost since 1990.) Sean Means, film critic of the Salt Lake City Tribune, is independently keeping a running tally of colleagues who have been laid off over the past three years. The total is up to 49.

This raises the question that I and others have asking for some time: What will happen to arts journalism and what will become of the arts journalists? Will new generations of arts journalists have a shot at making any kind of real living? These are questions that the following answers jointly:

Arts journalism has traditionally performed a variety of functions. It heightens awareness of the arts and the role they play within a community. It provides a consumer guide by critiquing individual exhibits, productions and performances.

It educates readers by analyzing current offerings in terms of their social or historical context. It serves as a watchdog by chronicling how cultural institutions spend public money, and it entertains by introducing readers to artists of all sorts through personality profiles that help demystify the creative process.

It seems likely that, in a post-newspaper society, some of those tasks will be split off and accomplished in different ways. Community awareness is increasingly falling to the arts groups themselves (as we'll discuss later). Reviews and analysis are rapidly migrating to niche Web sites, such as Lawrence A. Johnson's South Florida Classical Review.

"I'm doing this because I think newspapers are on their way out, and something has to take their place," Johnson explains. "The music deserves a certain sounding board. In cities where they don't have a regular critic, mediocrity tends to be the rule."

A former music critic for the Miami Herald, Johnson launched the site last June, "during that awkward period between the announcement of layoffs and the day I got the official word I was getting the heave-ho." On his site, he does pretty much everything he used to do for the Herald, only with no restrictions on length. He then sells some of his reviews back to the Herald and other area papers at a freelance rate.

"I think that's the future," he says. "I think you're going to see more sites like this that serve as the origination point of the coverage."

So, in other words, there will still be arts journalism, but people won't make a living at it, most likely. (I also happen to believe that the consumer will be somewhat confused in terms of who to believe, who to listen to, who to read and what criticism to ingest more seriously than others. This is great if the goal, say, here in New York is to diminish the all-powerful New York Times, but that, my friends, has already occurred.) This is how Johnson does it:

After some internal debate, Johnson decided to make his site a for-profit operation; he decided whatever funds he could get from foundations wouldn't be worth the headache of completing grant applications. His income is from sales back to newspapers and banner ads on his site, which so far have been purchased primarily by smaller and (to his mind) more forward-thinking music organizations.

His site also includes contributions from a couple of colleagues around the state; he doesn't pay them at the moment, but plans to do so eventually. "My overhead is relatively low," he notes. "I don't have levels and levels of editors. I just need a little slice of advertising to keep it going. I live pretty frugally."

That's admirable, if sad, if inspiring. Jacobs also talks to my friend and colleague, Martin Denton:

Johnson need only look north to find a similar site that has been self-sustaining for more than a decade. Martin Denton started nytheatre.com in 1996 as a hobby. He quit his day job and turned it into a full-time endeavor in 1999.

Last year he had an impressive 3.4 million visitors — many of which, he admits, were merely looking for a theater's address or checking the time their show began. But he also has a "core readership" of several hundred thousand people who appreciate the fact his site reviews virtually every show in town — even those in small, out-of-the-way venues.

It's a tiny operation: Denton runs it out of his home and his mother oversees the business side. Unlike Johnson, he opted to file for nonprofit status, which gives him access to grant money. About one-third of his $100,000 annual budget comes from government sources (both the state and city of New York contribute).

He also sells banner ads, and like Johnson, he reports no problems with advertisers demanding a positive review as a quid pro quo. "They're paying for a certain number of eyeballs on the ad," he says. "If they get that, they don't care what our review says."

Those reviews are written by theater professionals who do not get paid for their work. Denton admits that keeping the quality high with volunteer labor is a challenge, but he has managed to avoid the potential pitfalls of peer-to-peer criticism, such as reviews tinged by personal or professional grudges. "Everybody's grown up," he insists. "They understand constructive criticism is valuable."

Of course, constructive criticism is always valuable. The whole history of 20th century theatre criticism is filled with stories along the lines of Sylvia Miles dumping a plate of spaghetti on top of John Simon's head as opposed to the way Elliot Norton helped Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein turn a mediocre musical called Away We Go into one far more memorable called Oklahoma!

But let's remember, the initial pretext for Jacobs' article was not whether criticism as an organism would survive, or survive insofar as superlative writing quality goes, but whether the situation for arts journalist may, in the final analysis, be anything but -- to reuse Jacobs' term -- "dire." And here's the problem: Denton may even offer superior criticism on his site, and his business model may be predicated entirely on volunteer reviewing, but isn't it volunteer reviewing that devalues the very idea of the arts journalist? In simplest terms, by not paying the arts journalist, does the arts journalist have intrinsic -- by that I mean measurable -- value? What is wrong with making a living as an arts journalist? What's so grand, so admirable, so pride-inducing, so inexhaustibly unassailable, about not paying arts journalists? This doesn't just apply to Denton's site -- far from it. Lots of bloggers out there write for nothing. More and more, let's of journalists that still have staff positions at established publications are being asked to do more and more, like blogging, for no additional compensation. And in terms of those who aren't with a staff position at a major publication, let's not debate what does and does constitute an arts journalist, for I believe that if you're writing about the arts and you're having what you write about the arts published and consumers are reading and consuming that coverage, you're an arts journalist. Period. (Yes, that includes bloggers.) After all:

...As Denton notes, ["an aura of authoritativeness"] works well if you're buying a computer component, but it's not all that helpful when it comes to evaluating a CD or theatrical production. For that kind of advice, you want someone with knowledge and experience who can judge a work of art thoughtfully and write about it in an interesting way — in other words, a critic.

I just feel that if "you want someone with knowledge and experience who can judge a work of art thoughtfully and write about it in an interesting way," such knowledge and experience ought to have a monetary value. Only in something like arts journalism would it be assumed ok to pay not one dime for such skills.

Meanwhile, Jacobs goes to a great source for yet another perspective: Sasha Anawalt, director of the Annenberg/Getty Arts Journalism Program at the University of Southern California:

Anawalt also can imagine the day when major arts organizations, or perhaps consortia of such groups, may hire established arts journalists and give them a prominent online forum. After all, many companies stepped up their education component when arts-appreciation courses were dropped from school-district curricula. Similarly, they may decide that supporting arts journalism is well worth the relatively small expense.

"I don't think arts organizations should pay critics to review their wares, but I'm old school — the conflict of interest stops me dead," says Seattle Post-Intelligencer art critic Regina Hackett, who has announced plans to write a blog for artsjournal.com. "But a group of arts organizations in a city can support the right kind of arts blogger or arts news site."

But even a high-quality, well-read Web site has a limited reach. Newspapers, at least in their heyday, were read by nearly every member of a given community (or at least everyone with a certain level of income and education). Few may have devoured the review of the new exhibit at the art museum, but casual readers very likely glanced at the photos and received — at least subliminally — the impression that something interesting was going on there.

"Web sites tend to be very focused," notes Gil Cates, managing director of the Geffen Playhouse in West Los Angeles (and producer of the annual Academy Awards broadcast). "It's that general audience that is the hardest to reach. I want to attract the crowd that looks at a newspaper on a Saturday and asks, 'What do you want to do tonight?'

"The audience has to know about what's going on in the theater in order to decide whether they are going to come," he reasons. "It's true there is the Internet, including things like Facebook. But the majority of theatergoers tend to be over 40, and they're not as new-media-inclined as the younger generation. They get most of their information from television, radio and newspapers. So when you start cutting
people who write about what we do, it's serious."

That last line is very powerful, you know. Because the situation really is serious. And websites have a fast-growing, but still (for now) limited, reach. It's a generational thing, a consumer-behavior thing, and I think arts organizations have a responsibility to not stand on the sidelines in this moment, as some (not those cited in the article) seem to be doing. Truthfully, I wouldn't trust a nonprofit arts group, "or perhaps consortia of such groups," to "hire established arts journalists and give them a prominent online forum." It wouldn't be in their interest to allow arts journalists to truly write freely. My God, look at all the nonprofit institutional theaters in New York getting on the bandwagon of inviting bloggers to super-early previews of their shows. They're banking on the idea that those bloggers will create buzz, which is their motivation for calling these invitations a "marketing initiative." These groups do not have the balls or the brains to actually consider these bloggers what they are -- legitimate critics, real honest-to-God critics and arts journalists; people who in any other time, in any other era, would have had real job at real publications and would have made real salaries -- and thus invite them to critics' performances. No, what they've done is create a Jim Crow era for arts journalism. That, too, devalues arts journalists and arts journalism.

Smartly, Jacobs ends his story with some hope:

"It's an incredibly exciting time to be an arts journalist. We're in a sort of Wild West of invention. I think what comes out eventually will be far superior to what we have had."

But will an economic model be found to support all this innovation? McLennan — who recently hired two assistants to help him edit artsjournal.com — is an optimist. His operation makes a decent profit thanks in part to subscribers who pay him to have information get e-mailed directly to their inbox. It's the same stuff they can find on his Web site, but they're willing to pay for the convenience of direct delivery.

McLennan compares standalone niche Web sites to small literary magazines, which seldom make money and usually fold when their founder burns out. "It's very hard selling an ad on a blog that gets 1,000 hits a day," he admits. "But if you band together with 10 other blogs — say a theater blog bands together with a music blog and a visual arts blog — your universe of potential advertisers grows enormously.

"Historically it has been true that if you could put together an audience for something that you did, there was a way to make money at it. I refuse to believe the laws of human nature are going to be suspended because of the Internet."

Of course, forging a career without the safety net provided by a large employer is not for the timid. To pursue their calling, arts journalists will need to be both dedicated and imaginative. In other words, their lives will resemble those of another group of highly committed, risk-taking professionals ... artists.

And I agree: the laws of human nature will not be suspended because of the Web. Indeed, the business model that allowed arts journalists to make a living have alreadybeen suspended, hence the move toward entrepreneurial models. The question is how to reinvent the form without devaluing not just the work, again, but the idea of simply making a living. Let's hope the reinvention is here sooner, not later.

Dubai Cracks Public Morality Whip; Will NYU President John Sexton Roll Over?

2009-03-16T07:20:00.005-04:00

With questions still being raised -- and unaddressed -- regarding fiduciary shenanigans on the part of NYU President John Sexton as the construction of the school's Dubai campus continues, it's interesting to note some news.

According to this story published by the Daily Star in Lebanon:

Playing loud music, dancing, nudity, kissing and holding hands in public is considered inappropriate behavior under new guidelines laid down by the authorities of Dubai, a report said Saturday. Arabic-language daily Al-Emarat al-Youm said the Dubai Executive Council had urged residents of the city - which in days past has been termed "The Beirut of the Persian Gulf" - where foreigners make up more than 80 percent of the population, to respect the customs of the Muslim majority country and avoid inappropriate behavior.

The rules, which apply to all public places, include a ban on all forms of nudity, playing music loudly and dancing, exchange of kisses between men and women - and even on unmarried couples holding hands.

Any breach of the guidelines, by nationals or expatriates, carries a possible prison penalty, the paper said.

It's their nation, of course -- they can have whatever codes they wish to have. But since the UAE is supposedly paying for NYU's Dubai campus (though Sexton refuses to acknowledge any of the directions that money is going in, including his own pocket), the question is whether Sexton will continue to be the UAE's lapdog bitch if these rules, which aren't unspeakable (holding hands in public is a Western value, public sex is not), are actually a precursor to something scarier. Given how the man has lied to the Greenwich Village community repeatedly regarding preservation issues, I think we already have a good idea as to where he sticks his moral compass.

In other news, NYU's school daily, the Washington Square News, reports that George Mason University is terminating its UAE campus for various reasons, almost all economic.

The Impending Unbranding of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand?

2009-03-15T13:53:00.004-04:00

All posts are cross-posted to the beta version of the new Clyde Fitch Report. I'd love any thoughts on the new site -- bearing in mind we're still in beta, resolving kinks, bugs, design, functionality, etc.

I cannot tell you how many emails I get every day from organizations like MoveOn.org, imploring me to add my name to this or that cause. Many of them I support, many of them I don't, but I feel I receive entirely too many of these things, and no matter where one sits on the political/philosophical spectrum, at a certain point there's got to be the risk of diminishing returns.

Sometimes I get one of these emails and I realize that there is something far more significant going on in the background; that while I may be asked on the surface to lend my support to a cause, what's really happening is that a broader message, a broader agenda, may be moving into motion. I felt this way the other day when I got such an email regarding my new senator here in New York, Kirsten Gillibrand.

The subject of the MoveOn.org email is the housing crisis and President Obama's plan to fix it. The purpose of my post, however, is not to take a position on his plan quite yet (though it's much more intelligent than anything the Party of No has put forth) but to wonder why Gillibrand is the subject of targeting. She was, after all, sworn in to succeed Hilary Clinton just 47 days ago.

Personally, I think Gillibrand's uber-centrist positions are making her a target of the left and the right. I think the right sees a chance, albeit a slim one, to take her down in a death-by-a-zillion-cuts strategy, or at least soften her up for a hard time in 2010 if she is the nominee and/or if the GOP can come up with a candidate who could be her equal, which is where they're stalled at the moment. But I think the left is very divided about her: liberals are nauseated by Gillibrand's 100% NRA rating and worried, if not quite at the level of nauseated, by the senator's, um, let's say, evolving stance on gay rights. She's basically too centrist for New York, some say, and this may be about to cause her some problems.

Unless, that is, Gillibrand capitulates while also figuring out how to explain shifting so much to the left without leaving her vulnerable to charges of flipping and flopping. So this brings me back to this email from MoveOn.org, which clearly, I think, sends a shot right over Gillibrand's bow to hurry up and figure it out. That, in other words, she'd better vivaciously toe the Obama line or else face reelection problems next year. Now, party discipline is a Republican virtue, so efforts to instill it in the famously fractious Democrats strikes me as a net positive. But let's acknowledge that this may be what is going on here. And now, the text of the MoveOn.org email:

Dear MoveOn member,

Next week, the Senate will begin work on an important part of President Obama's plan to address the housing crisis, and your senator's vote will be key.

The bill makes a crucial change to bankruptcy law, empowering judges to help homeowners reduce their mortgages instead of losing their homes. Judges already have the ability to do this with vacation homes, cars, even yachts. But they can't take this commonsense step with primary homes.

The bill passed the House last week, but faced opposition from some Democrats. The fight in the Senate is going to be even tougher. Sen. Gillibrand needs to hear from you today so she knows constituents are counting on her to stand with homeowners, not big banks.

Can you call Sen. Gillibrand right now? Tell her: "Please pass the foreclosure bankruptcy reform that the House just passed. Stand with homeowners, not with big banks."

Here's where to call:
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand
Phone: 202-224-4451

Then, please report your call by clicking here:

President Obama offered a comprehensive plan to ease the housing crisis. His plan helps families refinance their mortgages to take advantage of low rates, and gives qualifying homeowners relief through loan modifications. In all, the plan is expected to help up to 9 million families stay in their homes.

Most of the plan is already being implemented, but the key provision in question needs congressional approval. By allowing bankruptcy judges to modify mortgages on primary residences, this bill provides a strong incentive for banks to work with homeowners before foreclosing.

But the mortgage industry is fighting the bill tooth and nail—they convinced 24 Democrats in the House to vote against the bill—because they don't want to take any responsibility for their role in the housing crisis. We can't afford to lose even a few votes in the Senate, and that means letting Sen. Gillibrand know now that you expect her to put her constituents ahead of the banks.

Can you call Sen. Gillibrand now and tell hers to stand with homeowners and to pass foreclosure bankruptcy reform?

Sources:
1. "Bankruptcy law may be modified," The Chicago Tribune, February 25, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51212&id=15732-6361398-B.mzwxx&t=4

2. "Obama: Housing plan could help millions," The Hill, February 18, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51214

3. "Bankruptcy law may be modified," The Chicago Tribune, February 25, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51212&id=15732-6361398-B.mzwxx&t=6

4. "Final Vote Results for Roll Call 104," The Clerk of the House of Representatives, March 5, 2009
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll104.xml

Now, here's the bottom line: MoveOn.org has every right to advocate whatever position it wishes. But it seems to me there's something about the tone of this email that implied a threat to the new Senator. Welcome to the big leagues, indeed.

From the Blogroll XI

2009-03-14T10:04:00.011-04:00

Starting today, all posts are being cross-posted to the beta version of the new Clyde Fitch Report. I'd love any thoughts on the new site -- bearing in mind we're still in beta, resolving kinks, bugs, design, functionality, etc.

At Adam Szymkowicz's blog, Adam Szymkowicz takes the Dentyne playwriting contest idea and smacks it around. And I have to say, I've been surprised by the amount of hostility in the theatrosphere toward this effort. When I first reported it, I thought, Gee, you know, that's weird, but the more I read about the upset in the playwriting community about it, the more I wonder whether the whole thing is just a terrible idea -- or if Manhattan Theatre Club has really shown its true, anti-indie theater colors by partnering with Dentyne on it.

At Adaumbelle's Quest, Adam Rothenberg asks Broadway actor Mark Price everything you've always wanted to know (about Mark Price and otherwise) but were far too terrified to even begin to contemplate.

At the Arts Marketing blog, Chad M. Bowman tackles the question of theaters that advertise and the problem of what to do as fewer and fewer traditional media publications allocate space and time and resources toward covering the work that major theaters -- such as LORT theaters in particular -- do. What he writes is interesting:

This past Friday, I was on a conference call with several marketing and PR directors from various LORT (League of Resident Theaters) theaters. The purpose of the call was to plan discussion topics for the upcoming LORT conference in Los Angeles. We all agreed that the disappearing arts coverage in local and national press is one of the top issues currently facing non-profit arts organizations, and we recognize that the shrinking coverage has forced arts organizations into becoming content providers themselves. As we make the shift from pitching interesting stories for reporters to cover to covering them ourselves through various media channels (YouTube, Facebook, Blogs, Twitter, Flickr, BlipTv, etc), I believe it is also important to fight for the remaining arts reporters and critics.

We all know that the newspaper industry is in a world of hurt right now. The Rocky Mountain News, one of Denver's largest newspapers, has already bit the dust, and it looks very likely that the Seattle Post-Intelligencer will do the same. The Chicago-based Tribune Company has filed for bankruptcy, and the New York Times doesn't look so hot either. Locally in DC metro area, we have seen the Baltimore Examiner go out of business and rumor on the street is that the Washington Post lost $40 million last year, however it owns Kaplan which made $50 million so they can continue to operate in the red, at least for awhile.

With all of this, you can imagine that the pressure is high to cut costs, and why not cut arts coverage? We are perceived by most not to be as valuable as other industries (I am thinking of the huge debate over the $50 million stimulus money for the NEA in the $800+ billion stimulus package, and how much controversy there was over that). So that is where we must step in. We need to make it clear that if a media source cuts arts coverage it will do so at the cost of advertising dollars.

But here's my concern: beyond vowing to "fight for the remaining arts reporters and critics" by threatening to withhold advertising dollars," Bauman doesn't articulate how theaters ought to pressure traditional media to halt "shrinking coverage." True, Bauman writes, "The arts are an economic engine....a source of revenue, and it is about time that we are taken seriously." But it seems to me that if arts-driven advertising dollars were so life-sustaining for print publications, they wouldn't be in the dire position they're in. It has been a fact in New York for as long as I can remember that theater advertising in the New York Times, for example, is the most expensive in that paper. Clearly, since the Times is scrambling to not go under, arts-driven advertising dollars will not be enough to make the difference -- to stop declining coverage.

That said -- and in the interest of being balanced about this -- here's what Bauman writes about the scene in DC and how Arena, and Bauman in particular, have put some teeth in the threat:

[Fighting for the remaining arts reporters and critics] has been successful in the Washington metropolitan area. Just recently, a media source was going to cut a major source of arts coverage, going so far as to tell the writer that within weeks, she would be released. The League of Washington Theatres along with the management of several of the area's largest arts organizations sent a letter to the company outlining the likely economic consequences of the decision. Soon thereafter, the decision was reversed. Since the company changed its mind, and continued to support arts coverage, I have vowed to increase the amount of advertising I am spending with them this year, and am proud that they continue to be a great source of information on the local arts scene.

As I advocate to reduce advertising expenditures with companies that eliminate arts coverage, I would encourage you to consider increasing your advertising buys for companies that show an increased dedication to the arts. Locally, Arena Stage hasn't traditionally supported the DC Examiner (a local print publication) or DCTheatreScene.com (a local theater website). However, both have recently made efforts to increase their arts coverage, the former by printing a theater and museum guide and the latter by doing significant website improvements. Arena Stage now supports them both, and I plan to continue to do so.

That's excellent, and I'm glad Bauman is willing, as I say, to put some muscle in his threat. It's essential that companies like Arena set an example and understand their economic impact and continue, whenever and wherever possible, to make the case. Many theaters are too terrified to go and sit in a publisher's office or call an editor, fearing they'll damage the coverage they'll get for their shows. So doing all this is brave.

But why is Bauman, who is communications director for Arena Stage, seemingly blithe about the fact that most theaters do not have Arena's fiscal resources -- they can't afford to advertise even if they wanted to. (Remember, Arena will likely get some piece of $50 million NEA boost as part of the stimulus package, but non-NEA-vetted venues will get zip.) Doesn't he realize that if the rates for advertising were more reasonable for more theaters, more of them might advertise?

Bauman may think Arena is pioneering alternative ways of promoting the message through the aforementioned media channels, but the fact is that smaller theaters have long been doing this because they haven't the luxury Arena has of even thinking about advertising. So while I respect Bauman's willingness to get all George Foreman on behalf of arts journalists, he might want to be fair and acknowledge the extraordinary economic advantages Arena has in the first place.

Now back to From the Blogroll...

At the Critical Condition, Mark Blankenship finally fesses up to his true feelings about Kelly Clarkson. Little does he know how very conflicted she is about him. Later, Mark does off about this week's American Idol adventure, leading the reader to imagine that Mr. and Mrs. Thurston Howell are much happier with their own.

At CultureBot, Ian Belton confirms that Mark Russell, the founding and now former artistic director of P.S. 122, is not, to his Ian's word, a wang. (But is he a chung?) And Andy Horwitz has five questions for Sheila Callaghan. Andy also offers a modest proposal for arts in America. Read it!

At Everything I Know I Learned From Musicals, Chris Caggiano wonders if the Broadway revival of Guys and Dolls will have legs. Or if they'll be whacked.

At Extra Criticum, Jeremy Dobrish writes about writing with another writer...right?

At the Hub Review, Thomas Garvey joins the is-it-really-Shakespeare? portrait scrum.

At In the Wings, Jonathan Jovel reports on Scott Walters' argument that "80% of the theatre-going population is made up of the top 15% of America’s economic class." Of course, it would be even more powerful to realize that you could say that about all the arts in the United States, but that's another story.

At Interchanging Idioms, Chip Michael talks about all the different ways various arts leaders and journalists are suggesting that classical music can be saved. Worth reading because the ideas are applicable to more than just that genre.

At the Producer's Perspective, Ken Davenport compares the recession in Hollywood to the recession on Broadway. Bottom line: spin.

At Lou Harry's A&E, Lou Harry offers coverage of the Indiana Coalition for the Arts' efforts in the capital of the Hoosier state.

At Moxie the Maven, Moxie continues her rampage against the Broadway revival of Guys and Dolls, or so it sort of seems. Frankly, girlfriend needs to just chill and start instituting awful puns like "Children of a Loesser God." More to the point, the post is about how the marketing folks for G&D invited Moxie to see the show, then said there wasn't availability, and back and forth and back and forth, and yet, Moxie reports, empty seats are simply epidemic in the mezzanine of the Nederlander Theatre. Hmmm...

At Off-Off-Blogway, Ludlow Lad asks nine questions of Caden Manson of Big Art Group. Some great answers, including the perennial number 7.

At On Chicago Theatre, Zev N. Valancy writes about the Neo-Futurists Strange Interlude. My favorite quote: "The play is, to put it simply, insane. The nine acts of the wildly over the top plot covers 25 years in the life on Nina Leeds and the three men who love her. There's abortion, atheism, and adultery, and that's just the letter a. That's not even taking into account the lengthy asides to the audience, the huge swaths of intensely purple prose, the lengthy, prescriptive stage directions, and the general air of Freudian weirdness. It is almost never produced anymore, and not just because of length--I honestly think that modern audiences would not accept it produced straighforwardly onstage." Good thing he didn't see Mourning Becomes Electra here in Gotham.

At Parabasis, Isaac Butler declares himself a "Democratic Socialist." Glad he has the means to feel that way. He also liberally goes off about comment craziness on his blog.

At the Stage blog of the Guardian, the question of whether video games will be the salvation of the theater comes up yet again. A little cross-posting with Ken Davenport, hm?

At Steve On Broadway, Steve really bums me: he's not going to post daily or regularly anymore. I frankly wish he'd reconsider. His explanation is simple and moving and admirable and, wish his permission, I wish to reprint part of it here:

Alongside travel, history, politics and music, live theatre has been one my greatest passions since my formative years. I've been extremely fortunate to have seen some of the greatest shows of our time, along with some of the biggest and brightest stars of the stage.

Even more fortunate was my opportunity to share this most unique and entertaining of communal experience with so very many of you, my fellow enthusiasts (and truly dear friends). For that, I'm all the richer.

While I've been indisposed over the past week, I've had a chance to reflect on how blogging about live theatre has substantially detracted from my passion for this beloved art form. In my mad dash in trying to see everything (spending my own hard-earned dollars to boot), all the while reviewing each and every show, I've become much more critical of the form. I have sacrificed the opportunity to judiciously select what I'd most like to see. A consequence has been that I no longer just sit back, relax and enjoy each production for the entertainment that it is.

On top of that, I write all day in my professional life, which is squarely outside of the realm of theatre. When you write for a living, oftentimes the last thing you want to do is write on your own time, particularly when your inherent instinct is to live life to its fullest. As a good friend once told me, "If you're baking pies all day, who wants to come home and bake one?"

Unlike all too many others, including a disturbing number of family and friends, I'm extremely fortunate and blessed to have the opportunity to continue working in this most difficult of economies. I'm resolved to be better than ever, not only professionally, but especially in my relationships with my loved ones. They're what matter more than anything else to me.

The death this past week of Horton Foote -- one of America's great playwrights, whose tender works not only centered on family, but quite often featured his own talented daughter Hallie -- had me further pondering the vital role my loved ones play in my life, as well as the cost of writing Steve On Broadway (SOB) at their expense.

So it's after much contemplation that I suspend regular, let alone daily, postings here. Having said that, if there's a theatre headline or personal experience worth writing about, rest assured I'll still be posting them. As far as the shows I see, I may attempt to write one or two lines about my overall experience in an easy-to-read nutshell, along with whether or not I actually enjoyed the performances. But that my friends will be about all.

Godspeed, Steve. Let's go on...

At Theatre Ideas, Scott Walters explodes with, well, Ideas. For example, he talks down, and perhaps with good reason, the "Wal-Marting of the American Theatre," though after reading his post I must confess I don't entirely understand quite what he means. He begins the post with a long excerpt from Thomas Friedman's book The World Is Flat, and then he burrows in:

I was reminded of Friedman's chillingly gee-whiz paragraph when I was listening to Beth Leavel's keynote speech (or, as Tom Loughlin calls it, "performance") at the Southeastern Theatre Conference (SETC) last Friday, specifically when she responded to a question about Chicago with the following corrective: "All I know is that if I want to work in Chicago, I have to be in New York; if I want to work in Seattle, which is a great theatre town, I have to be in New York; if I want to work in my home town of Raleigh, I have to be in New York."

It occurred to me, as I watched a sea of youthful heads register her implicit advice about what their career destination should be, that New York City is the Bentonville of the theatre world. As in Friedman's description above [see Walters' post for this], theatre educators across America, from high school teachers to undergraduate departments to grad schools, represent the "thousands of different suppliers" who ship their "products" (i.e., their students) from all parts of the nation to New York where they feed the theatrical conveyor belt "like streams into a powerful river." The business of theatre educators is to export a "quality product" that will be accepted by New York headquarters. Once there, if the product is "lucky," it is plucked from the big conveyor belt and shipped to the specific theatre that needs that particular product, wherever those theatres are. Once that product is plucked and successfully consumed at its final destination, the call is communicated back to the student's originating theatre department to create another one like him or her, and as Friedman says "the whole cycle will start anew." Advertisements will appear in American Theatre Magazine crowing "our graduates work," with a picture of the successful product prominently displayed as proof. If we did it once, the ad implies, we can do it again.

The effect of the Wal-Mart supply chain on commerce is well-documented: local businesses are destroyed, money is taken out of the local economy to flow back to headquarters, wages are depressed, and unique cultural products are replaced by homogeneous national brands. Go to any Wal-Mart in America and you will find basically the same products displayed in the same way and at the same low price. The Wal-Marted theatre scene is no different.

Instead of local arts organizations run by and staffed by artists whose lives are made within a specific community and whose artistic vision is informed by that community, Wal-Mart Regional Theatre and Touring House imports generic artists from NYC to do generic plays for a short run after which they depart never to be seen again, taking the community's money with them. This is the system being celebrated by Beth Leavel and every theatre instructor who dazzles their young charges with visions of Tony Awards.

Wal-Mart isn't good for America, nor is Wal-Mart Theatre. And like the business leaders and legislators who promote Wal-Mart as an economic engine bringing jobs to depressed areas despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, theatre artists and educators who continue to promote this system are promoting a lie.

Whoa! OK, I bought into a great deal of that until the end -- the sucker punch. The primacy, or supposed primacy, of New York theater isn't a lie. That's facile anti-New York hogwash -- and I say that not as a native New Yorker but because one can't glibly blame New York for branding itself successfully as the nation's theater capital since the time of Thomas Jefferson. (For a great book on this, read Heather Nathans' Early American Theatre from the Revolution to Thomas Jefferson: Into the Hands of the People.) When there was little or no theater outside of the East Coast's major cities, dozens and dozens of stock companies went to the provinces, as it were, to bring theater to those who had none. The whole story of the Syndicate, which finally organized "the road" -- or the story of David Belasco's journey to New York from San Francisco, or Mrs. Fiske's or the Lunts' endless, tireless trooping across the nation -- is a testament to how much theater in non-New York areas once meant to the popularization of the theater during the early parts of our cultural history.

What we have now, however, is a historic turning point. The maturation of the nonprofit theater movement now allows for the worthy idea that non-New York communities can have significant, flourishing arts communities -- actually, let's not limit our subject to theater -- of their own. Can you have a strong, powerful League of Chicago Theatres if the Wal-Marting of the American theater really exists -- if it's all solely about perpetuating New York's dominance? Could you have theater awards in Boston, DC, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Atlanta, Minneapolis and Denver if those awards, year by year, however incrementally, did not bring value to the work being done in those communities and, indeed, to those communities themselves? Isn't the issue really one of the old inferiority complex -- the "Oh, we're Denver -- we're not New York." Well, who, precisely, is to blame for that? New York? Isn't it more appropriate to blame teachers in non-New York communities who wish they had made it big in New York? Or who didn't have the nuts in the first place to make it in New York? So what if New York actively perpetuates the allure of making it big in the Big Apple? That's good marketing. If you resent it, and if you want local arts organizations to be "run by and staffed by artists whose lives are made within a specific community and whose artistic vision is informed by that community," then for God's sake, start working on how to brand those communities to compete with the ever-deified New York!

It seems to me that those people who romanticize New York, worship New York, make beatific our dear Broadway, need some education. That's true. But you can't blame New York for the way non-New York theatre people see New York. The Wal-Marting of the American theater, to the degree it exists, is enabled and celebrated at home.

And look -- one can argue that when an Atlanta theater mounts a play and the play is picked up for New York, that's the Wal-Martization of the American theater, too. Ditto if you have an actor trained outside of New York who then comes to New York and makes it big, Beth Leavel-style. But when a play is mounted successfully in New York and regional houses pick it up, that brings income -- tangible, substantive success -- to playwrights. If you take someone like Steven Dietz, whose plays are always done in Seattle and who lives in Seattle and Austin, I believe -- well, his situation really gives the lie to what Walters calls a lie, for Dietz proves that New York need not always be the center of the Dionysian universe. This lends credence to Mike Daisey's argument that there needs to be far more encouraging of non-New York arts communities to celebrate their own within their own, if you will, and that the temptation to indulge in the hagiography of New York must be resisted -- again, at home. New York isn't to blame for great branding -- non-New York communities are responsible for uncompetitive branding.

One of my last Back Stage stories was an in-depth look at the theater scene in DC. Scores and scores of actors work there -- making a living! -- and for them, it's not all about getting to New York, though they wouldn't turn down the opportunity. I wonder how Walters' argument plays out in terms of film: Is the idea that you'd just make films in and about your local community and never aspire to Hollywood?

So, Beth Leavel wanted to be in New York, on Broadway -- bravo for her! Maybe the issue is the SETC folks didn't ask Naomi Jacobson of the DC theatre scene to give a speech. Maybe they will.

And now, the final entry in this week's From the Blogroll...

At Good/What Blows in New York Theatre, Rocco also weighs in on the William Shakespeare portrait controversy, addressing the nonsensical idea that a single portrait can tell us whether the Bard was a butt-loving gay bard.

Will Obama Let the Gays Marry? Heads or Tails He Loses, Says Times

2009-03-13T13:21:00.003-04:00

Well, it’s pretty obvious that the New York Times is enjoying bringing the gay marriage issue to the political front-burner on Day 51 of President Obama’s already-exhausting term. You know, there have been some moments since the president’s inauguration that I’ve been sure the United States was undergoing some kind of political Groundhog Day back to the Clinton years, except this time the hot topic isn’t gays in the military, which was and still remains a slam-dunk issue as far as I’m concerned. (Here’s a great piece from the Huffington Post, by the way, on how Argentina and Israel, among other countries, are more intellectually and morally enlightened than America on this issue.) Frankly, anyone who doesn’t understand why “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is a horrid rule should have the word “homophobe” tattooed on their face and start acting like Mike Tyson on a really bad day. Yes, I realize that’s redundant.

Anyway, in the Times’ story today, the situation is really spelled out that awaits the president:

Just seven weeks into office, President Obama is being forced to confront one of the most sensitive social and political issues of the day: whether the government must provide health insurance benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.

In separate, strongly worded orders, two judges of the federal appeals court in California said that employees of their court were entitled to health benefits for their same-sex partners under the program that insures millions of federal workers.

But the federal Office of Personnel Management has instructed insurers not to provide the benefits ordered by the judges, citing a 1996 law, the Defense of Marriage Act.

As a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama said he would “fight hard” for the rights of gay couples. As a senator, he sponsored legislation that would have provided health benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.

Now, Mr. Obama is in a tough spot. If he supports the personnel office on denying benefits to the San Francisco court employees, he risks agitating liberal groups that helped him win election. If he supports the judges and challenges the marriage act, he risks alienating Republicans with whom he is seeking to work on economic, health care and numerous other matters.

But here’s the thing: Didn’t Obama alienate Republicans by becoming the duly elected president of the United States? I mean, isn’t it true that unless he’s a gun-toting, NRA-card-carrying, welfare-eliminating, Medicare-slashing, tax-destroying, anti-choice homophobe he’d be on their target list, their enemies list, no matter what? Not that I think Michael Steele is savviest lion in the lair, but when the guy deviates from Republican orthodoxy on the abortion issue, the party establishmentarians start getting hysterical, circling like vultures. Not a way to, um, broaden the big tent, methinks.

No, the Party of No really has been clear: They want Barack Obama to fail. They’ll even take down the United States of America economically or any other way to make their point. So, really, how much risk is there for him on gay issues? It’s not as if a small gulf separates the Democrats from the Republicans on this, right? It’s not as if there’s room for any kind of manuvering. And wouldn’t it be better to deal with this issue earlier in his term?

New Models: The Low-Profit Limited Liability Company

2009-03-13T07:25:00.004-04:00

Woke up this morning to read and digest a new and thought-provoking contribution to the going-around-in-circles "new models" discussion. If you check out Andrew Taylor's The Artful Manager, his newest post, "Somewhere Between Profit and Nonprofit" explores the idea of a Low-Profit Limited Liability Company, commonly abbreviated as L3C. I've included the salient paragraphs of Taylor's post because I think they ought to provoke some discussion in the theatrosphere. The one question I have, meanwhile, concerns corporate tax liability. Is there any? Can you form one in a state that allows one but de facto operate it in another? Could states use the ability to create L3Cs as a way to compete against each other for capital investment, like with tax-subsidies for film production? Are there any statistics on how many of these have been formed nationally and how they're doing?

Anyway, the salient graphs (I've included all the hyperlinks from the original post):

....When forming a business, individuals and groups can select from many forms -- S Corporation, C Corporation, LLC, LLP, Sole Proprietorship, and such -- depending on the nature of the work they have in mind. The 501c3 nonprofit is a particular flavor of the Non-stock corporate form, designed to assist enterprises with a social or public purpose that can't sustain their operations or capital needs through traditional markets (so philanthropy and volunteerism step in).

Unlike the for-profit world, which has a full palette of options for corporate form, social enterprises have had rather few. The 501c3 is required by most donors, government granting agencies, and foundations for gifts and grants. But it carries a cost, as well -- it's hard to manage, govern, and sustain, its awkward for enterprises that plan a profit (even a small one), and it tends to be permanent even when permanence isn't required.

So, in response, the L3C is intended to look and act like a small business (its parent form, the Limited Liability Company, is a darling of entrepreneurs), but also allow for social investment from a range of foundations and donors. Donations to an L3C are not tax-deductible for the donor, nor will they qualify for traditional grants and government subsidy. But they could become vehicles for attracting Program Related Investments (PRI), which foundations use to encourage activity in blighted communities or industries.

The L3C continues to pop up as an option for the beleagered newspaper industry, for example, where the traditional profit engines have vanished, but public interest in a vibrant city newspaper remains....

Actually, if I had any kind of brain, I'd have looked down toward the end of the post, where there is a link to a blog that is new to me, Gene Takagi's Nonprofit Law Blog. In a long post about L3C's, Takagi points to the way this business model could enable the newspaper industry to not totally go the way of the dodo and the much-missed passenger pigeon:

....Sally Duros reported in the Huffington Post (Feb. 9, and Feb 26, 2009), newspapers are dealing with a current lack of capital caused by investors turning “news-gathering into Wall Street product.” While certain papers still make money, "The problem is it cannot make enough profit for all the games normal for-profits get involved in." (Lang commenting on the Peoria Newspaper Guild). Historically, newspapers are not considered nonprofits. However, the Program-Related Investment Promotion Act, if passed, would expand charitable purposes to include newspapers. In Illinois alone, under the 5% payout required by foundations, Illinois foundations invest $17M each year in programs serving a social purpose out of their $535 combined assets. The L3C scenario would thus provide an opportunity for newspapers to make “enough” money. Lang stated, "What we are looking at is the newspaper as a self-sufficient entity. It will not be a high profit entity." Unlike other current options, the L3C is sustainable, allowing newspapers to tap into the $17M available for PRIs while the L3C’s social purpose business model continues to realign newspapers with their community service mission. The Communications Workers of America and other reporters have raised similar discussions for other struggling newspapers, for example, in Seattle and Minnesota.

What You Talkin' About, Willis Tower?

2009-03-12T19:17:00.004-04:00

Well, it won't be called the Sears Tower anymore, according to this story.

It'll be called the Willis Tower.

Gary Coleman must be crushed.

Metropolitan Museum Slashing Staff

2009-03-12T16:21:00.004-04:00

Sad stuff. Just received this press release from the Metropolitan Museum of Art:

As part of an ongoing, and increasingly challenging, effort to maintain budgetary equilibrium in this worsening national economic climate -- particularly for the retail sector -- The Metropolitan Museum of Art has announced that it must pare its merchandising work force by 74 positions, effective immediately. These staff reductions represent 27% of its full-time, and 9% of its part-time retail positions, and are in addition to the 53 positions eliminated in recent months through the closings of eight satellite Museum stores around the country. The decision acknowledges significant recent downturns in its merchandising sales, but also represents an effort to restructure this department so it remains competitive in the future and can continue to support museum programs.

At the same time, the Museum also anticipates the additional need to reduce the rest of its full- and part-time work force by approximately 10% in all other areas of its operations before the beginning of its next fiscal year July 1. Because The Metropolitan is so large and complex an organization, whose staff possess skill sets crucial to maintaining its buildings and collections successfully, such a contraction requires a deliberate and delicate process, which Museum management, while acknowledging the urgent need for reductions, is committed to undertaking with the greatest care. Among many recent costsaving efforts, the Museum previously instituted a hiring freeze and eliminated merit salary increases for the next fiscal year.

The Met is immensely grateful to all of its retail employees for their diligence and loyalty, and regrets deeply that recent losses in retail revenues -- as well as prospective, significant, and long-term reductions in annual operating income for the Museum from its endowment -- combine to make these extremely painful decisions absolutely necessary to bring the Museum’s operating expenses in line with reduced income during the difficult months and years to come.

In addressing these issues, the Trustees and management of the Metropolitan re-emphasize the institution’s determination -- even in the wake of unprecedented financial pressures -- to keep fully its longtime covenant with the museum-going public. The Met will continue to provide not only a safe repository for its vast collections, but a haven of enlightenment, education, and illumination for its diverse visitors from around the city and around the world, particularly at this time -- when institutions that provide solace and inspiration are needed more than ever.

Arts Advocacy Update LXXX

2009-03-12T11:35:00.003-04:00

The content below is from Americans for the Arts' Cultural Policy Listserv, email blast of March 11, 2009:

Hollywood goes to Washington
Variety, 3/9/2009
"The Motion Picture Assn. of America will amp up its Washington lobbying efforts on April 21 with an all-day symposium to 'educate top national policy and lawmakers about the economic impact of the motion picture industry.' The event, to be held at the Donald Reynolds Center for American Art and Portraiture, mirrors a similar effort in 2007, which brought an array of studio execs and creative types to the nation's capital to make the case for the industry's contributions to the national economy.... This year, the event will focus on the industry's ability to provide middle- and working-class jobs."
So very Hollywood -- who knows who they'll trot out. Why doesn't the American theater -- or music or dance or any other discipline or genre -- try to do the same thing? Isn't this half the issue with the arts in America -- a lack of knowledge and awareness among senators and representatives? Instead of running around and trying to perpetuate aging business models, why not something like this?

Artists are losing jobs fast and furiously
Los Angeles Times, 3/4/2009
"The country's dire economic situation is hitting artists hard -- harder than other professionals. According to new research announced today by the National Endowment for the Arts, working artists are unemployed at a higher rate than other workers, and at a rate that is rising more rapidly than other professions.... Artists are unemployed at twice the rate of professional workers, a category in which artists are grouped because of their high levels of education."
To paraphrase Shakespeare, "The first thing we do, let's unemploy all the artists."

Taking Artistic Liquidities
Harvard Crimson (Cambridge, MA), 3/5/2009
"There will be no starving artists at Harvard. Just over a week after University officials announced that the endowment—the largest in higher education—fell a precipitous 22 percent in a four- month period, the University-wide Task Force on the Arts called for ambitious plans to bolster the place of arts on campus. The committee proposed the construction of major new arts facilities and sweeping changes to the undergraduate curriculum and graduate programs. "
Great article, although, once again, it's really difficult to find tears for Harvard.

Arts center stalled? Call it a stadium, Scott Randolph says
Orlando Sentinel (FL), 3/6/2009
"State Rep. Scott Randolph has a novel idea to try to save Orlando's delayed performing-arts center: Treat it like a sports stadium. The Orlando Democrat has filed a bill (HB 1183) to give performing-arts centers in Florida that draw 150,000 or more paying customers the same $2 million-a-year sales-tax rebate that many professional sports stadiums and spring-training sites get from the state."
Works for me. That's smart thinking.

Congress Passes $155M for NEA and NEH
Americans for the Arts website, 3/11/2009
"On Tuesday [March 10], the U.S. Senate passed the FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The bill includes a significant $10 million increase for both the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, which sets their budgets at $155 million each. The legislation also increases the budget for Arts in Education programs at the Department of Education to $38.16 million."
Yay! Oh, and how much of that $10 million won't go to previously funded NEA grantees, hm?

Corzine's 2009 budget would cut $5.2M in arts funding
Star-Ledger, 3/10/2009
"Gov. Jon Corzine today proposed cutting arts funding to $17.1 million, a drop of $5.2 million that would reduce arts support to 2004 levels.... The arts council's $16 million budget is the minimum called for in the hotel-motel occupancy tax, the dedicated revenue stream that funds the state's theaters, music groups, dance troupes and art museums.... The 2003 law that created the tax, which also supports the state's historical commission, cultural trust and tourism, includes a 'poison pill' provision that eliminates the tax if the arts council portion drops below $16 million."
It's just stupid. It's such a small cut and it will hurt the New Jersey economy far more than it will help. Then again, Corzine may not be reelected anyway.

Hard times no license to rob the arts
The Oregonian, 3/7/2009
"With a tumbling economy, declining attendance and tapped-out donors, things are hard enough for the arts, historical museums and other cultural institutions. That's why it's all the more disturbing to see Oregon lawmakers rummaging for money in the only statewide source of arts funding, the cultural trust.... Lawmakers must find a way to restore the $1.8 million taken from the cultural trust as part of the budget-balancing agreement approved by the Oregon Senate last week," says The Oregonian Editorial Board.
Notice the stern language. Good for the Oregonian. Make those people hang their heads in shame. Blithering fools for trying to raid the Cultural Trust.

NJ bill would lift nonprofit spending restrictions
Philly.com - AP, 3/8/2009
"With stocks in freefall and the economy sliding, nonprofit organizations have seen their endowments plunge in value, hurting their ability to feed the poor and run museums, among other activities. But the losses have created an unexpected consequence: Some groups can't use the funds that remain. New Jersey law prohibits many nonprofits from spending certain pools of money if the funds have decreased from their original value. The law, adopted by most states, has restricted the groups' spending as values of stocks and other investments have fallen this past year. But a new bill being tossed around by a New Jersey Senate committee could soon make the off-limit funds accessible."
This is actually as important, and perhaps more so, than whether Gov. Corzine slashes NJ arts funding or not. Very glad this legislation may get through. Arts groups need it, badly.

Philly mayor supports arts groups even amid cuts
Google News - AP, 3/8/2009
"Arts and cultural organizations are often dismissed as a frivolity, the first to go when the budget ax swings even as supporters tout them as powerful economic engines that employ workers and support businesses far beyond the cliche wine-and-cheese set.... But Philadelphia's mayor, in a departure from his predecessor, believes the arts are key to generating revenue and strengthening the community."
Here is a nifty and important excerpt from the story:

"Nutter cited figures from a recent Philadelphia Cultural Alliance report that arts and culture in the region employs 40,000 people and generates more than $1 billion in economic activity every year. More people visit the Philadelphia Museum of Art annually than a season of Philadelphia Eagles' home games, he added.

The Philadelphia Cultural Fund's budget for fiscal 2009 was cut by 24 percent (from $4.2 million to $3.2 million) from the initial spending plan. However, that's still an overall budget increase from the previous fiscal year. The nonprofit entity allocates funds to hundreds of local organizations."

Seattle arts report: Corporate gifts down most
Seattle Times, 3/10/2009
A new report says "[t]he recession is hitting Puget Sound arts and cultural organizations hard," with endowments, contributions, and gifts from foundations and individuals all dramatically reduced. The study, commissioned by the Seattle Mayor's Office of Arts and Cultural Affairs, the Seattle Foundation, Paul G. Allen Family Foundation and 4Culture, "identified ways donors could collaborate to help the arts sector, such as setting up a revolving loan fund and a collective investment for technology. Donors could also help support the arts without spending any money — by cutting application paperwork, extending current grants another year, offering loan guarantees or lines of credit, and encouraging arts groups to share resources and work with nonprofits outside the arts."
All good ideas. I'd love to know what the economic toll of excessive paperwork is and whether it varies by region or state and to what degree it can be quantified.

Study: Corporate giving to dip in 2009
Philadelphia Business Journal (PA), 3/4/2009
"The economic downturn will have a major impact on corporate philanthropy in 2009, according to a Conference Board survey of 158 companies about their planned changes in corporate giving programs. About 45 percent of those surveyed had already implemented a reduction in their 2009 giving budgets and 16 percent were considering it, while 35 percent said they would make fewer grants in 2009 and 22 percent are considering doing the same..... The biggest increase will come in volunteerism, with 45 percent of respondents reporting a resources increase in that area. Arts and culture will most likely see the biggest drop, with 34 percent reporting a decrease in resources devoted to the arts."
Ouch.

White House Rethinks Tax Hikes
Wall Street Journal, 3/5/2009
"President Barack Obama is meeting strong Democratic Party resistance to his proposal to reduce tax deductions enjoyed by upper-income Americans and could be forced to drop or modify the idea. Mr. Obama in his budget blueprint last week proposed a cap on itemized deductions for mortgage interest and charitable donations to help pay for his health-care overhaul. The plan would cost wealthier taxpayers about $318 billion in new taxes over 10 years, according to government estimates. But after objections from Democratic lawmakers, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner appeared to suggest at one point Wednesday that the administration was willing to consider dropping or modifying the proposal."
Because, after all, the wealthiest 1% of the American people have suffered so very disproportionately in the last eight years...

Gov. Paterson Backs Off B'way Ticket Tax; Producers Reply with Lower Prices (Not)

2009-03-12T10:09:00.008-04:00

As the Times reported yesterday, Gov. Paterson has withdrawn his idea of an "8 percent levy on theater tickets that Broadway industry leaders had fought fiercely." That is, of course, good for consumers. But as I wrote in this post last month, there has been a bit of disingenuousness in the commercial producing community regarding how much of a negative impact the levy would really have on Broadway. Ask a commercial producer and they'll likely tell you the sky would fall, a fiscal nuclear holocaust would ensue, and the only shows still to be open would be, well, theirs.

Here's a bit of Patrick Healy's piece:

Representatives for theater owners, producers, actors and union members testified against the tax proposal in Albany last month, arguing that the new levy would drive down ticket sales and ultimately lead producers to close some shows. They made the case that such a tax would have negative side effects on tourist business for restaurants and hotels and work for scenery carpenters, dry cleaners and others who contribute to theater productions.

Several theater organizations released statements of praise on Wednesday in reaction to the decision, and it was also a matter of chatter (the positive kind) at some of the theater district restaurants that producers and press agents frequent for lunch.

“Broadway is a business that creates jobs: When a Broadway show closes, 100 percent of the jobs are lost,” Charlotte St. Martin, executive director of the Broadway League, an industry association representing producers and theater owners, said in a statement. “Our industry can’t simply ‘cut back’ 10 percent or 20 percent of the work force when things get challenging. Unemployment in the Broadway industry causes a major ripple effect on the state’s economy.”

Given that St. Martin's job is to promote the idea that "everything's perfect on Broadway," she is supposed to make statements like the one above. But Broadway, as anyone who knows the business knows, is rather a closed shop -- if you're a stagehand and one show closes, more than likely you'll work again on the next show coming in or on a different show in a different house. So when St. Martin warns that "100 percent of the jobs are lost," what she really means is "100 percent of the jobs are lost at that production." Well, that's true, but that's different from her implication: that those people are out of jobs for weeks, months or years. At Back Stage, we used to observe how Broadway shows -- and I'm not talking about stars -- use the same people in the chorus, the pit and the wings over and over. It's a whole community of mainstays, of usual suspects, and it many ways it always has been. I'm not saying this is bad or good; I'm saying it's a fact. And anyway, if "unemployment in the Broadway industry causes a major ripple effect on the state’s economy," why isn't St. Martin concerned about Equity unemployment, which never seems to decline? Oh, right, they're commercial producers...

But back to the math. When you have Broadway shows with top ticket prices of $100, $110, $120, $130, $200, $300, $400 -- depending on the show, the seat and method of purchase/acquisition -- for St. Martin to warn that an 8 percent levy "would drive down ticket sales and ultimately lead producers to close some shows" is a little bit like a deaf mute ringing an alarm bell. If people are willing and able to pay $120 a ticket, would $9.60 more really force shows to close? Who honestly believes that?

I'm glad the consumer won't be hit with the extra fee, but I fear for Henny Penny's vocal cords, as they must be getting hoarse. I'd write more about this, actually, but I'm waiting for commercial producers to raise Broadway ticket prices again. I figure that'll take, er, five minutes. The clock is already ticking.

From Off-Stage Right

2009-03-12T09:21:00.003-04:00

Jodi Schoenbrun Carter, who is (formerly?) the managing director of the Westport Country Playhouse and has previously had stints as general manager of Signature Theatre Company, the Vineyard and MCC Theater, has a blog that is -- my bad! -- new to me. It's called From Off-Stage Right, and it caught my eye this morning because -- well, thanks to a Google alert! Yes, I know that's narcissistic. Anyway, vanity isn't the point of this post.

Instead, it's to point to Jodi's recent summation of the "new models" discussion that has been rising and falling in the theatrosphere more than the lifts in Ryan Secrest's shoes. Everyone should read her post (and not because she says nice things about the CF Report). For example, here is a selection of passages from her post. It is not the whole thing.

In nonprofit theatre the debates seem to be centering for the most part around two arguments:

1) The funding model for theatre has to be changed, but how - more earned revenue, more contributed revenue, or more government support?

2) Do all the theatres in trouble really deserved to be saved: two overriding arguments are emerging - (a) there is just too many theatres or (b) is the fact that a particular theatre's "art" really wasn't that relevant, engaging or well-executed why it is in trouble in the first place, and if should it be saved?

My thoughts on funding models: First, most theatres will tell you they have an income problem and not an expense problem. I will take each and everyone one of them at their word. I have been crunching numbers for theaters since I was 16 years old - and have never been in or seen a theatre that is over-funded or that isn't cost cutting 24/7, 365 days a year....

All one has to do is look at the current $50M in the Federal Stimulus package which will barely dent covering other cuts organizations will be enduring from state and local agencies and requires that organizations be funded by the NEA in prior years. Why isn't the $50M going directly 100% to retaining jobs in the arts - wasn't that the point of the Stimulus bill. I imagine every organization funded by the NEA could use some support in maintaining staff.

And unfortunately the process of apply for any kind of government funding is inherently biased towards older and larger organizations. I worked for an arts council for 3 years; I sat in the panels; and it is simply the truth that there is a bias. (Although as a side note, I will commend the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs under Kate Levin's leadership - as the most forward thinking reformer trying to create equity).

What is the right funding model?

This isn't any new discussion, unfortunately too many organizations (and more importantly their boards) are still striving toward the 60:40 earned to contributed rule that became a health barometer for performing arts long ago and simply is not an accurate measure of success or sustainability and hasn't been for years. (history lesson via wikipedia: Baumol and Cultural Economics and Baumol's Cost Disease )....

I guess what I am saying is that we are going to have to rely on our wits, vision, and missions to solve funding problems and not rely on the government. Of course we won't let them off the hook, especially when it comes to Arts Education, capital initiatives, legislative issues regarding non-profit status, and special projects. I will be the first person in line to argue for increases, I just have more faith in the creativity of the field than any politician - even the most arts friendly….

What we have is the same problem facing many industries:
too many institutions
too many that are off-mission or doing a mediocre job of fulfilling their mission
too many that are not serving their communities because they are serving the ego of staff or board members
too many clinging to the past and therefore can't move forward
too many living beyond their means
too many trying to meet expectations they shouldn't be or don't need to be

New Review: 33 Variations

2009-03-11T21:39:00.002-04:00

For New York Press.

Here's the review:

The first moment in Moisés Kaufman’s 33 Variations, which marks Jane Fonda’s return to Broadway after 46 years, occurs not on stage but in the audience. Musical director Diane Walsh enters, bows and sits graciously at a grand piano, house left. She begins playing the sweet and unremarkable waltz by Austrian music publisher Anton Diabelli that inspired Ludwig von Beethoven to write 33 variations on Diabelli’s theme, and apparently inspired Kaufman to compose his probing if problematic play. 33 Variations really asks a simple question: Given the banality of Diabelli’s waltz, why did Beethoven bother?

The music lasts long enough for a shaft of light to appear. From the shadows emerges Fonda, who at 71 seems redoubtable yet vulnerable somehow as she walks to the edge of the stage. Looking at us directly, it takes only a few short sentences for Kaufman’s tale to begin, but by setting Fonda front and center, brave and unafraid, the celebrity aura that accompanied her entrance recedes. She’ll spend the rest of the evening constructing a marvelous character—a terminally ill musicologist intent upon unlocking the inner flecks of Beethoven’s mind, to articulate the ineffable impulse that leads to art. She’ll illuminate many dimensions of this brash, brilliant Dr. Katherine Brandt, making her inquisitive and winning, enigmatic and stubborn, curt and curious, frail and fragile. All in the service of a play that shines but rarely glows.

Up until now, Kaufman has been known mostly as a purveyor of documentary theater work like The Three Trials of Oscar Wilde and The Laramie Project. He proved his versatility when he directed Doug Wright’s I Am My Own Wife, about German transvestite Charlotte von Mahlsdorf, to a 2004 Tony for Best Play. But here, the musicologist is entirely fictional; it’s the subject matter that is open to historical debate. Weirdly, by writing a traditional play, Kaufman is sometimes waylaid by traditional playwriting tricks.

For example: Clara (Samantha Mathis), Katherine’s daughter. Katherine hopes Clara will stop flitting from arts profession to arts profession; Clara wishes Katherine had told her earlier that she’s suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, better known as Lou Gehrig’s disease. However, they keep their tensions in check as a nurse, Mike (Colin Hanks), examines Katherine and awards her a bill of health clean enough to visit Bonn, where a great repository of Beethoven papers awaits her research. Not so coincidentally, Mike takes a liking to Clara; when they just happen to meet at a computer-repair store, their romance begins. To their credit, Mathis and Hanks (who does resemble his famous father Tom) have an unforced chemistry. In fact, Hanks makes an especially lasting impression as an earnest guy who happens to fall in love with a girl whose mother happens to be dying. Very smart of him to buy in fully to the scheme so that when elements of the play devolve even more into soap opera, he can stop the play from drowning in suds.

Meanwhile, there’s Beethoven (Zach Grenier), whose life during the period of writing the variations is whimsically conjured up by Kaufman and slipped into the play to parallel Katherine’s declining health and struggle to understand his inspiration. Diabelli (Don Amendolia), along with Beethoven’s harried factotum Anton Schindler (Erik Steele), also appear as Katherine is guided through the Bonn collection by dry, arch archivist Gertie (Susan Kellermann). The scenes with Grenier, Amendolia and Steele are played at a chew-the-scenery pitch and are simply a guilty pleasure. Kellermann, playing something of a sour kraut at the top of the play, softens her character beautifully as Katherine declines and bonds with Gertie.

As Katherine works through Beethoven’s papers, she becomes increasingly ill. As Beethoven works through his variations, also falling into illness, Walsh plays many of them, underscoring and punctuating the scenes. Derek McLane’s set—a towering array of portfolio-filled metal shelves—provides room for Jeff Sugg’s projections, often displaying the page, in Beethoven’s hand, on which those notes were written.

Eventually, Katherine and Clara make their peace, despite an overblown scene about Katherine’s plans for her death. And Beethoven, having resisted endless pleas from Diabelli to finally finish his variations so they may be published, lays down his quill. Now Kaufman allows his play it’s most salient moment—when Clara idly whistles Diabelli’s waltz. You can see the recognition of something unknowable in Fonda’s eyes. Asked what she likes about the waltz, Clara says, “It has a pretty melody. It has a nice rhythm.” So that’s why Beethoven bothered. Art needn’t always be a crucible, you see. It can be, of course, but art can also be because we like it. What an unusual gift that Fonda—and Kaufman—gives us.

Through May 24. Eugene O’Neill Theatre, 230 W. 49th St. (betw. Broadway & 8th Ave.), 212-239-6200; times vary, $67-117.

Shakespeare Painting Isn't Shakespeare?

2009-03-11T10:30:00.000-04:00

Interesting how the recent story about the Shakespeare painting -- said to be the only image of the Bard created in his lifetime -- may, in fact, not be real or really of Shakespeare, or verifiable. I did receive a comment about my post on this; now comes a piece in the Guardian, by Charlotte Higgins, that casts some real doubt.

Let's look at the image again:

What do you think?

The L.A. Times Calls On American Idol to "Open the Closet," Then Ignores Someone

2009-03-11T08:31:00.003-04:00

I don't usually comment on television, since there generally isn't much to comment about. But I was struck by this morning's story in the Los Angeles Times with the headline "'American Idol' needs to open the closet door." Well, that's encouraging, so I started reading. The piece focuses on Adam Lambert, who is clearly the season's front-runner and is called "flamboyant." (I have read other articles calling Lambert a "theater actor" -- you have to love industry parlance, hm?)

Well, let me help: Lambert is gay. Gay, gay, gay. La, la, la, ho, ho, ho, hee, hee, hee, ha, ha, ha, woo, woo, woo, gay, gay, gay, snap, snap, snap. There, someone said it. So now, when you read the third paragraph of the article...

There's been some joking on various websites that this year's most flamboyant front-runner, Adam Lambert, will perform Jackson's early '90s hit "In the Closet" as a response to recently leaked photographs of him kissing a man and dressed in glamour-queen drag. Jackson released the song just when his astounding musical charisma began to strain under the weight of his eccentricities.

...you can understand why Lambert might choose to sing that song.

But while we're at it -- if the writer of the story, Ann Powers, the L.A. Times' pop music critic, is going to create a lede that reads "Adam Lambert isn't the first contestant to have a back story that doesn't fit perfectly inside the homogenous whole the show tries to present," why not go all out and even acknowledge the rumors that surround the show's, um, host? I mean, come on.

Meantime, watch this (if you didn't when it aired). Paula's hysteria is pretty hysterical.

The Afternoon Report, March 10, 2009

2009-03-10T19:51:00.003-04:00

This information, called The Afternoon Report, is provided by a daily email blast from the publicity firm of Boneau Bryan-Brown, which maintains this blog. This feature doesn't run daily but whenever The Afternoon Report seems to point out articles of interest.

First show to get one of these wins
PRODUCER’S PERSPECTIVE – BLOGGED BY KEN DAVENPORT
“The most explosive entertainment medium of the last several years, which shows no sign of slowing down, is the home video game market. We’ve come a long way since I played Asteroids on my Atari and Donkey Kong on my Colecovision. There have been umpteen game systems and a zillion and a half games since then, from Pong to Pitfall, from The Godfather to E.T. But in the 30 years of the home video game market I can’t name a single video game based on a musical. Can you? Forget the potential profit - think of the marketing value. A good game will get a player in front of a monitor for hours, which means your characters, story, music, and message are getting continual exposure. It’s the ultimate form of content based advertising. You can’t tell me that if you were Val Jean, and after rescuing Marius from the barricade and confronting Javert in the sewers, you wouldn’t want to run out and see Les Miz again. (That was our idea at Altar Boyz when we developed our own simple game - ‘Don’t Wreck The Van’. I'll post the link tomorrow). I don’t expect the vid game industry to ever embrace us. Video games, like top 40 music, is an area of pop culture that the theater just can’t find our way (back) into.”
Well, there could also be a game called "Get That Videotaper" and another one called "Who is Patti LuPone Screaming At?" and another called "Where in the World is Auntie Mame?" But seriously Ken is really quite right. And Les Miz is an almost textbook-perfect example of a musical that could work as a video game.

Madison Rep Kicks the Bucket

2009-03-10T13:01:00.004-04:00

...and to judge by what some of the Wisconsin wags are saying, it's probably for the best, however sad it may seem.

For example, here's Damien Jaques of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

...According to the Associated Press, the news was disseminated in the same inept, clumsy way the company has conducted much of its business for the past five years. The acting artistic director told a Madison television station that the Rep board voted late last month to dissolve the group.

The Madison Rep's financial and public relations problems began long before the national economy tanked. Even a beautiful gem of a new performing home in the Overture Center could not save the company from itself. The Rep has provided a template on how not to run a theater company for the surviving state arts groups.

Harsh words for harsh times, I guess.

Did You Hear the One About Bette Davis Doing a Sitcom?

2009-03-10T12:52:00.004-04:00

Well, apparently it was true. Courtesy of Doric Wilson, here's a glimpse of the comedy that could have been:

Bitch Fight! Meghan McCain Removes Earrings, Ann Coulter Adjusts Halter Top

2009-03-09T16:45:00.008-04:00

Wow, Meghan McCain! So you've starter the long-awaited take-down of that other pillar of the Republican party: Ann Coulter. Well, it's working! Your new blog post on the Daily Beast has everyone gawking (and Gawkered) in amazement. Now we just await Coulter's response.

Just read this salivation-worthy sample:

Coulter could be the poster woman for the most extreme side of the Republican Party. And in some ways I could be the poster woman for the opposite. I consider myself a progressive Republican, but here is what I don’t get about Coulter: Is she for real or not? Are some of her statements just gimmicks to gain publicity for her books or does she actually believe the things she says? Does she really believe all Jewish people should be “perfected” and become Christians? And what was she thinking when she said Hillary Clinton was more conservative than my father during the last election? If you truly have the GOP’s best interests at heart, how can you possibly justify telling an audience of millions that a Democrat would be a better leader than the Republican presidential candidate? (I asked Ann for comment on this column, including many of the above questions, but she did not answer my request.)

I am not suggesting that extreme conservatism wasn’t once popular, nor am I suggesting I should in any way be any kind of voice for the party. I have been a Republican for less than a year. Still, even after losing the election, I find myself more drawn to GOP ideals and wanting to fight for the party’s resurgence. And if figureheads like Ann Coulter are turning me off, then they are definitely turning off other members of my generation as well. She does appeal to the most extreme members of the Republican Party—but they are dying off, becoming less and less relevant to the party structure as a whole. I think most people my age are like me in that we all don’t believe in every single ideal of each party specifically. The GOP should be happy to have any young supporters whatsoever, even if they do digress some from traditional Republican thinking.

Girls! Girls! Oh my God, this is going to be scarier than Jo and Blair in a pool of heated mud, or else a musical version of Atlas Shrugged. Read the comments after McCain's piece to enjoy the scrum within the scrum.

Radiohole Wins the Spalding Gray Award

2009-03-09T16:35:00.003-04:00

Courtesy of publicist Alyssa Hart:

Performance Space 122 announces
Radiohole
as recipient of the
Third Spalding Gray Award

Performance Space 122 announced that Radiohole is the recipient of the third Spalding Gray Award. The award is a special commission created in Spalding Gray’s honor by Performance Space 122, together with Kathleen Russo, UCLA Live, and The Walker Arts Center. The recipient of this year’s award receives a full production in the 2009-10 seasons at P.S. 122 and The Walker Art Center in Minneapolis, as well as a stipend for its creation. The Warhol Museum in Pittsburgh was also announced as a partner in the award.

The announcement was celebrated at a performance the National Theater of the United States of America’s (NTUSA) Chautauqua! featuring Vallejo Gantner (P.S. 122’s Artistic Director) as the show’s “guest lecturer”. Radiohole, Kathleen Russo, widow of Spalding Gray, and their son Theo Gray, joined in the festivities and were also part of the show. The National Theater of the United States of America was the second recipient in 2007 and Chautauqua! was developed through the award. Chautauqua! continues at P.S. 122 through March 15.

According to Mr. Gantner, Radiohole were the perfect match for this year’s SGA “Because Radiohole embody a kind of constant kinetic chaos – dragging from source materials as varied as fried chicken, Greek and Norse myth, the music of Finding Nemo, and now Douglas Sirk and John Milton. In making their work and creating their space in Williamsburg they defined the genre on their terms, as they saw it or at least as they wished it to be sawn. [sic]”

By most accounts Radiohole was founded in 1998 not far from the International Bar on 2nd Avenue by Erin Douglass, Eric Dyer, Maggie Hoffman and Scott Halverson Gillette. They were then and are now splintered, intoxicated, out of their minds and in love. They have since produced nine original shows and toured in the U.S. and Europe. Their most recent production ANGER/NATION was seen at the Kitchen in September 2008. They premiered FLUKE at P.S 122 in the Spring of 2006. In 2000, Radiohole got together with the Collapsable Giraffe (sic) to found The Collapsable Hole, a former auto body shop (and before that, German restaurant) in Williamsburg, Brooklyn that they and the Collapsable Giraffe converted to make their shared artistic home. Radiohole has supported the work of many of downtown & Brooklyn’s leading theatrical innovators through its Associated Holes program offering free or low cost rehearsal, development and performance space at the Collapsable Hole. Examples of such Associated Holes are NTUSA, Banana Bag & Bodice, Immediate Medium, ERS and Young Jean Lee's Theater Company to name a few.

In reaction to the upcoming production that will be developed Radiohole says, “Relative to previous attempts at explosion, this attempt will have a greater degree of heat. The little hairs on our hands may get singed off. It is our sincere hope, however, that given sufficient heat, we may be able to forge together the holes of many separate holes breeding sources into one great hole, erupting into a great ball of flame and emitting a full spectrum of noise; we will then dub this a Performance.”

They continue by saying, “As far as winning something called the Spalding Gray Award, it's wonderful (it's wonderful to win, especially when you are a loser baby) but I think it would be strange to win an award by that name and not be just a little freaked out... but we'll try to do with it what we always try to do, which is make something utterly confusing, bizarre, true, beautiful and a little bit wet. When you are given something called the Spalding Gray Award, I think you have to do that.”

The Andy Warhol Museum is pleased and honored to join Performance Space 122 and The Walker Arts Center as a partner of the Spalding Gray Award consortium. Since launching the Museum’s performance series, Off the Wall, with P.S.122 almost nine years ago, The Warhol has been committed to supporting innovative, multi-disciplinary performance, and this dynamic partnership is a perfect next step in the evolution of the series and supporting the creation and touring of new work.

The Spalding Gray Award supports gifted writer/performers who fully realize both aspects of Spalding’s legacy, who are fearless innovators of theatrical form, who reach into daily experience and create resonant, transcendent work that makes us all bigger, wider, wiser and, somehow, more than we were when we entered the theater. The Award Committee is Vallejo Gantner (P.S. 122), Philip Bither (Walker Arts Center), Ben Harrison (The Warhol), and Kathleen Russo.

Gray long considered P.S. 122 a creative home-base, and it is still home to his signature desk. Gray developed and created Morning, Noon and Night, Gray on Gray and Interviewing the Audience at P.S. 122, where he was working on Life Interrupted at the time of his death.

The two previous recipients include Heather Woodbury (2006), and National Theater of the United States of America (NTUSA) in 2007.

Performance Space 122 is New York's ultimate destination for cutting-edge theatre, dance, music, live art and cross-media. Founded in 1979, Performance Space 122 is dedicated to supporting and presenting artists whose work challenges the traditional boundaries of dance, theatre, music, and performance. Committed to exploring innovative form as well as material, P.S. 122 is steadfast in its search for pioneering artists from a diversity of cultures and points of view. www.ps122.org

The Walker Art Center (Minneapolis, Minnesota) is an internationally recognized contemporary art organization focused on the visual, performing and media arts of our time. The Walker's Performing Arts Program regularly commissions and presents a wide range of new performance work (as well as dance and new music) and presented the work of Spalding Gray through much of his career. www.walkerart.org

The Andy Warhol Museum (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) is more than a museum; The Warhol is a vital forum in which diverse audiences of artists, scholars and the general public are galvanized through creative interaction with the art and life of Andy Warhol, The Andy Warhol Museum is ever-changing and constantly re-defining itself in relation to contemporary life, using its unique collections and dynamic, interactive programming as tools. www.warhol.org.

William Shakespeare, Is That Really You?

2009-03-09T16:20:00.002-04:00

Great story on CNN.com today regarding the image above -- historians have concluded that it is the only painting of William Shakespeare done within his lifetime. For more on this, read the story here.

Look Jewish? Talent New-ish? Your Agent Shrew-ish? Neil Simon Wants You!

2009-03-09T15:20:00.001-04:00

Do you look like this? If so, look below for information that will put schmaltz on your kishkas.

I received this press release today from the good folks at Boneau Bryan-Brown.

Casting Search Underway for the Role of Eugene
in the Upcoming Revival of Neil Simon's
Brighton Beach Memoirs
Directed by David Cromer
Coming to Broadway, Fall 2009

A casting search is underway for the role of “Eugene Jerome” in the upcoming revival of Neil Simon’s award-winning play BRIGHTON BEACH MEMOIRS, coming to Broadway this fall at a theatre to be announced.

The revival of BRIGHTON BEACH MEMOIRS will be directed by David Cromer (The Adding Machine, Our Town). Rehearsals begin in September 2009. Preview and opening night dates are to be announced.

For the role of Eugene, the creative team is seeking male performers between the ages of 16 and 21 that are intelligent, attractive and have a winning personality, ironic sense of humor, and excellent comic timing. The play is about a family in Brooklyn, NY in 1937.

All headshots and resumes should be sent by snail mail to the following address:
Binder Casting
321 West 44th Street Suite 606
New York, NY 10036
ATTN: EUGENE

Or send materials via email:

The original Broadway production of BRIGHTON BEACH MEMOIRS, directed by Gene Saks, opened on March 27, 1983 at the Alvin Theatre (now the Neil Simon Theatre) and played 1,299 performances.

Nosedive Productions Gets Nasty -- A Fundraiser

2009-03-09T14:26:00.002-04:00

Today I received the following from James Comtois, via Pete Boisvert, both of Nosedive Productions:

Well, gang. As the old saying goes, “There’s no such thing as a free erection in this town” (yes, it’s a saying, I’m sure of it, don’t look at me like that). At 10 p.m. on Wednesday, March 11 at Under St. Mark’s Theatre, we here at Nosedive Central are working under that paradigm with our latest spectacular fundraising show, Nosedive’s Disturbing Burlesque.

Sexy with a capital “creepy,” Nosedive’s latest fundraising caper offers an evening of lovely ladies performing unnerving burlesque acts guaranteed to make your pulse quicken and skin crawl. Hosted by that lovable rapscallion, Bastard Keith. Proceeds from the show go towards funding Nosedive Productions’ spring show, Infectious Opportunity.

And if for some insane reason you are unable to attend (seriously? You’re gonna miss out on a night of drinking and disturbing nudity?), you can always mitigate your guilt by donating to Nosedive Productions here. Details are below.

Disturbing the performers,

James “Handsy-Pants” Comtois
Nosedive Productions presents

Nosedive's Disturbing Burlesque
Lovely Ladies. Bastard Host. Disturbing Company.

Featuring Unwholesome Performances by Dirty Diva — Madame Rosebud — Nasty Canasta — Sapphire Jones. Hosted by Bastard Keith.

Wednesday, March 11th, 2009
Doors open at 9 pm — Show at 10 pm
$20 Admission

Under St Marks Theatre
94 St. Marks Place, between 1st Ave. & Avenue A

Is Kermit the Frog a Right-Wing Conservative?

2009-03-09T00:01:00.000-04:00

Listen to Jonathan Krohn, 14 going on lost-cause, speaking at the CPAC conference. Listen, in particular, starting around :55. And you tell me.

LOL. Get them while they're young, Evita, get them while they're young.

A Pitch

2009-03-08T22:43:00.002-04:00

On occasion, I plan to use the CF Report as a place to develop ideas for pitches. Here's the first one: What Jewish actors -- other than Tovah Feldshuh -- are or are going to be on Broadway? NYC residents preferred.

From the Blogroll X

2009-03-07T22:35:00.007-05:00

At A Poor Player, Tom Loughlin writes about attending the Southeast Theatre Conference. His rant, which arrives about midway through the piece, contains some moving blog writing -- the best I've read in some time. It makes me sad, sure, but it gives me tremendous perspective and even, weirdly, a little hope. Here, then, is what's salient in his post:

I have not been to a theatre conference in a long time. At some point way back when in the dark ages I came to the conclusion that these types of conferences were only for people committed to the status quo. These are not the sort of things you attend if you want to have intelligent discussions about theatre. For the most part, everyone involved with the whole affair is really committed to concept of postitive messages and positive experiences about theatre. There is absolutely no sense in the affair that anyone connected with it really wants to think differently. In other words, my ideas for reform weren’t welcome to the party.

Fair enough, but at least at this point in time there are really no alternative conferences to go to. At places like SETC, NETC, and ATHE (Association for Theatre in Higher Education) the emphasis is 97% on “how to succeed in the theatre business by trying a little harder.” It’s sefl-perpetuating, narcissistic, and almost cult-like. Anybody interested in having an adult conversation about what might be wrong, what might need reform, etc., is faced with the reality that everyone else there has drunk the kool-aid of pre-professionalism. You might as well be talking to a wall.

I think the saddest experience of my day yesterday was attending the keynote address at which Beth Leavel spoke (or rather performed). A graduate of Meredith College and University of North Carolina-Greensboro, Ms. Leavel won the Tony Award for her performance in the title role of The Drowsy Chaperone. Her IBDB listing indicates she’s been in exactly 6 shows on Broadway since 1980. Almost 13 years of her career has been performing in 42nd St., the original and the revival. She was in the right place at the right time with the right show to win her Tony. She is funny, and she appears to have a very quick comic mind. She enjoys playing the comic diva. She had the assembled multitude of college thatre majors eating out of her hand.

But she had nothing serious to say, really. Neither did the theatre majors. All the questions and all the talk was about how to succeed on Broadway and be like her. As I walked through the halls of the hotel complex during the afternoon I grew more and more sad watching all these young dressed-up kids with their audition numbers pinned to their chests waiting for their turn to show everyone what they could do and begin their climb up the great Broadway ladder. They know nothing else at all about theatre except this professional business model, and they have no sense of independent thought in terms of thinking how to push back against it. They’re just buying it hook, line and sinker.

At Arts Marketing, Chad M. Bauman sings the praises of Michael Kaiser, President of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and asks what he should cut if something must be cut from an arts-organization budget.

At Between Productions, Robert Cashill observes how film critics are "dropping like flies."

At Createquity, Ian David Moss promotes a backlash against the backlash criticizing the $50 million in stimulus funding for the NEA. Ian and I get into rather a scrum, but I'm particularly glad I found his blog and I am now proud to call myself a loyal reader. You should all visit his blog regularly.

At The Critical Condition, Mark Blankenship writes thoughtfully about the A/X ad that was too racy to be shown in Times Square -- um, can't offend Disney, don't'cha'know. But Mark does go on a bit too long regarding how similar his butt is the bare butt in the image. How cheeky.

At CultureBot, Andy provides the 411 on the new Richard Maxwell work, People Without History, which seems all rather Rush Limbaugh these days, and writes about SITE Fest at Arts in Bushwick. He also takes a shot at the Dentyne playwriting contest in tandem with Manhattan Theatre Club, just for something to chew on and offers an interview with Rachel Chavkin of The TEAM.

At Everything I Know I Learned From Musicals, Chris Caggiano discloses how to get Stephen Sondheim's autograph (open your wallet, girlfriend) and offers a long, long, long list of upcoming musicals, including American Psycho, Betty Boop, The Hudsucker Proxy and the Untitled Mandela Musical, which I will not attempt to name.

At FactCheck.org, the question arises: Is Congress about to give Social Security to illegal immigrants? The answer: no. Take that, right-wingers.

As Gasp!, Laura Axelrod contemplates arts funding during a depression, and her mere use of the dreaded "D" word left me depressed. (I must thank her, too, for referencing my recent post on the NEA funding guidelines.) She also offered photographs of Alabama snow.

At The Hub Review, Thomas Garvey genuflects over the Pet Shop Boys and we all know why. He also expresses relief that the new head of New Rep will actually act like a Boston artistic director and not a whore on the way to New York glory. Here it is in his own words -- words that make me think "Gee, where's the tea party?":

Add to that the fact that the B.S.O. is also often administered from Lincoln Center - James Levine is here for less than half the season - and you get the impression that to many people on Boston's boards, we're still some sort of adjunct of the Big Apple. And to plenty of other Bostonians, this is how the local arts scene should work - as an adjunct of New York's. But count me out of that crowd. I'd rather see us grow an indigenous arts scene of quality than attach ourselves to the overscheduled careers (and careerism) of global stars. That leads to artistic decisions which aren't really tailored to our city, its talent, or its audiences, and I think that gap shows up in the resulting performances; I mean, could anyone claim the Huntington and the A.R.T. have been having good years? (You all already know what I think about the B.S.O.) True, sometimes compromises have to be struck, particularly with globe-trotting classical music talent; but isn't it time the city began to demand that it at least be the central (if not the only) focus of its artistic stars? Boards of Directors may love to bask in the reflected glory of their "world-class" talent - but maybe the city they're supposed to be serving would be better off with a little more attention from its supposed leaders.

At In the Wings, Jonathan Jovel writes forcefully and really very eloquently about the lack of arts education in the United States. He uses the case of the NEA stimulus funding to engineer a larger, probably controversial yet necessary conversation about what kind of society has such an ambivalent, tortured relationship with arts education. Read this excellent sentence:

The intrinsic value and nobility present in the pursuit of the arts must be excavated out from under the oppressive forces of ingrained neglect. This change must begin in our collective approach to education and must further spread to our societal values as a whole.

At Interchanging Idioms, Chip Michael considers the aesthetic pros and cons of the on-screen opera experience. It's here to stay -- it may actually become a fad, if you ask me -- so this is a very good discussion to have.

At Jamespeak, James Comtois weighs in on the Watchmen film.

At The Fortress of Jason Grote, Jason Grote blogs the ongoing fundraiser for WFMU. And I think to myself, "Hey, Jason, if I give you some money, can we talk about how I can get my own radio show?" "How about I give you a lot of money?" "How about...?"

At Kampfire News, Katie Rosin offers a welcome dose of very good news: the arts section of the New York Sun will rise again!

At The Producer's Perspective, Ken Davenport exalts the screen-to-stage adaptation (Ken, are you invested in 9 to 5?); discusses what he calls "the position known as missionary" (hint: it's a marketing post, not something else); explains his affiliate program for Altar Boyz; and points out two jobs in the industry waiting for applicants, including one that I, er, really hope he considers me for. Coffee, Ken? On me?

At On Chicago Theatre, Zev N. Valancy does his part to spread the word about the About Face Theatre and makes me cry with pride that he's writing for the Onion.

At Parabasis, Isaac Butler ponders the re-raising of the color-blind-casting debate with the announcement that Phylicia Rashad is going into August: Osage County. I won't use this week's From the Blogroll to opine on this, but I was deeply amused by one poster on TalkinBroadway's All That Chat board who suggested that Sandy Duncan will soon do A Raisin in the Sun. And maybe B.D. Wong will play John Adams in 1776. Isaac also weighs in on the $50 million in NEA stimulus money but is careful to criticize it only by first criticizing the critics: "I don't think it's necessarily worth the angry invective." Is that what civil debate is called?

At Splattworks, Steve Patterson takes the Oregon legislature out behind the woodshed and beat them all absolutely silly for raiding the Oregon Cultural Trust. The third word in that name is, of course, completely ironic.

At Storefront Rebellion, Kris Vire gives a clue as to what happened when Robert Falls called a critic on a review he really, really, really, really didn't like.

At The Wicked Stage, Rob Weinert-Kendt unveils an image from a 1907 production of Hedda Gabler starring the timeless, priceless Nazimova (first name Alla -- and she was Nancy Reagan's godmother). Then he gives Jon Robin Baitz some affectionate snurgles.

Can We Defend the $50M NEA Increase When It Only Protects the Status Quo?

2009-03-06T11:43:00.009-05:00

So a variety of people, from arts leaders to bloggers to executive-director-level arts advocates, aren't thrilled with me taking issue with the $50 million NEA funding increase. I have suggested, and will continue to suggest, that while it does indeed represent a victory for the sector, it fails to address -- our arts leaders have failed to address -- the long-term fiscal issues that the nonprofit arts and humanities faces today and down the road.

Here is where the leadership-driven propaganda meets hard-numbers reality. Any number of news sources have reported the terms by which the NEA will disburse the money, but I wanted to make sure the information was logged on the CF Report for those who missed it. Notice the sentence I underlined in the third graph:

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provides $50 million to be distributed in direct grants to fund arts projects and activities which preserve jobs in the non-profit arts sector threatened by declines in philanthropic and other support during the current economic downturn. Forty percent of such funds will be distributed to State arts agencies and regional arts organizations and 60 percent of the funds will be competitively awarded to nonprofit organizations that meet the eligibility criteria being established for this program.

Applicants will be required to submit their applications electronically through Grants.gov, the federal government's online application system. All applicants must be registered with Grants.gov in order to submit their application. If you have already registered with Grants.gov, renew/verify your registration with Grants.gov and make sure that all of your information is current before you apply. Organizations that are not already registered should allow at least two weeks to complete this multi-step process. See the step-by-step instructions for registering.

Funding Program: Competitive Grants
One-time grants to eligible nonprofit organizations including arts organizations, local arts agencies, statewide assemblies of local arts agencies, arts service organizations, units of state or local government, and a wide range of other organizations for projects that focus on the preservation of jobs in the arts. All applicants must be previous NEA award recipients from the past four years. (Application deadline: April 2, 2009.)

Funding Program: Grants to State and Regional Arts Organizations
One-time grants to the designated 50 state and six jurisdictional arts agencies (SAAs), their six authorized regional arts organizations (RAOs), and the national service organization for SAAs and RAOs for projects that focus on the preservation of jobs in the arts. See the list of these organizations on our site. (Deadline: March 13, 2009.)

As Howard Mandel's Jazz Beyond Jazz blog noted, only those organizations that have received NEA grants during Bush's second term will qualify for the 60 percent of the $50 million that is being allocated competitively.

So what we really have is a scheme in which not being a prior grantee of the NEA means you're penalized: such groups, hundreds or thousands of them, are being instructed to sink or swim on their own. Now, perhaps the 40 percent of the funding directed to state and regional arts groups can help non-NEA grantees; I would like to think it could happen. But let's just be clear: When the defenders of the $50 million wax poetic about how indisputably vital this funding is, or when they criticize me for criticizing what I argue is a lack of long-term, creative, innovative thinking in terms of public funding for the arts and humanities, what they're also doing is endorsing the fiscal perpetuation of the sector's status quo.

Even the vaunted fiscal-impact argument I make -- a dollar of arts funding means more dollars in economic activity -- won't help much. If the NEA-funded Public Theater, for example, were to receive a sliver of this $50 million, how would it help the not-NEA-funded Stolen Chair Theatre Company via fiscal impact? It wouldn't, I believe. Behemoths win. Little guys lose. Welcome to America.

You know, we elected a president who aims to redress the economic stratification of the nation that was the hallmark and result of the Reagan, Bush and Bush presidencies (with the eight-year Clinton interregnum in between). In terms of funding for the arts and humanities, there has long been a similar fiscal divide. Do our arts leaders like it that way? They aren't saying.

Page 73 Accepting Applications for 2010 Playwriting Fellowship

2009-03-05T23:21:00.002-05:00

Courtesy of publicist Don Summa...

Page 73 Productions (Executive Directors, Liz Jones and Asher Richelli) has announced that it is currently accepting applications for the company’s 2010 P73 Playwriting Fellowship.

Applications, which are due May 1, 2009, may be found at www.p73.org/programs/p73-playwriting-fellowship.

The P73 Playwriting Fellowship provides year-long comprehensive support to one early-career playwright who has received neither wide public recognition nor substantial production opportunities in New York City. Through this program, Page 73 provides artistic and financial resources to one emerging playwright as he or she develops a new play that has not received substantial prior development support. For the fellowship year, the P73 Playwriting Fellow receives a cash stipend in the amount of $5,000 and development support in the amount of $10,000.

Past fellows are Kirsten Greenidge, Quiara Alegría Hudes, Jason Grote, Krista Knight and Tommy Smith. The 2009 P73 Playwriting Fellow is Heidi Schreck.

The P73 Fellowship is suited to writers who have concrete and reasonable goals that can be achieved through the resources provided by Page 73. These goals may include, but are not limited to, specific artistic objectives that relate to the development of a new play and assistance in building relationships within the New York City theater community.

At the start of the fellowship year, the fellow either must have clearly articulated a proposed project in his or her application or must have provided the first few pages of the new play. During the fellowship year, the fellow receives a cash grant. Additional funds are ear-marked to cover expenses for the grantee’s research, and workshop and reading presentations; such additional funds are used for fees for collaborating artists. The fellowship year includes at least one public presentation of the new play. Page 73 also supports the writer by helping the fellow identify collaborators, such as directors, designers, actors and dramaturgs, for the project.

The fellow is associated with Page 73 for the calendar year. After being selected, he or she works with Page 73’s producing directors to develop a plan for the year and establish a timeline for the development and production work to be done on the new play. The fellow is expected to be present in New York City from time to time to fully engage in the opportunities that the fellowship provides.

Page 73 develops and produces the work of early-career playwrights who have yet to receive substantial production opportunities in New York. Page 73 produces one New York or world premiere by an early-career playwright each year. In addition, Page 73 offers production-oriented development opportunities that help usher the works of early-career playwrights from first draft to final script. Page 73 awards the P73 Playwriting Fellowship each year to one untried playwright; during that year, the company serves as that fellow’s artistic home and offers a cash grant and development support to the writer. Past fellows are Kirsten Greenidge, Quiara Alegria Hudes, Jason Grote and Krista Knight. The current fellow is Tommy Smith. Page 73 also hosts a year-long writing group called “Interstate 73” (current members - Sarah Hammond, Josh Malmuth, Molly Rice, Matt Schatz, Tommy Smith and Cori Thomas) and a week-long summer residency at Yale for 4 to 5 early-career playwrights. Page 73 developed and produced the world premiere of Elliot, A Soldier’s Fugue by Quiara Alegria Hudes (2007 Pulitzer finalist) and the New York premiere of 1001 by Jason Grote (Time Out New York - Top 10 of 2007). This past January, Page 73 produced with Soho Rep the world premiere of Sixty Miles to Silver Lake by Dan LeFranc, directed by OBIE winner Anne Kauffman. The company received from the League of Professional Theatre Women its 2008 Lucille Lortel Award for “innovative and creative work to emerging dramatists.”

For more information about Page 73 Productions or the P73 Playwriting Fellowship, visit http://www.p73.org/. For any inquiries, email info@p73.org.

Will LPC Chair Robert B. Tierney Help Marx Brothers Place Become Reality?

2009-03-05T15:00:00.001-05:00

I have to say I was so pleased to receive a press release from Susan Hefti of the 93rd Street Beautification Association stating that Robert B. Tierney, chairman of the Landmarks Preservation Commission will take a walking tour of the area as a step toward considering Hefti's stretch of 93rd Street for inclusion in the Carnegie Hill Historic District. That's awesome -- I hope Hefti and all the elected officials in support of her efforts gently hold Tierney's feet to the fire.

Here's the release:

That sound you hear may be more than just the ice melting outside! NYC Council Member Dan Garodnick brings us the good news that the Chairman of the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission, Robert Tierney, has committed to visiting historic Marx Brothers Place in contemplation of calendaring the 93rd Street Beautification Association's Request for Evaluation (RFE) in which we ask the city to extend the Carnegie Hill Historic District one block east so as to include this remarkable collection of 19th century houses & gardens within its protective
boundaries.

We're not planning a celebration just yet, as we know a "site visit" is a long way from actually getting the block designated, but it's a start, and we're awfully grateful to CM Garodnick and his Community Liasion, Segun Akande, for all the efforts they have made to get Chairman Tierney to commit to putting on his walking shoes and trekking on up to our cherished little stretch of Carnegie Hill!

Joining CM Garodnick and Segun Akande will be all the other elected officials who wrote to Chairman Tierney urging him to calendar the 93rd Street Beautification Association's RFE for a public hearing. The historic walking tour is being organized through CM Garodnick's office and is expected to take place the last week of March or in the early part of April.

So, if sometime over the next few weeks, you happen to see Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer; NY State Assemblyman Jonathan Bing; NY State Assemblyman Micah Kellner; NYC Council Member Dan Garodnick and NYC Council Member Jessica Lappin squiring LPC Chairman Robert Tierney down our steep and storied slope, be sure to smile at the Chairman (now I mean a really, really BIG smile!) and tell him just how much you are looking forward to having our block included in the Carnegie Hill Historic District, and how you're counting on him to get it done!!!

Let's keep our collective fingers and toes crossed, folks!

Three cheers for historic Marx Brothers Place! And many thanks to Council Member Dan Garodnick for leading the upcoming walking tour of our historic little block!

For more information about the 93rd Street Beautification Association or Marx Brothers Place, please contact us at 93rdst.beautification@gmail.com or 212.969.8138 or visit our blogs at: Save Marx Brothers Place or The Marx Brothers Place Report or view our Marx Brothers Place MySpace profile.

Arts Advocacy Update LXXIX

2009-03-05T13:08:00.004-05:00

The content below is from Americans for the Arts' Cultural Policy Listserv, email blast of March 5, 2009:

Fine arts are in survival mode as funds dry up
USA Today, 3/3/2009
"The downturn walloping the entire economy has hit non-profit arts organizations especially hard. With millions of people scrambling to pay for food and other basics, a night at the opera can seem frivolous. So museums, symphonies, theaters, ballet companies and opera companies have cut staff, canceled performances, shortened seasons and, in some cases, shut down.... A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll in December found that 69% of Americans are cutting back on entertainment."
Not especially groundbreaking reporting but what it does show is how the topic is really spreading into even most mainstream publications.

Study: Arts endeavors net $153.5 million in state
Lawrence Journal-World & News (KS), 2/27/2009
"The Kansas Arts Commission this week released a study showing expenditures by arts and culture organizations, as well as audiences, totaled $153.5 million in 2007. In addition, the study, by Americans for the Arts, found that arts-related activities generated 4,612 full-time equivalent jobs; $95 million in household income; $6 million in local government tax revenue; and $9 million in state government tax revenues."
As percentages of overall employment, income and local and state tax revenue, that strikes me as particularly high, no? Red state irony.

Study: Film industry adds $763M to state during 2007
Shreveport Times (LA), 3/3/2009
"In an economic impact study released Monday, the motion picture industry is estimated to have added $763 million to the Louisiana economy during 2007 at a cost of $105 million to the state."
And to think that Gov. Bobby Jindal want to divert some of that money to volcano research... :-)

Access to Arts Education
General Accounting Office, 2009
Asked by Congress to investigate four questions related to the the effect of NCLB on student access to arts education, the GAO found that 90 percent of elementary school teachers reported no change between the 2004-2005 and 2006-2007 school years, and four percent reported an increase. "However, about 7 percent reported a decrease, and GAO identified statistically significant differences across school characteristics in the percentage of teachers reporting that the time spent on arts education had decreased. Teachers at schools identified as needing improvement and those with higher percentages of minority students were more likely to report a reduction in time spent on the arts."
Here's more of the pertinent text: "Specifically, teachers at schools identified as needing improvement and those with higher percentages of minority students were more likely to report a reduction in time spent on the arts. In addition, when we examined the average amount of change in weekly instruction time among teachers that reported either an increase or a decrease, we found that teachers at elementary schools with high percentages of low-income or minority students reported larger average reductions than teachers at schools with low percentages of these students."

To win hearts and minds, get back in the game
Foreign Policy, 2/26/2009
Indiana Senator Richard Lugar opines, "As part of a broader overhaul of its public diplomacy effort, the United States should reinvigorate the old American Centers concept-putting, when possible, new ones that are safe but accessible in vibrant downtown areas-support active cultural programming, and resume the teaching of English by American or U.S.-trained teachers hired directly by embassies. That would help draw people to the centers and ensure that students got some American perspective along with their grammar. America's best players in public diplomacy have always been its people and its ideas. The United States should get them back into the game instead of standing on the sidelines."
People have been pushing this for years. Wasn't this part of Karen Hughes' job under Bush?

A really new deal would stimulate the economy of the future, not the past
Globe and Mail, 2/28/2009
Richard Florida argues that economic stimulus funds in both the U.S. and Canada are misdirected toward traditional infrastructure and the "old economy." "For a stimulus to work today it has to stimulate the emerging creative economy, the engines of regional economic growth and higher incomes across Canada and the U.S.... The creative economy already includes roughly 30 per cent of Canada's work force and about a third in the U.S. It accounts for more than half of all wages and salaries paid in each country. So, if the stimulus were allocated proportionately, between $250-billion and $375-billion should have gone to the U.S. creative economy; in Canada, the figure would be $12-billion to $20-billion."
What does this mean in practical terms when we say "creative economy"? I mean, I love Richard Florida, but how would these figures specifically translate on a granular level? I found a bit of a clue -- though arguably an elusive one -- by re-reading Florida's article a second time:

"The creative economy already includes roughly 30 per cent of Canada's work force and about a third in the U.S. It accounts for more than half of all wages and salaries paid in each country. So, if the stimulus were allocated proportionately, between $250-billion and $375-billion should have gone to the U.S. creative economy; in Canada, the figure would be $12-billion to $20-billion.

Stimulus funds could be used to strengthen Canada's science and technology infrastructure and its music, film and art scenes; it would provide entrepreneurial assistance and garage-like incubation spaces for innovators the Bloomberg administration is doing in New York City.

It would make far greater sense to invest precious infrastructure dollars in high-speed rail and broadband Internet lines to connect our communities than in roads and highways.

We will begin to move toward a durable recovery only when we stop unnecessarily propping up the old economy. Indeed, we have to make housing and transportation cheaper, as we did with agriculture during the New Deal, in order to free up the demand that will provide enduring stimulus for the creative-economy businesses and jobs of the future."

Lower Manhattan Arts Groups Join Forces for Survival
Tribeca Tribune (NY), 3/2/2009
"These days, arts groups are thinking creatively, not just about the work they produce, but about survival. Nowhere is that more true than in Lower Manhattan. Seeking clout in numbers, Battery Dance Company and 11 other Downtown-based small- and medium-size arts organizations recently banded together. Calling themselves the Lower Manhattan Arts Leadership Group, they are sharing their financial and audience numbers for the first time, hoping to convince policy makers that, together, those figures carry weight—in jobs, taxes, neighborhood business support..."
Here's some great stuff from the story:

"The 12 groups range from Blue Coyote, a theater group with an all-volunteer staff and operating budget of $29,000 to Dance New Amsterdam, with more than $3 million in annual expenses. But all share uncertain futures as public funding is cut and foundations—many tied to the fortunes of the stock market—search for ways to continue their missions.

“Some of us are on the verge of, or in, an immediate crisis. Some see a crisis six to nine months out,” the group warned in a report issued last month.

For 3-Legged Dog, the experimental theater and multimedia group at 80 Greenwich St., the need is immediate. The non-profit is behind on its payroll and rent, said the director, Kevin Cunningham, because its promised portion of $7 million in New York State Council on the Arts funds was not distributed last year. This, he said, at a time when individual donations have dropped and foundations are in a “wait and see mode.”

“We can’t wait and see,” said Cunningham. “We have to move or die, basically.”

With that sense of urgency, the groups came together, assisted by Paul Nagle, director of cultural policy for City Councilman Alan Gerson. The “micro economic picture” of what these Lower Manhattan arts group contribute, he said, “puts a face on [the arts community]. That makes it very neighborhood-specific and difficult to ignore.”

According to those figures, the 12 Downtown groups yearly serve an audience of nearly 300,000 (with hundreds of thousands more reached via the Internet). They spend more than $15 million and pay out millions of dollars in taxes.

“We aren’t just a bunch of kooky artists in a room with our fingers up our noses,” said Carol Ostrow, producing director of the Flea Theater on White Street. “We really are much more of an economic driver than people think we are, and if we’re not on this street a lot of other people are going to be hit.”

Neighborhood businesses benefit from the Flea, said Ostrow. Costumes must be cleaned, cars parked, sets built, scripts copied. And audience members who come to the Flea shows often eat in local restaurants."

Measure to fund arts fails in House
Argus Leader (SD), 2/26/2009
"Funding for the South Dakota Arts Council, and in turn dozens of art programs across the state, failed to pass the House of Representatives vote Tuesday. House Bill 1229 had a majority vote, 44-26, but was shy of the two-thirds it needed to pass. But that doesn't mean the hope for funding the arts is dead - it just was placed in the wrong vehicle for getting that done, said Rep. Shantel Krebs, who voted against the bill.... Proposed state budget cuts include $668,000 for the arts council, which is matched by the National Endowment for the Arts - money also lost without a state arts office, along with funding in the national stimulus package.... Gov. Mike Rounds recently spoke in favor of preserving arts office funding."
Let's not give up on this one.

Some Nonprofits Can't Touch Their Money
ABC News - AP, 3/1/2009
"It's a frustrating quandary for universities, orchestras and other nonprofit organizations in two dozen states. They have the [endowment] money they need to save jobs, offer scholarships and put on a solid schedule of programs, but face state laws that keep them from using any of it."
Read this, it's horrifying:

"It's a frustrating quandary for universities, orchestras and other nonprofit organizations in two dozen states. They have the money they need to save jobs, offer scholarships and put on a solid schedule of programs, but face state laws that keep them from using any of it.

"I don't imagine the donors anticipated a situation where the market would fall so dramatically that the money would be held hostage and unable to support the symphony at all," said David Chambless Worters, the symphony's chief executive.

Rules governing how nonprofits in North Carolina and 23 other states use their endowments date to the 1970s, when most states adopted a uniform law that prohibits withdrawing money from endowments that fall below their "historic dollar value" — the money given to create the endowment, plus any later gifts.

The law is designed to protect endowments by preventing institutions from dipping into the principal. An endowment is supposed to be a perpetual source of revenue, with institutions drawing off only the earnings.

The rule affects newer funds most severely, since they have had less time to invest a gift and build the endowment's value.

Neither the National Council of Nonprofits nor the Council on Foundations, both based in Washington, keeps track of how many of its members are struggling with endowments that are now underwater.

But "anecdotally, it is a serious problem. And if the current financial downturn continues, the problem will only get worse," said Harvey Dale, director of the National Center on Philanthropy and the Law at New York University."

U.S. Conference of Mayors President Miami Mayor Manny Diaz Blasts Louisiana Governor
Bobby Jindal for Recent Statement on the Arts
PR Newswire, 2/26/2009
The nation's mayors criticize Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal for "his remarks made at the White House questioning the economic impact of the arts on the national economy: America's Mayors are extremely disappointed by your recent statements questioning the economic impact of the arts to our national, state and local economies. We are also highly concerned by your repeated attacks of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the 'Act') by highlighting the $50 million dedicated to the National Endowment for the Arts. While we certainly respect your right to oppose the Act, this funding, which represents .00635% of the total funding provided in the Act, has, we believe, become a convenient political scapegoat.... The nation's 100,000 nonprofit arts organizations and their audiences generate $166.2 billion annually in U.S. economic activity. They support 5.7 million jobs and provide nearly $30 billion in government revenue. This economic stimulus will minimize the concern that ten percent of arts groups could close this year and helps save thousands of arts workers from losing their jobs."
Yet some people don't want to acknowledge that the right is going to bash the arts as a way to unify its troops.

U.S. Stimulus Efforts to Have ‘Modest’ Impact, NABE Survey Says
Bloomberg News, 3/2/2009
"The $787 billion economic stimulus package signed into law by President Barack Obama will have only a 'modest impact in shortening the recession,' a private survey of economists showed.... Survey respondents ranked infrastructure spending, expanded unemployment benefits and income-tax cuts as the three measures that will have the greatest effectiveness in stimulating the economy. The three that are expected to be the least effective are: spending on social endowments such as public housing and the arts, the earned income tax credit and lump-sum tax rebates."
Since this flies in the face of the fiscal-impact argument, who will challenge these people?

Arts Get Whacked by Rich as Companies Face Losses in Endowments
Bloomberg News, 3/4/2009
"Corporations and wealthy individuals are donating less to nonprofits, with arts groups taking the biggest hit, according to two new studies.... Arts and culture will see the biggest drop, with 41 percent reporting a decrease in resources."
It really does feel like 2002 and 2003 all over again.

Half of Wealthy Americans Say Taxes Don't Affect Their Giving, Study Finds
Chronicle of Philanthropy, 3/3/2009
"A majority of affluent Americans say their charitable giving would be unaffected by the elimination of federal tax provisions designed, in part, to encourage philanthropy, according to a new study by Bank of America and Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University. Nearly 52 percent of wealthy donors said their giving would remain the same if they no longer received any income-tax deduction for their donations, while 54 percent said their level of philanthropy would remain unchanged if the estate tax were repealed. That said, a significant minority (47 percent) of people in the survey reported that they would give less if they could no longer claim a deduction for their charitable gifts."
This really surprised me. I would have thought the numbers would have been more extreme, especially in light of...

Limiting Deductions on Charity Draws Ire
New York Times, 2/26/2009
"Wealthy donors and the nonprofit groups they support were in an uproar over the Obama administration’s proposal to limit the value of deductions for charitable gifts, which was included in the budget the president presented to Congress.... Nonprofit groups have been urging the administration and Congress to increase incentives for charitable giving by raising the limits on deductions and eliminating taxes on the investment income of foundations."
The really intriguing/alarming copy comes toward the end of the piece:

"Roughly half of the high net-worth donors responding to a 2006 survey by the Bank of America reported that they would keep giving the same amount to charity if deductions for that giving fell to zero, while about 38 percent said their giving would decrease somewhat. Only 7 percent said their gifts would fall steeply.

Eli Broad, who has made some of the biggest gifts in recent years, said through a spokeswoman that his giving would not be affected, as he has already donated far more than he can deduct.

Robert F. Sharpe Jr., a fund-raising expert in Memphis, said many of the wealthiest donors are already limited to deductions of 28 percent for their charitable gifts because they are subject to the alternative minimum tax.

Congress has long debated whether donors should get the same subsidy for gifts to wealthy universities and art groups that they get for contributions to nonprofit groups serving basic needs like food, shelter and health care.

“The administration’s proposal is doing just that, reordering charitable priorities by taking money wealthy people would have given to other charities and making it go into the health care system” through higher taxes, Mr. Sharpe said."

Tax-Deduction Proposal Would Cause Giving to Drop by 1.3%, Study Finds
Chronicle of Philanthropy, 3/3/2009
"President Obama’s proposal to limit the tax breaks would cause giving to decline by an estimated 1.3 percent a year, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said today in a new analysis. They said that other proposals in the budget further minimized the effects of the tax changes."
I think this is called shared sacrifice, no? If so, it's going to be painful.

The Democrats Create the "Republican Apology Machine"...Why Am I Upset?

2009-03-04T23:04:00.004-05:00

This is going to be a short post but I think it's an important one. So there's been all this chatter about how strategist James Carville and pollster Stanley Greenberg hatched the current Rush-Limbaugh-is-the-leader-of-the-GOP meme and now the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has created a whole webpage, called I'm Sorry Rush, to spotlight how the leaders of the right must kiss Pope Rush's ring whenever they deviate from Republican orthodoxy.

So I laughed at first.

Then I thought -- wait a minute, so, some of this is coming out of the White House? Isn't this what Obama said he wouldn't do? Come on -- can't the Democrats be better than this? What makes anyone think the American people won't object -- and loudly? Don't screw up this moment with such stupidity. The Republicans, it seems to me, can do all that by themselves, no?

The Afternoon Report, March 4, 2009

2009-03-04T22:36:00.001-05:00

This information, called The Afternoon Report, is provided by a daily email blast from the publicity firm of Boneau Bryan-Brown, which maintains this blog. This feature doesn't run daily but whenever The Afternoon Report seems to point out articles of interest.

Jane Alexander: Jindal’s wrong on arts funding
CNN.COM
“For actress Jane Alexander, the criticism of a $50 million boost in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts is a sequel. She was chairman of the agency from 1993 through 1997 when arts funding was cut sharply by the Republican-led Congress, which questioned whether it was an appropriate way to use government money. Now the issue is whether giving money to the arts should have been part of the economic stimulus program. Among those who have criticized the new spending this year is Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who delivered the Republican response to President Barack Obama's message to Congress Tuesday.

CNN: What do you think of the controversy over the $50 million in increased government spending for the arts?
Alexander: I think it's long overdue and I was very, very happy to see it. Since 1995-96 we had an incredibly decreased budget for the NEA. Finally we're getting back to where it was when I came in [as chairman]. It's all vitally needed. In fact, the endowment has not kept pace with inflation as other agencies have. ... This $50 million will certainly help a great deal.

What people forget is that there are over 2 million people in the United States of America who are professional artists. Those are jobs like any other jobs. The artists have families, they have people for whom they're responsible and they give to their communities.

We all have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The life part would be health and housing. The liberty part would be our civil rights. And the pursuit of happiness, the arts would come under that. And it's as vital a part of well-being in the United States as anything else."
First off, this sounds like CNN is fishing for a controversy, or at least trying to spark one. The $50 million is approved and, as I've suggested repeatedly and as I shall continue to suggest, the question is when, not if, the right will begin to use that appropriation in order to politicize the arts and use that politicization to start the process of unifying the GOP. What Alexander says isn't untrue, but it is not about looking forward. It's about preserving the current model. Feh.

R.I.P.: Horton Foote, 1916-2009

2009-03-04T18:24:00.001-05:00

As per the New York Times.

Ian David Moss: Backlash to the Future

2009-03-04T14:00:00.001-05:00

At a blog that is new to me called Createquity, the blogger, Ian David Moss, has taken a few of us to task for questioning the prevailing arts-funding orthodoxy. I know I'm a prime target. And I should add that if the economy hadn't tanked as it did, if I hadn't been downsized out of my job after seven years as I was (eight including freelancing), I might not have concluded that our arts-funding philosophy and model is fundamentally flawed and must be scrubbed or radically reconstituted. Of course, it's not that my former job was predicated on arts funding; really, it was quite the opposite, working for a commercial enterprise. But it's more that I've had time to think about where the arts are as a national force, economic and otherwise. It's more that I've spent a great deal of time thinking back on this whole decade, trying to sum up where I think the arts have been, where the arts are, and where the arts can most effectively head from here.

You know, I wasn't a blogger in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 -- the years when I did most of the reporting, as opposed to editing and managing (which came later), that I did at Back Stage. Those were in the years in which I learned the basics of the arts funding model we have in place, and, more pertinent, how fragile that ecosystem is. During those pre-9/11 days, it was all about how the dot-com bust and the recession that followed would affect funding, and how very unprepared in so many ways the nonprofit theater world was for the very real structural and organizational and aesthetic challenges that were fast being thrust upon the sector. During the post-9/11 period, it was all about the same thing, but also how very magnified those problems suddenly were. It was also about how the arts could so easily be easily politicized, about what an endless uphill battle the arts have just to convince those elected officials who are sympathetic of its importance fiscally and societally to the nation. It was, again, how precarious the whole house of cards perpetually seems to be.

So when I take our arts leaders to task for rushing with palms open toward the Obama team, or for issuing statements recommending that the NEA should be funded at $300 million annually, it's not that I don't want the arts to be funded governmentally in the United States. Good grief, Charlie Brown, if you'd spoken to me four, six, eight, ten years ago -- at any rate, long before I blogged -- I would have been manning the rafters along with those leaders, screaming at the Obama people at the top of my lungs to do what is right as part of the stimulus package and to fund, fund, fund, fund, fund. Not just my palm would be open but also my mouth and a few other orifices geared toward arts funding. But as I say, current events have had a curious effect on me. I have had to rethink my assumptions about what is, in the long run, best for the funding of the arts and humanities in the nation. I believe we're in an economic pickle deeper and potentially more devastating than anything we've seen in three generations. I believe the yo-yo effect of up-and-down arts funding at the federal and state levels, ever-buffeted by the winds of fiscal facts, political sportsmanship and gamesmanship, is fundamentally unhealthy and destabilizing to the industry as a whole. I believe that while making the fiscal-impact argument is the most important thing arts leaders can do (I know Moss disagrees), I also believe that all sectors of the economy will someday have to take responsibility for the nation's welfare as a whole, that we will have to develop new economic models and perhaps even make, God help us, some real sacrifices.

So when I read Moss' post, called The Backlash Begins, and when in particular I read the way he rails against those questioning the status quo, it amuses me. The post makes assumptions about me, who I am, what I think. Well, to be fair, one can only respond in a post to what someone else writes in a post, and it's all part of the dialogue anyway. It makes me sad, though, because only I can fully know what journey I've been on; only I can do whatever I am capable of doing in terms of articulating the arc of that journey. And I know how much it probably upsets people like, say, Teresa Eyring of TCG, when I single them out or question the way they use their power or their influence toward the industry we all hold so dear. (And let's be clear: arts leaders are as devoted to promulgating their power and influence as to defending and addressing the needs of their constituents, for their work is fundamentally political in nature.) I write what I write and say as I believe because I believe that while I may not win friends (or jobs at TCG, clearly), I can stand up for the work on stage, for the art form, that I place second to none in cherishing.

Moss begins his post by writing:

Sure enough, the ink hardly dried on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 before the predictable chorus of complaints could be heard regarding the inclusion therein of $50 million worth of support for the National Endowment for the Arts. Following a week of Republican mockery on the subject, one might have expected the bulk of these disapproving murmurs to come from the right. Yet as it turns out, in time-honored liberal tradition, the loudest critics of all are much closer to home.

Well, I actually consider it a compliment to be lumped with this group. Republicans are, um, not exactly known for deviating well from policy orthodoxy (file under Steele, Michael or Limbaugh, Rush). Yet I don't view expressions of concern or criticism as tantamount to complaining. What I have been trying to do -- and what Moss is unwilling to acknowledge -- is move the discussion past the idea of another $50 million for the NEA, or even $300 million annually for the NEA, to a larger discussion about how we can best fund the arts and humanities and whether the notion of "best" can or should be limited to direct federal and state appropriations.

And yes, I did raise the prospect that a $50 million increase -- or any attention paid to the arts by the Obama Administration -- will give the right a tool with which they can unify their own troops. Not even because the GOP hates the arts or arts funding, but because the arts are easy for them to demonize, because they have a long history of doing so (file under Flanagan, Hallie) and because haven't much else going for them right now politically.

Later, Moss writes:

But the notion that this somehow doesn't represent a victory for the arts community is one that I just don’t get. What, exactly, is the glorious alternative? Yes, the NEA represents a tiny fraction of support for the arts in this country (0.3%, to be exact). But as of a couple of weeks ago, it’s one of the only arts funding bodies in the country, and almost certainly the largest, that is actually increasing its level of support in 2009. Including the stimulus appropriation, this year's NEA payout is the highest in its history. Now, as Jacobs says, much of that new money is going to offset cuts in state arts budgets, and only partially at that. But that certainly doesn’t make it a “zero-sum game.” It's not like the states are just taking money from the arts and using it as an excuse to shuffle it around to other parts of the budget, as Jacobs seems to imply. States are hemorrhaging money right now and as a result, cuts are happening everywhere. I've said it before and I'll say it again: for the purposes of stimulus, a job saved is just as good as a job created. The NEA money will save jobs, period.

Aside from the sarcasm of a phrase like "glorious alternative" (if I had used it, I'm sure people in the theatrosphere would have rolled their eyes), the question isn't whether the $50 million NEA increase represents a victory for the arts community; of course it is. For me, the question is, again, whether we are simultaneously looking beyond that appropriation at the larger scope of arts and humanities funding. Also, Moss want to rethink the phrase "one of the only arts funding bodies in the country, and almost certainly the largest," as that excludes foundations, corporate philanthropy and private giving. (The size of their current philanthropy, of course, is rapidly set to change.)

Let me add that most of the rationale for NEA funding isn't predicated on actual dollar amounts spent as their impact in the multiples of dollars. So let's say the NEA spends a dollar -- it creates four, five, or six dollars worth of growth and fiscal activity in the arts. That's easy stuff; we all, I think, understand this. What is less reported is the way it buttresses the work of the 56 state arts agencies, which do much of the day-to-day heavy lifting of arts and humanities funding in the nation. So I do understand how $50 million translates into positive vibes for the community. However, when Moss says that I implied that "states are just taking money from the arts and using it as an excuse to shuffle it around to other parts of the budget," that's misleading. I said it was a zero-sum game based on this post, which Moss does not to link to, and which is based on reporting from various publications and quotes from, among others, Bill Ivey, the former head of the NEA.

One last point on this topic. While it may be true that "a job saved is just as good as a job created" (if the job pays the same, a point Moss leaves unaddressed), and while it may be true that the "NEA money will save jobs," the real question is one of quantification. For if it is true -- and empirically provable -- that 14,000 jobs in the arts will be "saved" out of the 200,000-plus that are being lost as a result of this recession (Moss correctly attributes these statistics to Americans for the Arts), would $50 million, then, not represent weak ROI at best? What about the other 180,000-200,000 people? That's like saving 100 people on the Titanic while 1,000 people die and calling it a miracle.

Later, Moss writes:

As for Jacobs, he seems in love with this “long-term sustainable solution to arts funding” idea, since he mentions it in just about every other post. I'd like to think of myself as an arts advocate, and so I trust he won't mind my taking umbrage at his characterization of us as “pathetic paupers” and lacking "vision." (As an aside, later on Jacobs hilariously claims to "honor those who worked so hard to make that point [that the arts make good fiscal policy]." Yeah, that language certainly makes one feel "honored.")

Sigh. Look, I'm in love with the idea that I should have a job. I'm in love with the idea that we should have no national deficit or debt. I'm in love with the idea that my American brothers and sisters in uniform should come home from a war in Iraq that was created on the basis of a big, fat lie. I'm in love with the idea that everyone might learn to be kind to everyone else, and yes, that includes me. I'm in love with the idea that the nation can unify itself around common sense, left-of-center political ideas. Now, it's not that I'm in love with a "long-term sustainable solution to arts funding" so much as, once again, wanting to move us past the idea that our current funding philosophy is the best possible one that we can devise. (If Moss feels it's perfect, that's his right.) And, by the way, I consider myself an arts advocate, too. My degree is in the theatre and I've done plenty of no-money/slow-money theater in my time, and I've had two jobs and worked overnight shifts and struggled and had successes and failures and I still love the arts and I still plan to devote my life to it, so how about we not get all proprietary over what constitutes arts advocacy, ok? And yes, I feel it's possible for me to state that people are working hard to make the case for arts funding to political powerbrokers, we can also push them to think innovatively about our current model. It isn't about being hilarious, as Moss writes, though I'm glad I offered him such mighty mirth. It's about doing what an advocate does -- pushing for something better than the status quo, for fostering dialogue even if it should prove testy and difficult.

Moss then writes:

Jacobs argues, in a column I linked to a while back, that the annual NEA appropriations should be converted into a real endowment--you know, the kind that invests in the capital markets. This idea isn't totally without merit, but there's one rather gigantic problem with it. You remember how I said earlier that the NEA is one of the only arts funders out there right now that is increasing its funding levels? That's because, in case you haven't heard, capital markets are kind of in the toilet right now. At this moment, arts organizations are being hit from all sides: their own endowments are shrinking, the assets of the foundations and individuals that support them are shrinking, earned income is going down because people have less money, and state governments are cutting back because of reduced tax revenue. In such an environment, the federal government is the only entity in the country that has the power to step in and do something to stop the bleeding -- that's the whole macroeconomic argument for the stimulus in the first place. In other words, the NEA is an important diversifying funding stream for the arts, one of the few that can be countercyclical to the general economy. Put all of its money in stocks and bonds, and you lose that crucial differentiation.

Well, Moss can win on points, but not on philosophy. When the market is down this much, I think everyone breathes a sigh of relief that we didn't let George Bush put the Social Security Trust Fund into the market. But here's the thing: If he read my post, he knows, again, that I've argued for the public/private endowment idea equally to shield the arts and humanities from being politicized, something which remains a very real danger and which will always be a very real danger so long as Congress has the ability to fund or not fund the arts and humanities at a federal level in the U.S. Moss seems to imply that simply by creating a Secretary of the Arts that we can prevent such politicization, that somehow such a position will become a part of the overall governmental infrastructure. I don't think this is naive. I think this hands more unifying force to the right at precisely the moment we have the ball and can run with it. I also think categorizing the NEA as "an important diversifying funding stream for the arts, one of the few that can be countercyclical to the general economy" is misleading. Unlike the banking system, which turned to the government as the savior of last resort, Moss would have us believe that the arts would not exist, or would be incalculably decimated, without the extra NEA funding. If things are that dire -- and they're not terrible, to be sure -- how does $50 million radically change any of that? My recommendation, noted on various posts, is that Congress should fund the NEA to the tune of quite a few billions and launch it as a public/private enterprise with a board composed of equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats. If we're going to have something like the NEA, could it be better considered as a kind of sacred national trust and not a "diversifying funding stream"? I don't even understand that term.

Finally -- whew! -- Moss writes:

Jacobs's charge that arts advocates lack "vision" appears to be rooted in the idea that eventually, we'll have to pay down the national deficit, and at such time those appropriations will have to be reduced. In other words, there is risk that arts funding will decrease from one year to the next. But hello! Isn't that exactly what would have happened this year if the NEA money had been in an endowment? At least this way, the government retains the flexibility to make decisions about funding levels. Anyway, freaking out about the budget deficit implications of a program as small as the NEA is disingenuous at best. The Pentagon blows through more money every two and a half hours than the NEA does in an entire year -- and that's without even counting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In any case, it's unfair to assume that the folks at Americans for the Arts and other service organizations are not thinking long-term. Changing the conversation about an issue like this takes a long time, especially when there's not an easy way to draw media attention to it. But mark my words, it is happening. The establishment of creative economy-related posts, studies, and task forces in local, regional, and state governments across the country is a testament to this. How many of them existed ten years ago?

Well, we will have to address the deficit and the debt. Period.

Second, while Moss has a point that if the NEA was like any other foundation or endowment the available monies would have dropped in this market, when he praises the government retaining "the flexibility to make decisions about funding levels," what he's really saying is that we have a president and a Congress favorably disposed to arts funding. That's all. That's not flexibility so much as pure politics. And it's not disingenuous to worry about the deficit or the debt. As noted before and as I'll note again, my worry is also about the politicization of the arts and preventing it as well as what to do in order to ameliorate the yo-yo funding effect that has consistently irked and buffeted the nonprofit theatre industry in this country for the last 25 years.

Perhaps it is "unfair to assume that the folks at Americans for the Arts and other service organizations are not thinking long-term." Sure, I'm sure they are. But if one is an arts advocate (watch Moss redefine it for me), one has the opportunity to let arts leaders know that we are looking at these issues, that we are on top of these issues, that we are debating these issues, that we are arguing -- loudly, if need be -- these issues, that we expect them dealt with and struggled through and examined and put forth in a transparent way. I'm not interested in a philosophy of "Let's let Mommy and Daddy fix it"; I'm not interested in "Let's not fight for what we believe in because the media won't pay attention." I'm interested in change. And while Moss can enjoy the support of those of the comments on his blog (including one trust-funded soul who happily put a stake in my back), I am happy to thrust and parry.

Will Congress Again Pass the Matthew Shepard Act?

2009-03-04T11:30:00.000-05:00

While the Republicans are spewing hate -- at President Obama's budget and recovery plan; at their disbelief that the same free market that ushered in our economic decline cannot so readily fix it; at or toward Michael Steele or Rush Limbaugh, take your pick -- we have an actual bill in Congress that deals with some real hatred and it's time we passed it again now that we have a president who is on record as willing to sign it.

This, below, is some boilerplate from the Human Rights Campaign in support of the Matthew Shepard Act. (According to the Library of Congress website, there are actually four written versions of the bill -- you can see them here.) We all know the Party of No will rage against the bill, but their lack of a moral compass is their problem.

Please give this important legislation your unwavering support.

Hi,

Have you heard that the hate crimes bill is coming before Congress again?

I hope you'll join me in sending a message to Congress: we can't wait any longer for a federal law to protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans from violent hate crimes. Take action at: http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/pass_shepard

Ordinary people are living in fear for their safety and their lives every day, in small towns and big cities. Hate crimes against LGBT people are on the rise, but the federal government has no direct authority to investigate, prosecute or help local law enforcement crack down.

We can't let this continue. We can't let friends and neighbors become targets for violence simply because of who they are.

Congress passed the hate crimes bill in 2007, but because of George Bush's veto threat, it never became law. And now, right-wing extremists are once again making outrageous claims that the bill would criminalize preachers, end free speech, and so on.

Will you help make sure their lies aren't the only things members of Congress are hearing about this bill? Please click below to send a note urging Congress to pass the Matthew Shepard Act.

http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/pass_shepard

Thanks for your help.

NEA Arts Journalism Institute Fellows Chosen

2009-03-04T10:30:00.000-05:00

Good news for arts journalism -- if they can keep and/or find gigs going into the future. But for now, let's stay positive:

23 Top Journalists Chosen for Fellowships to USC Annenberg’s NEA Arts Institute

Twenty-three arts journalists have been chosen from 16 states to participate as fellows in the fifth National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) Arts Journalism Institute in Theater and Musical Theater at USC Annenberg. Through the generous support of the NEA, the Institute will be conducted by USC Annenberg’s School of Journalism in Los Angeles from April 14 –24, 2009.

Participants in USC Annenberg’s 2009 NEA Arts Journalism Institute in Theater and Musical Theater include theater critics, reporters and editors, as well as general arts & entertainment journalists. Most of them have shifted from print to online or are in the process of finding the balance between. Some also work in radio. The 23 NEA Fellows are:

Teresa Annas, arts writer, The Virginian-Pilot, Norfolk, Va.
Marilyn Bauer, entertainment editor, Scripps Treasure Coast Newspapers, Stuart, Fla.
Marcos Cabrera, features reporter, Monterey County Herald, Calif.
Colin Dabkowski, arts writer, The Buffalo News, N.Y.
Keli Dailey, content producer, San Diego Union-Tribune & SignOnSanDiego.com, Calif.
Kathi Scrizzi Driscoll, feature writer/editor, Cape Cod Times, Hyannis, Mass.
Alicia Grega, current events editor, electric city/diamond city & the 570.com published by The Times-Tribune, Scranton, Pa.
Rebecca Haithcoat, affiliated freelancer, Leo Weekly, Louisville, Ky.
Bob Hoover, book editor and theater critic, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Pa.
Daphne Howland, freelancer and contributing editor, Port City Life, Portland, Maine.
MiChelle Jones, freelance visual arts writer, The Tennessean, Nashville, Tenn.
Chris Klimek, affiliated freelancer, The Washington Post and DCist.com, D.C.
John Kuebler, affiliated freelancer, Cairn Magazine, Denver, Colo.
David Lefkowitz, publisher and editor-in-chief, TotalTheater.com, Hewlett, N.Y.
Evelyn McDonnell, freelance writer/editor, Miami Beach, Fla.
Manny Mendoza, affiliated freelancer, KERA Art&Seek, Dallas, Texas.
Michael Merschel, assistant arts editor, Dallas Morning News, Texas.
Roxana Orellana, theater writer, Salt Lake Tribune, Utah.
Laura Pieper, affiliated freelancer, The Tribune, Ames, Iowa.
Steve Rowland, independent documentary radio producer, Seattle, Wash.
Jim Rutter, freelance arts critic, The Broad Street Review, Philadelphia, Pa.
Alan Scherstuhl, freelance columnist, The Pitch, Kansas City, Mo.
Glen Weldon, affiliated freelancer, Washington City Paper, D.C.

“This exceptional group of journalists possesses the qualities we at Annenberg are dedicated to developing: innovation, engagement and leadership,” said Ernest J. Wilson III, dean of the USC Annenberg School for Communication. “Despite challenging times, these arts journalists will be ready for the new transformations in journalism. We are pleased to offer them the opportunity to build their skills and create new ideas that will be to the ultimate benefit for all of us in the future.”

The groundbreaking program is part of a $1 million NEA initiative to offer intensive training for theater critics and their editors who work outside the country's major media markets.

“The NEA is pleased to welcome its fifth class of theater journalism fellows,” NEA acting chairman Patrice Walker Powell said. "As arts coverage continues to shrink on paper and expand online, USC Annenberg School for Communication has retooled its already exemplary program to help media professionals keep pace with current changes in their field. No matter what their medium, these arts journalists will return home ready to craft quality arts critical commentaries, reports and reviews for their communities.”

The 23 NEA Fellows will participate in a rigorous 10-day program that includes writing workshops and one-on-one master classes. Among the guest faculty are Mark Briggs, chief executive of Serra Media and author of Journalism 2.0: Survive and Thrive in the Digital Age; former Village Voice music critic, Robert Christgau, who now writes monthly for msn.com and The Barnes & Noble Review; Mary Lou Fulton, vice president of audience development, The Bakersfield Californian; Steven Leigh Morris, playwright and critic-at-large for L.A. Weekly; Dominic Papatola, theater critic, St. Paul Pioneer Press; and Jack Viertel, artistic director, New York City Center Encores!, and creative director, Jujamcyn Theaters. Entrepreneurship journalism training is emphasized, as well as multimedia and digital skill-building with Douglas McLennan, editor and founder of ArtsJournal.com. Nine performances will be attended, including Theresa Rebeck‘s “Mauritius” directed by Jessica Kubzansky at the Pasadena Playhouse and “Louis & Keely: Live at the Sahara” directed by Taylor Hackford at the Geffen Playhouse.

Sasha Anawalt, director of USC Annenberg School for Communication’s M.A. in Specialized Journalism (The Arts) program, directs the NEA Institute in Theater and Musical Theater.

“Traditional journalism is floundering, so it can’t be business as usual,” Anawalt said. “The Institute is focusing on giving journalists real tools and skills – the tools to help them develop and implement revenue and advertising strategies, for example. Our responsibility is to help arts journalists stabilize and think wisely about how theater can continue to be covered.”

The Theater and Musical Theater Institute at USC Annenberg is one of three NEA Arts Journalism Institutes, along with the Institute for Music and Opera at Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism in New York and the Institute for Dance at the American Dance Festival in Durham, North Carolina.

Nearly 50 applications were received from theater writers, editors and critics from 19 states and from a variety of media. Each newspaper, radio and television station represented in the 2009 fellowship is new to the NEA Arts Journalism Institute in Theater and Musical Theater.

For more information about the NEA Arts Journalism Institute in Theater and Musical Theater, visit http://annenberg.usc.edu/nea.

Should Some Theaters Die?

2009-03-04T10:00:00.003-05:00

I took a look at Chloe Veltman's post Tragic Magic the other day, which talks about how a group of San Francisco stage folk gathered, as they've been doing semi-regularly, to discuss issues of the day, and how the elephant in the room (to use her phrase) wasn't just the fact that the Magic Theatre was nearly knocked off the map a few months ago due to recession-related fiscal pressure, but how...

With the exception of a few dissenting voices, nearly everyone in the room had said that they hadn't seen anything at the flagship new play theatre in around a decade that they thought was any good. Yet despite the negative attitudes surrounding the theatre's artistic output, most Salonites believed that the disappearance of the Magic -- if it were to go under for good as threatened a couple of months ago -- would be extremely detrimental to the local ecosystem in terms of such things as lost jobs and even fewer mid-sized houses.

So this raises a question: Must all theaters -- should all theaters -- be saved? I've seen one production at the Magic (I've only been to San Francisco twice), so I can't judge the artistic merit of the organization's output, plus that's a totally subjective assessment anyway. The point is, if you have a theater that is indeed crucial to the "local ecosystem" in terms of jobs but is not crucial in terms of artistic quality, is it more moral, is it more ethical, to save the theater and hope for better artistic work in the future, or is it better to accept the possibility that theaters do die, that they indeed have lifespans, and that it's a natural part of the ecosystem for some organizations to wither while others bloom?

The Afternoon Report, March 3, 2009

2009-03-03T18:00:00.000-05:00

This information, called The Afternoon Report, is provided by a daily email blast from the publicity firm of Boneau Bryan-Brown, which maintains this blog. This feature doesn't run daily but whenever The Afternoon Report seems to point out articles of interest.

What’s Next After Skittles.com?
ADVERTISING AGE – BY FREDDIE LAKER
Quite a bit of buzz has popped up around the new Skittles.com over the weekend and today. If you haven't seen the site, it's based on leveraging different social-media sites linked together by a very simple menu navigation that floats on any of the sites. For example, the home page and "chatter" section is the brand's Twitter page, the video media page is the brand's YouTube page, the video images page is the brand's Flickr stream, and the "friends" section is the Facebook fan-page profile. This is almost certainly inspired by Modernista's brilliant redesign from about a year ago. Does that matter? Definitely not. Modernista had it right then and now Skittles does too. Skittles has unabashedly made the bold leap into accepting they can't control the way their brand is defined in today's social web and can only try their best to participate in the conversation. They're taking the good with the bad, and I can assure you all that good is going to dramatically outweigh the bad. If you want an easy indicator of how this site does, check out the number of Facebook friends it already has in place (an impressive 582,604 at the time of this post). Other measurements, such as the number of comments it has on its YouTube videos and images, and general comments and sentiments can also be helpful indicators, but I think the Facebook figure serves at the simplest indicator for most casual observers.
So I went to the Skittles.com website and all of the aforementioned is true (not that you needed me to tell you that). More to the point, it's very interesting -- the ability and/or willingness of a long-established brand to accept and think about how to capitalize on the way social networking will essentially strip a product of full control of its brand identity and market positioning is daring and may, in the end, be incredibly prescient. Of course, the product has to remain desirable and full of intrinsic value, too. Perhaps the strength of social networking is that it will help the brand learn how to maintain that value -- a new area for the free market to work (which it can, given the right conditions).

FFF to Curate LGBT in MITF

2009-03-02T20:00:00.000-05:00

In honor of National Acronym Day (NAD), and as per publicist Michelle Brandon Tabnick:

The Midtown International Theatre Festival announces that the Fresh Fruit Festival (FFF) will collaborate with the Midtown International Theater Festival (MITF) to curate the LGBT segment of MITF in July, 2009. The Fresh Fruit Festival will continue to present its multidiscipline festival of LGBT arts &culture in July.

The FFF in association with the MITF will select at least eight works for the LGBT division. These plays will be presented at the Theatre Building, 312 W. 36th Street, NYC. The MITF’s 2009 season runs from July 13 – August 2, 2009. The FFF will run from July 13 – 26 in various venues, presenting jazz at Joe’s Pub, comedy, variety, visual arts and literature as well as a two week play festival.

“We’ve long admired Carol Polcovar and the Fresh Fruit Festival for pioneering the premier LGBT theatre festival in New York. Including them in the Midtown International Theatre Festival is a way to make the most of our respective skill sets and networks. This is a case where the whole is indeed greater than the sum of its parts,” said John Chatterton, executive producer of the MITF.

“The Fresh Fruit Festival is excited to be a part of the MITF; the work selected will have a longer run and it will give LGBT theater artists an opportunity to reach a wider audience,” said Carol Polcovar, artistic director of the Fresh Fruit Festival. “In these times of economic crisis, giving theater artists the widest range of exposure grows difficult and the challenges for small not-for-profit organizations such as Fresh Fruit are great. John Chatterton has opened the door to the best in emerging theater artists for ten years. We are thrilled to be part of exploring new ways of collaboration.”

Mr. Chatterton created the MITF in 2000, a Midtown alternative to other theatre festivals, as a way to present the finest off-off Broadway talent in convenience, comfort, and safety. Last year, the Festival added two 99-seat theatres and inaugurated the Commercial Division for upwardly mobile shows with commercial ambitions. All theatres are located near the MITF offices at 347 W. 36th Street (home of Mr. Chatterton’s Where Eagles Dare rehearsal studios and theatre).

The MITF accepts submissions in all genres – any sort of stage play, musical or otherwise, new or classic, mainstream or specifically focused on an ethnic or cultural niche. To be eligible, each show must have a producer and production team attached to the project. The MITF’s artistic emphasis is on the script itself and therefore the Festival requests minimal production values. For further information or an application, visit www.midtownfestival.org.

The Fresh Fruit Festival is an inclusive, multidiscipline International Festival of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Cultural & Arts Festival held now in its seventh year. Fresh Fruit Festival, under the direction of artistic director Carol Polcovar, celebrates the LGBT’s community’s continuing and diverse contributions to American and world culture. Fresh Fruit’s mission is to share the LGBT community’s unique perspective, creativity and diversity and to build links between the LGBT, local, national and international artistic communities as well as to the general public. For more information, visit www.freshfruitfestival.com.

The Afternoon Report, March 2, 2009

2009-03-02T19:02:00.002-05:00

This information, called The Afternoon Report, is provided by a daily email blast from the publicity firm of Boneau Bryan-Brown, which maintains this blog. This feature doesn't run daily but whenever The Afternoon Report seems to point out articles of interest.

Twitter Eyes Search as Means to Monetize
Advertising Age – by Michael Learmonth
“When twitter closed on a $35 million round of venture capital, in addition to the $20 million it had already raised, the messaging service signaled that it intends to be a very big business. Like its 6 million users, corporations have embraced the service. Its ability to take the measure of what is being said at a given time about brands is a potential gold mine for marketers, and it is the first place Twitter will look to generate revenue.

"There are companies and brands depending on it more and more and finding the insights valuable in how they make decisions," said co-founder Biz Stone. "What further can we do to help them?" But selling services to corporate America isn't the kind of Google-scale business Twitter's founders and backers are banking on. What is? Well, maybe search. Last summer, Twitter bought search engine Summize and has recently started integrating search into certain user accounts. Federated Media CEO John Battelle likens Twitter to YouTube, in that Google thought it was buying a video platform, but YouTube's real value may be that it has become the second-largest source of search queries. The difference is Twitter enables a search of real-time sentiment and conversation. "Twitter owns its own search, which is more valuable than Twitter itself," said Howard Lindzon, an entrepreneur who launched one of a proliferating ecosystem of Twitter-based businesses, StockTwits.”
OMG, could Twitter end up out-Googling Google? I'm not trying to funny here -- is it possible?

The New Group Retells an Old Tale: Layoffs

2009-03-02T18:29:00.004-05:00

Courtesy of Adam Feldman of Time Out New York, who on Friday emailed a few of us bloggers (I suppose I should go the extra step and remind the aforementioned that I'm print, Web and blog, for whatever that's worth) to spread the word that The New Group, in the wake of those wrist-slashing-inducing Mourning Becomes Electra reviews (here's mine from Back Stage), has been forced to cut back on staff...as in right now, don't wait, pronto, ASAP, and, for the Spanish speaking among us, immediatamente, por favor. Quoting from Feldman's cheeky squib:

It’s not often that a major company is forced to weather an epic fiasco like Mourning Becomes Electra, the New Group’s disastrously received attempt to revive Eugene O’Neill’s neoclassical tragedy. What’s a company to do? Step one: Cut your losses by closing seven weeks earlier than planned. Step two: Cut your staff. Of course, the man most responsible for the troupe’s after-Mourning woes is artistic director Scott Elliott, who directed the play himself. But the head honcho is almost never the first head to roll, so earlier this week the ax quietly fell on the company’s managing director, Barrack Evans, and marketing director, Darren Molovinsky.

(Very tiny note: neoclassical is not quite the right genre to describe Mourning, and no, a better one would not necessarily be the word "bad." I mean, sure, Mourning is neoclassical in the loose sense that it was a 20th century work inspired directly by a tragedy from antiquity, but in terms of an academic definition, neoclassical is largely a 17th and 18th century theatre term. I'd go on about Pierre Corneille and the French neoclassicists and all of that, but then I'd need Neosporin to cure the neoplasms in my brain, or at least a visit by Ne-Yo.

One must get something out of graduate school, right?)

Another Theatre on the Brink, Part II: Foothills Theatre Company

2009-03-02T15:31:00.005-05:00

Apparently I posted too soon: the Foothills Theatre Company, which is in Worcester, Mass., will also go under if it is unable to raise $200,000 in the next two weeks, according to this story in the Boston Globe.

You know, perfectly good and smart people like Teresa Eyring, head of Theatre Communications Group, spent all this time with all those arts leaders and advocates pushing for another $50M in NEA funding, but what is really happening here? This isn't about NEA funding, is it? This is about About Face, the Magic, Foothills -- I could call up the whole list of nonprofit theatres that have imploded or nearly imploded in what is really just proof positive that the fiscal system for supporting the American theatre isn't working. And yet some people -- I'll be posting about this shortly -- rail against me for going on and on about the need to make the nonprofit theatre in our nation economically self-sustaining. No, they say, just get the government, federal, state and local, to just hand out more money. It's imbecilic. It's like crying out for a bucket of water when all of Rome is burning.

Another Theatre on the Brink: Chicago's About Face

2009-03-02T15:00:00.002-05:00

Courtesy of Facebook, I received a note that I know many people in the business received. It's very long, but it's a real action item. I've covered work coming out of the About Face in the past and I hope the industry is able to save it.

And as much as I hate to say it, we're back to the same thing I've been saying over and over -- we've got to address the systemic fiscal problems that exist in the nonprofit theatre by means other than arts leaders making the same old arguments for increasing NEA or state or municipal legislative cash.

Anyway, here's the information:

Dear friends and family,

Today, I am calling on you for a very important favor to help save About Face Theatre, which you may have heard is in dire financial trouble. As one of my most treasured artistic homes, my connections to this company run very deep. At About Face Theatre, and with my dear friend and founder Eric Rosen, I developed I AM MY OWN WIFE, ONE ARM and 33 VARIATIONS. And so it is my responsibility to turn this moment of crisis into a statement of my gratitude for this powerful company. As an artist, I am indebted to their investment in my work, and as a gay man, I am indebted to their mission.

I have had the honor of attending most of the About Face Youth Theatre productions over the past decade. As a direct witness to what this company accomplishes with young people on the stages of Chicago, I can tell you its legacy is so vital, so rich, so significant, it cannot be lost. From the stage, these young queer artists grab hold of their own lives, and they change all of our futures.

This is not the year to lose a company whose mission is to advance the national dialogue on sexuality and gender. If we lose this theatre today while the country is caught at the crossroads, we will lose crucial ground for the LGBTQ community. It is our collective responsibility to carry this brave company over this difficult economic terrain.

I urge you to donate to today.

Yours,
Most urgently,
Most warmly,
Moises Kaufman

And here is the call-to-action that prompted Moises' note:

Save About Face Theatre!

About Face Theatre, one of Chicago's leading LGBTQ institutions and the original home of Pulitzer-prizewinning I AM MY OWN WIFE, is in danger of closing.

To confront this immediate crisis, About Face has launched a national "FACE THE FUTURE" campaign to save the organization and ensure its future. The About Face Board of Directors is asking for immediate financial contributions in order to keep its doors open, staff paid, and the youth theatre program intact.

About Face Theatre creates exceptional, innovative and adventurous plays to advance the national dialogue on gender and sexual identity. If About Face does not survive, the country will lose one of the few high-profile theaters making new work by and about the LGBTQ experience. The award-winning About Face Youth Theater serves queer youth by providing artistic experiences and leadership training.

In response to the economic downturn and significant debt, About Face has reduced its budget by over 30%, implementing staff and production cuts while also postponing our third show, WHAT ONCE WE FELT. This is the responsible action to take, but it is not enough. If you help us raise $300,000, we will solve our immediate crisis and build a foundation for ongoing financial health. Here's what you can do:

DONATE NOW
Donations can be made at www.aboutfacetheatre.com, by calling (773)784-8565, or by mailing a check to the theatre at 1222 W. Wilson, 2nd Floor West, Chicago, IL 60640. About Face Theatre is a 501c3 organization and all donations are fully tax deductible.

SPREAD THE WORD
Join our "Face The Future" Facebook group
Visit and share our "Face the Future" blog
Use the "Forward to a Friend" link at the bottom of this email

POST A VIDEO
Artistic contributions are encouraged as well, as About Face organizes a web-based video forum for testimony on the importance of About Face Theatre, of mentoring queer youth, and the vital need for innovative artmaking in today's society. To participate, please email dav@aboutfacetheatre.com or call 773-784-8565.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF ABOUT FACE THEATRE
About Face Theatre is one of Chicago's most acclaimed theatre companies, and is a
national leader in the development of new work exploring gender and sexual identity. Since its founding by Kyle Hall and Eric Rosen in 1995, the company has premiered more than 30 new plays by writers and directors who have been recognized with several Tony Awards, The Pulitzer Prize for Drama, The MacArthur Fellowship and dozens of Joseph Jefferson Awards.

Landmark world premieres include Doug Wright's Pulitzer and Tony-winning "I Am My Own Wife"; Moisés Kaufman's production of Tennessee Williams' "One Arm" (a co-production with Steppenwolf Theatre Company and Tectonic Theatre Project); Mary Zimmerman's "M. Proust", and, with Lookingglass Theatre, the famed "Eleven Rooms of Proust" and "Clay" that went on to be performed at Lincoln Center and Center Theater Group; Frank Galati and Stephen Flaherty's "Loving Repeating: A Musical of Gertrude Stein" (a co-production with the Museum of Contemporary Art, Original Cast Album recorded by Jay Records); the multi-award winning musical "Winesburg, Ohio" by Eric Rosen, Andre Pluess, Ben Sussman and Jessica Thebus; and the cult hit "Pulp", by Patricia Kane.

In addition to its award-winning mainstage performances, About Face is known nationally for its ground-breaking Youth Theatre, which creates critically acclaimed new work by and about LGBTQ youth and their allies. The Youth Theatre has performed on major stages across the country, and, through its outreach tour, changes the lives of thousands of young people each year. Building on the success of the youth theatre model, About Face recently launched its corporate outreach program to provide diversity training and onsite workshops to the corporate community.

In summer 2008, About Face welcomed Bonnie Metzgar as its new Artistic Director and Rick Dildine as its new Managing Director. Metzgar is a nationally known producer, director, playwright and dramaturg who has made a career developing innovative new work in the theater. Metzgar was co-creator of the grassroots 365 Festival, based on 365 Days/365 Plays, a yearlong play cycle written by Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Suzan Lori Parks. As artistic leader for 365, Metzgar shaped a global premiere involving 600 theaters around the world. Time Magazine named the 365 Festival one of its top ten theater events in 2006. Previously, Metzgar served as Associate Artistic Director of Curious Theatre Company in Denver. From 1995 to 2003, she served as Associate Producer at the Joseph Papp Public Theater under George C. Wolfe, where she oversaw a wide range of works including Broadway transfers Bring in 'Da Noise, Bring in 'Da Funk and Elaine Stritch: At Liberty. As founding producer of Joe's Pub at the Public Theater, Metzgar provided the creative vision for a now world-famous performance venue. Previously, Metzgar served as Artistic Director of Brown University's New Plays Festival with Paula Vogel and is currently teaching at the University of Chicago.

Considering the CPAC Convention

2009-03-02T14:15:00.005-05:00

As I was swamped with a project, I paid relatively little attention to the recent CPAC conference, although I'm sure it was chock-full of all the same self-aggrandizing, anti-Democratic hatred that we have come to expect from the party of tax-cut-and-spend and back-a-war-rationalized-by-lies.

Still, if the Democrats are ascendant at the moment, surely they won't be forever -- or knowing the history of my party, for long -- so it would be smart if we paid attention to the ways in which the right-wing is trying to get itself together because someday, somehow, it will. As you all know, I am personally sickened by the hyper-radical strain of the GOP -- the side that prays to a God it thinks it knows more intimately than you do for the failure of the current president. But I'm concerned, too, because without a strong GOP, the left is going to push the Democrats too far to the left (the GOP naturally argues that this has already occurred). What we would be left with then is a president ideally hoping to govern from the center, a Democratic party standing all too much to the left of him, and a GOP standing all too much to the right of him. As per tradition, we would have gridlock -- yes, even with 60 seats in the Senate -- and who, then, would lose? Well, the American people, of course, but also Obama himself. If the GOP can hang on and never, ever give an inch, they can deny him the opportunity to turn his attempts at compromise, at solution-building, at conciliation into the same old politics as usual, which would thereby destroy the one thing that sells him better than anything else: his brand. And you can bet the GOP is betting the house that such a tactic will work. It's party above nation, and they're the masters of it.

But at the same time, the GOP does have to take long, inward look at itself in any event -- even if my cynicism about them is completely erroneous. It's almost sad watching them go after some pseudo-cosmetic fixes that would appear to address the changing landscape of our politics in the wake of electing a biracial president without actually changing any of their own. I'm not saying Michael Steele isn't a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, but I think most people in the center and on the left would find it difficult to believe that the GOP's powerbrokers did not think about the ethnicity of Steele as they elected him the de facto leader of their party. At the same time, the CPAC convention revealed, I think, how very uncomfortable -- maybe a better word could be unfamiliar -- the powerbrokers of the GOP are when it comes to race. Take a look at this video:

That was during the campaign, when Bachmann, a representative from Minnesota, continually tiptoed right up to the line of what is acceptable political discourse. However, if you take a look at this video (up until 1:30 is what's most salient):

...Congresswoman Bachmann just spills over into whitey-trying-for-blackness territory, and the effect is just awful. I'm not saying she's a racist. I'm saying she's out of her element, she's trying desperately to figure out what is politically correct. Has she ever thought of, "Michael Steele!" -- in other words, not needing to punctuate her lauding of him without slipping into ebonics?

But the GOP really has bigger problems than this stuff. I am most intrigued by the governor of Utah, of all places, Jon Huntsman. Here's a Feb. 9 piece from the Salt Lake Tribune:

Here is a sentence you probably never expected to read: Utah's governor supports civil unions.

Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., a spokeswoman said Monday, backs Equality Utah's Common Ground Initiative, a legislative effort that would provide some rights to gay and transgender Utahns. Even more, the Republican governor favors civil unions.

It's a position that runs counter to his political party and against the majority of Utahns -- 70 percent of whom oppose civil unions, according to a recent Salt Lake Tribune poll.

"He's long supported many of the ideas that are presented within the Common Ground Initiative," said Lisa Roskelley, the governor's spokeswoman, noting her boss waits to endorse specific bills officially until presented to him in final form. "He supports civil unions."

It's doubtful Huntsman's backing will lead to civil unions getting past the conservative Legislature. And it may not help the rest of this year's gay-rights legislative push, which already has shrunk from four bills to two.

On Day Two of the 2009 Legislature, a measure died in committee that would have allowed financial dependents -- besides spouses, parents and children -- to sue in the event of a breadwinner's wrongful death.

And last week, Rep. Jackie Biskupski, D-Salt Lake City, ditched her proposal, which would have sought the Legislature's and voters' approval to erase the second part of Amendment 3 -- Utah's constitutional gay-marriage ban -- that forbids civil unions.

Huntsman, who endorsed Amendment 3 when he ran for governor in 2004, now favors repealing that portion, Roskelley said.

She said the governor was unavailable to comment Monday.

Jeff Reynolds, spokesman for the conservative Salt Lake City-based Sutherland Institute think tank, which opposes the Common Ground Initiative, said he's "not surprised" by Huntsman's softened stand.

"He had to be dragged to the altar of Amendment 3," Reynolds said in an e-mail, "and everyone has known since then that Governor Huntsman would rather be nice than right."

Notice that last line of what I quoted -- that Gov. Huntsman would "rather be nice than right." To turn that around, the social-issue ultra-conservatives that have driven the GOP would rather preach hate than accept that a majority of the nation does not stand with them. Curiously, by the way, notice how one of the party's not-so-scary new darlings, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, deftly deals with the question of how to make the GOP more inclusive, even if it means acceding to the center on the question of gay rights:

As for Rush, feh. There's nothing I can add to the discussion of him except to say that I hope his oxycontin supplier keeps him happy.

The Afternoon Report, February 26, 2009

2009-03-02T09:44:00.003-05:00

Ordinarily I would run this feature on the day it appears in my email, but I missed this due to being involved in a multi-day project. Still, I thought it worthy of talking about...

This information, called The Afternoon Report, is provided by a daily email blast from the publicity firm of Boneau Bryan-Brown, which maintains this blog. This feature doesn't run daily but whenever The Afternoon Report seems to point out articles of interest.

Ad strategy at root of Facebook privacy row
Reuters – by Eric Auchard
“While Facebook has outpaced MySpace in bringing in members -- it has 175 million active users at the latest count, compared with around 130 million for MySpace -- it has struggled to make money from them. While MySpace is closing in on $1 billion in revenues, Facebook generated less than $300 million in sales last year, reports say. Indeed, Facebook's efforts to drum up revenue have led to it repeatedly becoming the target of some of the biggest online privacy protests on the Web. Its most recent fight earlier this month followed Facebook's attempt to redefine its own rules and assert ownership over anything its members posted on the site. The company has since backed off and is rethinking its policies.

Facebook encourages advertising that seeks to trigger social interaction between members, in effect using networks of friends for viral marketing of messages. The snag is that rewiring how the site works to make such ads more effective, has actually alienated users. Many regard attempts to make money by passing on their information in subtle ways as positively creepy. While MySpace has been criticized for flooding its member pages with garish advertising, it has never had to rewrite its basic privacy ground rules as a result and is unapologetic for its strategy. The straight ahead commercialism of the site does not provoke mass protests.”
But isn't it true that Facebook has been skewing older and older? Could it be that the MySpace generation hasn't the invasion-of-privacy fears that the Facebook folks have?

And We're Back!

2009-03-02T09:37:00.002-05:00

Apologies to you all for disappearing for a few days. I became embroiled in a project that took up more than 20 billable hours over four days, and frankly I lost the mental capacity to think about much else. The project has ended for now and I'm back to posting. Apologies again for the mysterious vanishing.

Arts Advocacy Update LXXVIII

2009-02-26T13:30:00.001-05:00

The content below is from Americans for the Arts' Cultural Policy Listserv, email blast of February 25, 2009:

Cheap Seats, Staff Cuts Are on Tap for U.S. Nonprofit Theaters
Bloomberg News, 2/20/2009
"U.S. nonprofit theaters are cutting staff and expanding discounts as they anticipate disappointing ticket sales and fundraising, according to a new survey by the Theatre Communications Group."
And yet I don't see Theatre Communications Group formulating a long-term, sustainable solution to the recurring problem of arts funding in the United States. Just give us more NEA funding! By the way, you can link to a PDF of the TCG study here.

First family of arts lovers
Los Angeles Times, 2/24/2009
The Obama family's attendance at an Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater performance at the Kennedy Center "fed increasing hopes among arts advocates that the Obamas would generate a greater buzz for the arts simply by smiling in theater seats or strolling through museum galleries."
First of all, let's be grateful for a President who reads. All else flows from that.

Ailing economy is taking a toll on arts in Rhode Island and the arts scene
Providence Journal (RI), 2/18/2009
"As the economy goes, so go the arts. That was the word yesterday from Randall Rosenbaum, executive director of the Rhode Island State Council on the Arts, who reported that a declining number of arts events is affecting the state’s restaurant and hospitality industry."
And the thing is, Rhode Island has a particularly large and vivid, productive arts scene, so this is especially bad.

Arts district to transform lower Taylor Street
San Francisco Chronicle (CA), 2/21/2009
Three blocks of one of "the seediest stretches" in San Francisco "would become an arts district - some say akin to New York City's SoHo, which became an area of cheap artists' lofts and studios in the 1960s and '70s - under a plan being cobbled together by city officials, landlords, artists and Tenderloin-area nonprofit workers. The transformation gets under way today with the groundbreaking of Gray Area Foundation for the Arts, which is taking over a vacant 4,000-square-foot building that once was a porn theater."
But is there anything like rent stabilization or rent control in San Francisco? How would the artists know that they could hold onto these lofts and studios once the area gentrifies? The story doesn't address that.

Armani Donates $1 Million to Schools
New York Times, 2/17/2009
"The Italian designer and billionaire Giorgio Armani celebrated Fashion Week on Tuesday with the announcement of a $1 million donation to promote arts programs in New York City public schools. The money will be used to create the Armani Arts Institute, an umbrella program that will fund arts initiatives in schools serving some of the city’s most disadvantaged populations."
This is wonderful, of course.

Why Arts Education Is Crucial, and Who's Doing It Best
Edutopia, February 2009
"Arts education has been slipping for more than three decades, the result of tight budgets, an ever-growing list of state mandates that have crammed the classroom curriculum, and a public sense that the arts are lovely but not essential.... Yet against this backdrop, a new picture is emerging. Comprehensive, innovative arts initiatives are taking root in a growing number of school districts. Many of these models are based on new findings in brain research and cognitive development, and they embrace a variety of approaches: using the arts as a learning tool (for example, musical notes to teach fractions); incorporating arts into other core classes (writing and performing a play about, say, slavery); creating a school environment rich in arts and culture (Mozart in the hallways every day) and hands-on arts instruction. Although most of these initiatives are in the early stages, some are beginning to rack up impressive results. This trend may send a message to schools focused maniacally, and perhaps counterproductively, on reading and math."
What this requires is not only teachers but, equally important, parents not being afraid of creativity. If they remain that way, we'll have another generation of culturally ignorant, pointy-headed idiots.

Public, Private Sector Leaders to Present Administration with Recommendations 'To Restore Public Diplomacy as Vital, Viable Element of Smart Power'
PR Newswire, 2/19/2009
"Some seventy men and women, representing a broad spectrum of public diplomacy stakeholders and practitioners, are calling on the Administration and Congress to reinvent and restore public diplomacy as a vital and viable element of 'Smart Power'. The group today issued a set of ten recommendations to guide the new Administration and Congress as they seek to revitalize and adapt public diplomacy in the context of new geopolitical realities and new communications tools. Participants included former and current public diplomacy practitioners and thought leaders from the State and Defense departments, the National Security Council, the White House, the intelligence community, foreign assistance, the arts, academe, business, Capitol Hill, state government, the traditional and new media (including print, broadcast and Internet), think tanks and institutes, NGOs and national private sector citizen diplomacy groups."
Paging Mrs. Clinton...

$5.6M cut from Missouri Arts Council
St. Louis Business Journal, 2/19/2009
"The Missouri Department of Economic Development is withholding nearly $5.6 million from the Missouri Arts Council as the state works to close a $261 million budget shortfall this year."
Funny thing is, that's about five times what California allocates to its state arts agency. At least the proportions in this case make me understand why the actions are being taken, much as I think they're short-sighted and regrettable.

Film tax credit on cutting room floor
Wisconsin Radio Network, 2/19/2009
"Governor Doyle has scrapped the movie tax credit program which was spearheaded by his own Lieutenant Governor and non-profit group Film Wisconsin. It also lured recent filmmakers to produce the Johnny Depp flick 'Public Enemies' in the Badger State. Doyle has an alternative that allots $500,000 in grants for permanent movie making jobs."
Permanent jobs? In Wisconsin? Hey, Jonathan West, what's up with that?

Rounds wants arts money restored
Sioux Falls Argus Leader (SD), 2/19/2009
"The South Dakota Arts Council might live to see another year. Gov. Mike Rounds said Tuesday he will try to keep funding for the South Dakota Arts Council alive in the state's budget because the newly approved federal stimulus package could help free up state money."
A Republican will accept federal stimulus money to save arts funding? The dude is cruising for a GOP bruising.

Taxing situation for New York
Variety, 2/19/2009
After years of watching production lured away by government incentives, California's gotten into the game by approving a five-year $500 million tax credit program. . . . California's program, which goes into effect July 1 with a cap of $100 million annually, will likely strike at the heart of the New York production industry. Even though California's tax credit rates are far below those in some other states -- Michigan offers a whopping 42% credit -- the presence of Hollywood's existing infrastructure and the desire to stay close to home has the potential to reverse more than a decade of runaway production."
As I've always said, it's a race to the bottom, a zero-sum game. Bloomberg and Paterson now have to decide whether it's worth the fight. I would say it is, but I don't have the numbers they have.

Individuals Make Fewer $1-Million Gifts; Grant Makers Help Offset Decline
Chronicle of Philanthropy, 2/25/2009
"Charitable gifts of $1-million or more from individual donors fell by 33 percent in the last half of 2008 compared with the same period in 2007, according to a new analysis of big gifts by researchers at the Indiana University Center on Philanthropy.... On a more positive note, the center, which also tracks foundation and corporate grants of $1-million and up, found that grant makers’ giving was more resilient in the face of last year’s recessionary climate. Foundations actually increased the number of grants of $1-million or more by 10 percent in the last six months of last year, from 500 to 551, and by 16 percent for the entire year. Meanwhile, corporate grants of $1-million or more remained steady, with 146 such grants made in both calendar years."
As everyone knows, I've cut my own million-dollar gift-giving way back...

Arts Leaders Won a $50M Boost in NEA Funding...But the Game is Zero-Sum

2009-02-26T11:00:00.002-05:00

I just came across this great story in the Denver Post. In essence, while the $50 million boost in NEA funding represents a victory for arts advocates who pressed and pressed for so hard for it that ironing out details seems unnecessary, the details, in fact, are abundantly necessary. Now, I should caution by demonstrating that the focus of the piece is on what portion of that $50 million will actually affect Colorado arts. So let me put that on the table from the piece:

Colorado is guaranteed a share of the $50 million set aside for the arts in the $787 billion federal stimulus package, but no one knows exactly how much or when the funds might start flowing….

Victoria Hutter, a spokeswoman for the National Endowment for the Arts, which is responsible for distributing the $50 million, said the agency hopes to post funding guidelines in early or mid-March….

What is known so far is that 40 percent of the stimulus money for the arts will go to state arts agencies and the country's six regional arts agencies, including the Western States Arts Federation. They will then redistribute those allocations via their existing funding channels.

Elaine Mariner, executive director of the Colorado Council on the Arts, estimates that it could receive at least $100,000 to $200,000.

Here's the catch:

But rather than boost the agency's budget, the added federal funds will likely just help make up for an expected cut to its state funding of 25 percent or more. This year, the council received $1.6 million in state appropriations and $733,000 from the National Endowment for the Arts.

So even my arguments for the funding -- which I oppose because I feel our arts advocates are not thinking in terms of long-term, sustainable funding for the arts, preferring instead to act like pathetic paupers with their palms outstretched for alms -- don't make sense in this case because you can't fall back on the economic impact argument if you've giving with one hand and taking away with the other. The federal government is just making up for state shortfalls. How awful. You won't see our arts advocates talking about that, though. That would require them to develop a vision.

And while we're at it, at least Bill Ivey is acknowledging the problem:

In all, Colorado arts organizations will likely receive several hundred thousand dollars in added funding, which will have a significant impact, said Stephen Seifert, executive director of the Newman Center for the Performing Arts and a board member of the advocacy organization Arts for Colorado.

"In a time when everybody is having to cut back, and corporate and individual giving is down," he said, "this will replace some of the money that these organizations would otherwise have counted on and might keep some people employed. Every dollar counts. I don't know how else to put it."

I should add that the Denver Post article talks about how hard it was to convince certain folks in Congress that arts funding makes good fiscal sense. Of course it is; I honor those who worked so hard to stress that point and stress that point. But what I'm getting at is something beyond that. What are we going to do fiscally to ensure -- sorry, I've got to use the term again -- long-term sustainable funding for the arts? Hello?

Parenthetically, the Denver Post also ran a story lamenting the death of print critics. Unless it went unreported (which is possible), I was saddened to see Todd London, who is executive director of New Dramatists and is one of the nicest and savviest people out there, not seem to understand what the birth and ongoing maturation of the theatrosphere means to criticism. He should open his eyes and investigate. Fast.

Would Broadway Allow Photo Taking in the Name of Viral Marketing?

2009-02-26T09:00:00.000-05:00

Amanda Ameer's fun blog Life's a Pitch had an interesting post yesterday that is all about what us old-school fogies would call courtesy and decorum at public performances. This means, among other things, dressing a certain way, applauding or laughing as the performance may incite or require, leaving meals in the restaurant where they belong, keeping beeping and buzzing and burring objects on mute and shutting the hell up when people are on stage doing whatever it is they do. Unfortunately, as Amanda points out and as everyone pretty much acknowledges, the ideas of courtesy and decorum are extinct, like passenger pigeons. Read this:

I was sitting in the last row of the orchestra at Alice Tully last night and, at one point during a performance, the woman to my left leaned back and loud-whispered to an usher, "There's someone taking pictures down there!", gesturing to her right dramatically. No sooner had the dutiful usher trotted off to investigate the situation did the woman to my left whip out her iPhone and take a photo herself.

Bold, madam.

[That would be seat Z104, if anyone from Lincoln Center is reading.]

During the final bows, my tricky left-neighbor took another iPhone photo, and this time, the usher told her to stop, so she first took the picture and then turned off the phone. If I were the usher, I might have said, "Ma'am, I'm gonna need to delete that photo..." and then mistakenly deleted her contacts. Simultaneously, the woman to my right busted out her camera equivalent of Zach Morris' cell phone and took a flash photo! The usher asked her to stop, at which point she implored, "But I'm a critic." and waved scribbled notes on her program in his face. (Keep in mind, this was all happening while the Chamber Music Society was playing.) I was going to point out that, as a Publicity Professional, I can safely say we were not in press seats, but I thought it best not to cause a scene while on the new hall's maiden voyage.

Aside from the fact that Amanda references the main character in Saved By the Bell, she goes on to wonder whether turning up her proud nose at the dastardly insouciance of those photo takers is actually ignoring something that could be vital to the renaissance of live performance. Read:

On the train ride home, I found myself wondering why I was being so rigid. What is actually the problem with audience members taking non-flash photos at performances? Flashes distract performers, but iPhone/Blackberry/camera phone photos are very discreet: they're silent and flashless. A second potential problem is that the artists don't have approval of photos that are taken during concerts then posted who knows where, but shouldn't performers be thrilled that someone was enjoying the experience of them playing enough to want to preserve a memory of it? We take photos when we like something, when we want to remember something or when we want to share our personal experiences with others. With that in mind, how can taking photos at concerts be against the rules? And if the photos end up on blogs or Flickr, or videos are posted on YouTube or Vimeo, what damage is done? If anything, a positive concert experience at your venue is being advertised. By prohibiting photos, presenters are essentially preventing audiences from doing the viral marketing leg-work for them.

Now, let's just be clear: the day Actors' Equity allows people sitting in Broadway houses to take photographs of actors in performance, even if they're without flash and silent as a mouse, is the day we can safely assume Armageddon has arrived. So this is really more of a theoretical question than an action item, at least for now. Is the desire among audience members to take photos of their experience (let's just forget for a moment how uncouth and obnoxious it is for a press person to do it) the kind of impulse that could, under certain circumstances, be turned into a powerful example of viral marketing? "Dear Aunt Ruth, this is me at the theatre watching Julia Roberts!" Is it so crazy? What if the rules are made so that the performers are protected and the audience thus empowered? What does live performance gain by denying audiences the ability to share in the moment in some way, to document their experience, to thwart the inherently temporal nature of the experience? I do realize that if everyone takes photos, you don't need souvenir programs, for example. Or do you? Is there a corrolation that one negates the other?

I mean, sure, part of this makes my stomach turn. But it makes you wonder.

What? Market the Humanities? Make Their Study Job-Oriented? Oh, Stop!

2009-02-26T06:00:00.000-05:00

Courtesy of my friend Susan Hefti of the 93rd Street Beautification Association, I was led to this story by Patricia Cohen in the Tuesday Times. I won't reiterate what the intellectual and philosophical rationale for offering humanities studies at universities is and has always been; my degree from NYU was in Liberal Arts with a concentration in theatre. But this paragraph kind of stunned me:

But in this new era of lengthening unemployment lines and shrinking university endowments, questions about the importance of the humanities in a complex and technologically demanding world have taken on new urgency. Previous economic downturns have often led to decreased enrollment in the disciplines loosely grouped under the term “humanities” — which generally include languages, literature, the arts, history, cultural studies, philosophy and religion. Many in the field worry that in this current crisis those areas will be hit hardest.

And frankly, this paragraph later in the piece stunned me -- and is probably continuing to stun, if not threaten, the academic establishment that doesn't much live in the real world in the first place:

The study of the humanities evolved during the 20th century “to focus almost entirely on personal intellectual development,” said Richard M. Freeland, the Massachusetts commissioner of higher education. “But what we haven’t paid a lot of attention to is how students can put those abilities effectively to use in the world. We’ve created a disjunction between the liberal arts and sciences and our role as citizens and professionals.”

Yep, people needs jobs, people. And that doesn't always necessarily mean jobs in the academy where the academy's perpetuation is what is taught and learned and demonstrated. Sad to read this story, but amen.

New Article: 'Our Town' Hits Off-Broadway

2009-02-25T23:23:00.004-05:00

For Edge Chicago.

Here's the tease:

In late January, the Chicago Tribune reported that local theatres "remain resilent" despite the recession. In New York, too, Broadway is putting on a brave face, with an unusually high number of productions opening this spring.

This leaves the rest of New York’s theatrical strata -- Off-Off-Broadway, which struggles even in boom times, and Off-Broadway, encompassing institutional nonprofits and a handful of commercial houses -- to ride out the storm. Especially for commercial efforts, we’re talking small casts, single- or no-set shows, and maybe a two-star name to pique the tourists.

Then there’s Scott Morfee, the commercial producer who operates Off-Broadway’s Barrow Street Theatre, who opens an open-ended run of David Cromer’s revival of Thornton Wilder’s "Our Town" this Thursday. The production has a New York cast and is based on the director’s widely acclaimed Chicago revival at the Hypocrites last spring. Given the project’s size, Morfee is clearly taking extraordinary financial risks.

"I don’t know the final number of union contracts we’re offering, but it’s 19 roles plus all the understudies, so we’re at least at 23 Equity contracts and that number will probably go higher," Morfee says. What’s more, the Barrow Street, an intimate house, has been totally reconfigured to accommodate Cromer’s vision, with just 150 seats available per performance.

The Afternoon Report, February 25, 2009

2009-02-25T22:40:00.002-05:00

Live Blogging: President Obama's Address to Congress

2009-02-24T18:16:00.003-05:00

UPDATE: The link for the live-blogging I'll be doing on Fox is:

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/02/24/obama_address/

That's right -- Fox News has asked me to live-blog the President's address to Congress tonight, starting at 8:55pm. I will post again with the specific website link once I have it.

Sorry, too, for not posting for a few days. Been knee-deep in assignments and stuff. Forgive me!

Socks, 1989-2009

2009-02-21T14:05:00.003-05:00

Meow.

NYU Siege Concludes with Arrests; Pres. John Sexton, VP Lynne Brown Choose Suspensions, Not Murder

2009-02-21T11:31:00.001-05:00

Well, the siege of my alma mater, NYU, is finally over, with the university once again living up to its reputation for negotiating in bad faith. I encourage anyone who knows how underhanded the vile administration of President John Sexton has been to keep a good eye on Take Back NYU.

Frankly, I was waiting for Sexton to order his security goons to simply burst into the cafeteria and go all Virginia Tech on the protesters. I wouldn't put it past him: there is no tactic too low for the man. Oh, and what's with trotting out Lynne Brown, vice president of university relations, to tell the protesters -- via the rolling cameras -- "You are now suspended. You have to leave NYU," as if NYU owns the public streets of the university? Pure evil. What will Brown do? Bar them from Washington Square Park? Bar them from LaGuardia Place? Let them try. If Lynne Brown thirsts for violence in the streets, they may well get their wish. I hope it doesn't come to that. The students want fiduciary transparency -- what is Sexton hiding?

Also, what does "suspended" mean? Is this high school?

This is the list of the board of trustees of NYU. Concerned students, faculty and alumni should be pelting these folks with letters and emails, don't you think? If someone organizes it, I'll help.

State Arts Funding as a Whole? Down, Down, Down Across the Nation

2009-02-20T10:30:00.000-05:00

I've come across this press release from the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies.

Basically:

Legislative appropriations to state arts agencies decreased by 3.3% in fiscal year 2009, according to the Legislative Appropriations Annual Survey published by the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies (NASAA). Between fiscal years 2008 and 2009, state arts agencies lost $11.6 million in state funds, leaving total legislative appropriations to state arts agencies at $343.1 million, or $1.12 per capita.

Fiscal year 2009 marks a decline in legislative appropriations, following four consecutive years of increases. The number of states experiencing increases (21) and decreases (24) were approximately equal, while a handful of major decreases accounted for the aggregate percent decline. The most significant cuts took place in Florida, South Carolina and New Jersey.

Click on the link above and go to page 3 for a great list of which states appropriated what.

Arts Advocacy Update LXXVII

2009-02-20T09:30:00.000-05:00

The content below is from Americans for the Arts' Cultural Policy Listserv, email blast of February 18, 2009:

A (Half-Price) Night at the Opera
Wall Street Journal, 2/14/2009
"Many cultural groups, hit hard by the recession, are slashing prices at the box office. It's a controversial tactic in the arts world, where profits are always hard-won. But by offering low prices on high culture, the new crop of deals provide an attractive access point, especially for casual fans."
And isn't that better, sociologically, in the long-run? I mean, half the problem is the ineffectiveness of the arts, generally, in luring people to live performance.

New Smithsonian chief sees technological future
Los Angeles Times, 2/17/2009
Wayne Clough, the new secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, says "We need to make our collections, talented scholars and other resources accessible worldwide by providing additional platforms and vehicles for educating and inspiring large audiences.... Our job is to authenticate and inform the significance of the collections, not to control access to them. It is no longer acceptable for us to share only 1% of our 137 million specimens and artifacts in an age when the Internet has made it possible to share it all."
Will we need stimulus money to pay for that? Hire me!

Verdi With Popcorn, and Trepidation
New York Times, 2/15/2009
"Thanks largely to the efforts of the Metropolitan Opera, hundreds of thousands of people worldwide are seeing live opera performances in movie theaters, and many others in repeat showings.... [But] a few voices have raised concerns about long-term effects on the art form. The dissenters say that the movement will lead to more conservative programming; that the voice will become subservient to appearance; that listeners will be trained to hear something electronic and lose an appreciation for a live experience. Some worry that vocal training will change, de-emphasizing the ability to project, and that the Met’s effort is a deal with the Devil, because it will divert audiences from local opera houses to make the easier, cheaper trip to the mall."
Well, the live-experience fear is certainly valid. That said, I think if you combine smart marketing with this trend -- see three operas on screen, get one ticket free -- it could be more than adequately addressed.

Officials favor turning facility into arts center
New Haven Register (CT), 2/16/2009
In West Haven, CT, "[l]ocal and state leaders have thrown their support behind a proposal to spend $1.2 million on renovating the old Masonic Temple on Center Street into the West Haven Cultural Arts Center. Mayor John M. Picard and City Councilman Edward M. O’Brien, D-At Large, are among those calling for state legislators to authorize bonds for the project, even as the state faces serious budget woes.... 'I think the arts center is not only important for the arts but also as an economic development driver,' Picard said."
And in West Haven in particular, that's quite true. Connecticut tends to be rather enlightened about the arts.

Asia still likes America
International Herald Tribune, 2/17/2009
"Unlike in the rest of the world, America's reputation in Asia remains robust. New evidence suggests that in East Asia, U.S. 'soft power' - the power to persuade others to do what you want them to do by attraction rather than coercion - has actually increased over the past eight years. Despite China's rise, the United States remains the leading source of soft power in the region.... When separated into categories, the United States led China in four measured areas - political, diplomatic, human capital and economic - while China led the United States in one - cultural."
How will Obama and Clinton transform the cultural export programs of the State Department? That's the question this story raises for me.

Barack and Slumdog
Huffington Post, 2/17/2009
"Unlike most countries, we are seen not only for what we are and what we do, but through the images we project globally through pop music, TV shows and Hollywood films.... If politics in the information age is about whose story wins, then, given this reality, America's storytellers -- Hollywood -- have a starring role in defining America's presence globally. For that reason, they ought to to be recruited for the new 'smart power' campaign, which must be two-fold -- projecting America abroad and projecting knowledge of others to ourselves at home."
Exactly. I refer, in fact, to the comment I posted just above.

Copyright reform unlikely, advocates say
CNet News.com, 2/11/2009
"With a new administration and a Democratic Congress, now is the time to overhaul copyright law, advocates for reform said Wednesday--but the complex nature of the issue makes copyright legislation nearly as unrealistic as ever. Representatives of songwriters and the recording industry faced off against open Internet advocates at the Future of Music Coalition's Policy Day here in Washington, demonstrating the entrenched divisions that remain within Democratic constituencies over copyright issues.... Yet even with bank bailout plans and billion-dollar efforts at economic recovery keeping lawmakers busy, the climate in Washington may finally be right for copyright and intellectual property reform. The House Judiciary Committee this year elevated intellectual property issues from the jurisdiction of a subcommittee to the full committee because of increased interest in the matter."
It's not just in the music industry -- it's literature and fair-use issues, too. I don't get the sense that they're looking for compromise, so I tend to agree -- Congress is not about to wade into this and get egg on its face. Let the parties battle it out for a little while longer first.

Arts advocates oppose Pawlenty’s budget proposal
Rosemount Town Pages, 2/17/2009
"Pawlenty is proposing to cut the [Minnesota] Arts Board and regional councils by 50 percent over the next two years - which [theater director Sean] Dowse called 'a disproportionate burden' - and then eliminate the Arts Board after 2011." Although Minnesota passed the Legacy Amendment in 2008, "the amendment states that 'the dedicated money ... must supplement traditional sources of funding for these purposes and may not be used as a substitute.'"
Ugh. Republicans.

Arts Council faces 23% cut in budget
Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY), 2/15/2009
"Grappling with a proposed 23 percent cut in its operating budget, the Kentucky Arts Council faces considerable pressure in maintaining its mission of serving 120 counties in the state."
Ugh. Kentucky.

California Beckons Film Crews
New York Times, 2/16/2009
"Not long ago, location filming in and around Los Angeles was viewed as a nuisance to be suffered with traffic on the San Diego Freeway and the occasional minor earthquake. But it dwindled as states like New Mexico, Louisiana and Michigan used tax incentives to lure film production, while California declined to play the subsidy game.... But that may change. On Monday the state’s legislators and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger continued to debate a budget proposal that included $100 million a year in tax credits for so-called below-the-line spending — payments other than those to the stars and filmmakers — on certain movies and television shows in the state."
That's what, $100M more than the appropriation for the California Arts Council? I exaggerate, I know.

Fundraising losses to state arts and culture groups could top $300M
Crain's Detroit (MI), 3/13/2009
"The loss of $6.1 million in state funding for arts and culture will impact arts groups’ ability to leverage federal funding and match grants in a big way. In fact, it could cause Michigan groups to lose opportunities to raise more than fifty times that amount - or a combined $310 million - through local match grants, said new ArtServe President Jennifer Goulet. Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s budget for the upcoming fiscal year, announced Thursday, eliminates all operational support for arts and culture but includes $1 million for capital improvement grants to those groups. It also calls for transfer of the Michigan Council for Arts and Cultural Affairs and its staff to the Michigan Economic Development Corp., and the closure of the state Department of History, Arts and...
Here we go again -- it's the economic-impact question. People have got to make the case and stop advocating just for NEA handouts.

House Committee to Hold Hearings on Benefits of the Arts
ARTINFO, 2/13/2009
"U.S. Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, announced last week that the committee would hold a series of hearings this spring to examine how the arts benefit the nation's economy and schools, and what can be done to help support them during the economic downturn."
I'll be keeping an eye on this.

Is this any time to increase arts funding?
Crosscut (Seattle, WA), 2/16/2009
"Can the argument that arts funding is instant stimulus prevail against all the better-organized pressure groups trying to retain funding during hard times? There are three tests for the [Washington state] Governor and the Legislature. One is increasing funding for the State Arts Commission.... A second is securing some of the expiring stadium taxes for King County's arts-funding organization, called 4Culture.... The third test is a sleeper bill (HB 166 in the House, SB 5786 in the Senate) that would enable local counties to pass a tenth-of-a-cent increase in local sales tax to fund arts and cultural organizations (including such things as zoos, botanical gardens, history museums, and science museums)."
Thank you! Great story.

The Arts Need Better Arguments
Wall Street Journal, 2/18/2009
Classical music critic Greg Sandow offers a sober assessment of the fight for fifty million NEA dollars in the economic stimulus bill. The arts, he says, are not unique in generating economic impact. Further, as charities for the homeless and poor face cuts, some argue that "the arts have a lot of money, and that they largely serve an upscale audience." Although such statements may not be true, "let's not underestimate how persistent those perceptions are, especially when reality at least partly seems to back them up.... The arts are going to need a better strategy. And in the end it's going to have to come from art itself, from the benefits art brings, in a world where popular culture -- which has gotten smart and serious -- also helps bring depth and meaning to our lives. That's the kicker: the popular culture part. Once we figure that out, we can leave our shaky arguments behind and really try to prove we matter."
Well, no one said the arts are "unique in generating economic impact." The real question, Greg Sandow, is whether the GOP is prepared to attack or discount an economic sector putting $166 billion into the economy. It's not that the arts need better arguments -- the GOP needs finer arguments against it. And the left needs to stop looking to Congress for a $50M NEA boost and start thinking in terms of a long-term strategy for arts funding.

Charities Fear New Pay Limits Will Hurt Executive Donations
Wall Street Journal, 2/17/2009
"Nonprofits already face the prospect of fewer donations amid turmoil at Wall Street firms and other companies. Now, they could face another donation deterrent: Washington's plans to curb executive pay. Americans gave more than $300 billion to charity in 2007, according to the most recent figures. Some of the largest gifts from that pot have come from wealthy Wall Street bosses. Now nonprofit leaders, especially in and around New York's financial hub, are worried these big donors could feel squeezed further amid government edicts to limit pay packages."
Of course it will! But we're in a depression/recession. Them's the breaks. Why should nonprofits fight for captains of industry to take taxpayer money and give a portion of it to them?

What Do the NYU Protesters Want?

2009-02-19T23:56:00.004-05:00

I received a press release and a list of demands from the NYU protesters tonight. Here is what they say, and what they're asking for. Knowing NYU President John Sexton, who'd rather tear down the Provincetown Playhouse all the while that his own son is an actor, he'll give into nothing and harm the students.

If he or anyone else at NYU harms the students physically or academically, he should be prepared for any eventuality.

This information is courtesy of Emily Stainkamp, one of the two press spokespeople for Take Back NYU:

STUDENTS: NYU REFUSES TO NEGOTIATE, STALLS ON STUDENT OCCUPATION

NYU's administration refuses any face-to-face contact with student occupation, drawing out Take Back NYU!'s occupation that is currently making national news. Members of occupation are calling a press conference to demand student participation in negotiations and university decisions.

Occupied Kimmel Center on Washington Square Park, New York City (2/19/09) –

Students participating in Take Back NYU!'s occupation of NYU's Kimmel Center called for NYU's Administration to finally offer acceptable conditions for face-to-face negotiations with the occupation. NYU refuses to look students in the eye about its policies towards the occupation and its demands.

Throughout the occupation Take Back NYU! made it clear that good-faith negotiations are a condition to the occupation's end. NYU has only made one empty offer of faux negotiations after the end of the occupation.

Members of Take Back NYU! called a press conference for 5pm ET outside the Kimmel Center to demand NYU enter negotiations. The policy of stonewalling students continues NYU's legacy of inaction and obstinacy regarding student democracy and human rights at NYU – the occupation offers the administration a chance to improve its public image and stance on these key issues.

During the press conference, students will propose expansion of pressure on the university to encourage the administration to come to the table over Take Back NYU! demands regarding student democracy and human rights at NYU.

The occupation, which began at 10pm on Feb. 18th with the seizure of the 3rd floor of the Kimmel Center has made news across the country and received declarations of support from universities across the world. NYU's Administration refuses to allow the students of the occupation a place at negotiations, instead relying on threats and intransigence to try to end Take Back NYU!'s campaign.

WHAT: Take Back NYU! Occupation Press Conference to Demand Negotiations
WHEN: 5pm, Feburary 19, 2009
WHERE: Outside the occupied Kimmel Center, 60 Washington Square South.

And this, according to Stainkamp, is the list of the students demands. (For the record, I do not agree with all of these -- this is simply what they're demanding.)

We the students, in order to create a more accountable, democratic and socially responsible university, demand the following:

1. Full legal and disciplinary amnesty for all parties involved in the [sleepover].

2. Full compensation for all employees whose jobs were disrupted during the course of the [sleepover].

3. Full disclosure of the endowment and operating budget, published quarterly on NYUs website.

4. Full union rights for all university employees including graduate students, and collective bargaining rights for work study students.

That NYU signs a contract guaranteeing fair labor practices for all NYU employees at home and abroad. This contract will extend to subcontracted workers, including bus drivers, food service employees and anyone involved in the construction, operation and maintenance at any of NYU's non-U.S. sites.

5. The establishment of a student elected Socially Responsible Finance Committee. This Committee will have full power to vote on proxies, draft shareholder resolutions, screen all university investments, establish new programs that encourage social and environmental responsibility and override all financial decisions the committee deems socially irresponsible, including investment decisions. The committee will be composed of two subcommittees: one to assess the operating budget and one to assess the endowment holdings. Each committee will be composed of ten students democratically elected from the graduate and under-graduate student bodies. All committee decisions will be made a strict majority vote, and will be upheld by the university. All members of the Socially Responsible Finance Committee will sit on the board of trustees, and will have equal voting rights. All Socially Responsible Finance Committee and Trustee meetings shall be open to the public, and their minutes made accessible electronically through NYU’s website. Elections will be held the second Tuesday of every March beginning March 10th 2009, and meetings will be held biweekly beginning the week of March 30th 2009.

6. That the first two orders of business of the Socially Responsible Finance committee will be:

a) An in depth investigation of all investments in war and genocide profiteers, as well as companies profiting from the occupation of Palestinian territories.

b) A reassessment of the recently lifted of the ban on Coca Cola products.

7. That scholarships be provided for twelve Palestinian students for the 2009/2010 academic year. These scholarships will include funding for books, housing, meals and travel expenses.

8. That the university donates all excess supplies and materials in an effort to rebuild the University of Gaza.

9. That all university senate resolutions be binding, and all Senate meetings open to the public. Senate minutes shall also be made accessible electronically through NYUs website.

10. Tuition stabilization for all students, beginning with the class of 2012. All students will pay their initial tuition rate throughout the course of their education at New York University. Tuition rates for each successive year will not exceed the rate of inflation, nor shall they exceed one percent. The university shall meet 100% of government-calculated student financial need.

Stay tuned.

NYU Students Protest the Opaque Fiscal Skullduggery of President John Sexton

2009-02-19T23:48:00.002-05:00

I won't lie: this story about the NYU students storming and holding the Kimmel Center has me jumping for joy. Go NYU kids! Storm the barricades -- but always be peaceful and law-abiding. Very important.

Here's a tease:

NYU Students Barricaded Up To Protest Budget
Demonstrators Block Doors With Furniture, Call For Greater Transparency In Finances Via Live Webcam; Call For 13 Scholarships A Year For Students From Gaza

Dozens of students barricaded themselves inside NYU's student union cafeteria on Thursday, demanding increased transparency of the school's finances.

The protest is being held inside the third floor cafeteria of the Kimmel Student Center. The action began Wednesday night, at around 10 p.m., by some 70 students from NYU and other city universities.

The group has issued a series of demands, but as of early Thursday evening there had been no negotiations.

On Thursday afternoon, there were students on the outside who said they would join – if they could.

"We tried, but they have guards in front of the escalator who won't let you in," student Nora Boronkay said.

The group inside is a coalition who call themselves "Take Back NYU." Members pushed tables and chairs against doors, and the group has a live webcam posted on its Web site.

For the Take Back NYU site, click here.

New Review: Mourning Becomes Electra

2009-02-19T20:22:00.004-05:00

For Back Stage.

Here's the review:

In director Scott Elliott's revival of Eugene O'Neill's comedy Mourning Becomes Electra—wait a minute. This isn't a comedy. It's a tragedy, a trilogy, 13 acts in all, about a family violently disintegrating after the Civil War, a conscious, monumental remaking of Aeschylus' Oresteia with American values, faces, and voices. Why did the audience laugh?

First, forgetting the Aeschylus-O'Neill parallels, audiences know soap operas when they see them, and Mourning Becomes Electra is that if nothing else. Indeed, unless the performance I saw was dense with Ancient Greek theatre scholars, the audience intuited that Christine Mannon (the curious Lili Taylor) is an updated Clytemnestra, the radicalized wife of Agamemnon, who here is called Ezra Mannon (Mark Blum, in finest fettle). Christine doesn't love Ezra, so in his wartime absence she took up with Captain Adam Brant (the charming if miscast Anson Mount), the illegitimate Mannon cousin blamed for a family curse.

With the blue and gray armies ceasing fire, Ezra returns home to Christine in Boston. There, daughter Lavinia (Jena Malone, in a scorching performance) openly hates her mother but loves her father—an Electra complex that reflects O'Neill's desire to place psychoanalysis under the elms of his drama. Also homeward bound is brother Orin (a too callow Joseph Cross), who adores Christine and vice versa. He's the Orestes—the Oedipal complex—of the play.

Second, while audiences do laugh during O'Neill plays—the last Broadway revival of Long Day's Journey Into Night offered surprising mirth—they do so at Mourning because this tempestuous vessel feels at sea. If you asked me for Elliott's insight into O'Neill's masterwork, I couldn't answer your question. Even with a 250-minute running time (the lobby sign says four hours and 30 minutes), the revival has a manic quality, with actors often racing at subtlety's expense. This is a jolt in Taylor's case, as her Christine is a fascinating portrait in schizophrenia. The original 1931 production ran five hours, but shorter in this case doesn't guarantee satisfaction.

As in the Oresteia plays after Agamemnon—The Libation Bearers and The Eumenides—horrors ensue. Lavinia, aware of Christine's affair with Brant and maybe jealous of it, tries blackmailing her mother; Christine tempts fate by slaying Ezra. Using skullduggery, Lavinia persuades the disbelieving Orin of his mother's evil, and soon he slays his mother and Adam. Now alone, Lavinia and Orin might wed two local siblings, Peter (Patrick Mapel) and Hazel (Phoebe Strole), but the Mannon curse devolves onto them. Of Mourning's three plays—Homecoming, The Hunted, and The Haunted—it's the later acts of the latter two that offer pain, fresh as a paper cut, as Orin and Lavinia vie for revenge, dominance, and a final exorcism of Mannon demons.

The play is hobbled with problems Elliott doesn't address, such as the aged gardener Seth (a kindly Robert Hogan) and his endless intoning of an old sea shanty and the Greek chorus–like declamations of faceless townsfolk. Derek McLane's set, recalling a Greek skene as O'Neill imagined; Susan Hilferty's trim period costumes; and Jason Lyons' macabre lighting do unmoor Mourning from its scholarly roots. But it needs a director consistent in his use of space, as we never glimpse the interior of the Mannon manse. Unfortunately, Elliott repeatedly violates his own conventions. It's part of a pattern of nonguidance over which we may laugh or mourn.

New Review: Telephone

2009-02-19T20:00:00.004-05:00

For New York Press.

Here's the review:

With This Ring
Telephone is a long distance from reality

Some people in journalism -- and everyone in academia -- consider it lame to mention Wikipedia. I hope I’ll be forgiven in this instance, as the word “disambiguation,” which springs up often on the site and refers to the process by which, say, a computer distinguishes between multiple meanings of the same word by dint of context and syntax, kept coming to mind during Telephone, the new play by poet Ariana Reines produced by the Foundry Theatre.

Directed with a teasing, mildly provocative hand by Ken Rus Schmoll, the play is inspired by Avital Ronell’s The Telephone Book: Technology, Schizophrenia and Electric Speech, a philosophical inquiry into how wire communication disorients and reorients the user. Reines’ conceit is a meditative triptych probing how the same object, the telephone, can be defined differently through time -- thus, “disambiguation.”

It begins with Alexander Graham Bell (Gibson Frazier) and Thomas A.Watson (Matthew Dellapina) appearing in a tableau redolent of the final, frightening moment of a horror film. Their dialogue is circular, and it quickly tests the mettle of the audience as Bell quizzes Watson as to the exact sequence of events that led to the fateful moment the telephone was proven to work. Their banter is jocular and scholarly, but it also has a tone that feels menacing, as if there’s something deeply disconcerting operating beneath it. Together the characters boast a music-hall quality: You expect some top-hat-and-cane action, a little soft-shoe or perhaps a thrilling barbershop trio before their stint on stage is complete.

Notably, Marsha Ginsberg’s set design consists entirely of a freestanding wall with a door. On the wall is the drawing of an owl -- nice metaphorical touch -- and what we are to believe was the first telephone. To give the dialogue energy and thrust, Schmoll directs Frazier and Dellapina to amble around the wall but at all times seemingly arbitrarily and without motivation; it’s as if we are to be prevented from developing a concrete sense as to where we are or what may have called these dotty men back to the room where history was made. Indeed, the actors are ordered, together or separately, to vanish behind the wall entirely for brief periods, as if they’re in a constant state of suspended inanimation. A dull, throbbing dramatic entropy descends as Bell and Watson indulge in cant -- or was it Kant? But at least their chatter has a theme, a thread. In the darkness between the first and second scene, the wall rises. When the lights return, Miss St. (Birgit Huppuch) -- yes, the same curious schizophrenic treated by Carl Jung, who believed she had a telephone inside of her -- is standing atop the table where the mockup telephone had been, and now Bell and Watson have gone behind the wall for good. What follows now is a monologue of colossal proportions: 20 minutes, if I had to make a guess, although it felt like 30 and might easily have been 15. What Miss St. says is genuinely unremarkable but for the fact that it’s a fugue for tin cans and a string. Just imagine everything a late 19th-century telephone operator might have heard in her ear during a month of work, reorganized and laid out as an unceasing assault of verbiage.

Huppuch, just to make it clear, indeed had to memorize this barrage of blather, so that bravura fear is what the scene finally becomes about. Bedecked in Carol Bailey’s Victorian-style dress (I’d have given her a bigger bustle), Huppuch intakes tremendous breaths like desperate, heaving gasps, and simply surrenders to the illogic of the words, managing to render moments of light and shade, of comedy and tragedy, inlaid with lots of irony as she just plows right through it. As an example of acting technique, it’s remarkably well done. The problem is that we intuit the point of the scene about midway through, and a language monsoon can only enthrall and dowse you for only so long. Also, does the telephone make people schizophrenic? While we ponder that, it’s time for the capstone on the evening. Between the second and third scenes, the freestanding wall has been raised so it hangs perhaps seven or eight feet horizontally above the stage. In an example of lighting designer Tyler Micoleau’s inventiveness in the intimate confines of the Cherry Lane Theatre, the final scene consists of dimly lit tableaux that features all three of the actors. Overhead is heard a series of interlocking cell-phone calls in which people profess their love -- or become highly needy about doing so. It is, at last, a 21st-century moment, with all the non-drama you can imagine.

Schmoll doesn’t ask the actors to gaze at their navels during this sequence, but given that we can only discern mild shadows and poses, we wouldn’t know it if they did. I’d offer an analysis of what the final scene means, but call waiting just clicked in. Bye.

The Afternoon Report, February 19, 2009

2009-02-19T19:30:00.000-05:00

Amtrak Guest Rewards Joins Forces with Audience Rewards Points Program
BROADWAY WORLD – BY BWW NEWS DESK
“Amtrak Guest Rewards and Audience Rewards, the Official Loyalty Program of Broadway, announced an exciting new marketing partnership designed to promote and make theatre more accessible to Amtrak Guest Rewards members. Starting today, members of Amtrak's program can transfer their points into Audience Rewards ShowPoints and Audience Rewards members can convert their ShowPoints to Amtrak Guest Rewards points.

"Amtrak is a critical marketing partner for Broadway given the access and reach it provides to potential theatre goers from major markets such at Boston, Providence, New Haven, Philadelphia, and the Washington D.C. area. We believe this partnership will create exciting marketing opportunities for producers to reach new customers and for loyal Amtrak users to experience the magic of Broadway through special offers, ticket awards using their Amtrak points, and truly unique theatre experiences," said Josh Lesnick, CEO and President of Audience Rewards.

Partnership Details
• Membership in both programs is required for members to exchange their points.
• Points can be exchanged between programs on a one-to-one ratio.
• Audience Rewards' free ticket awards start at 2,800 points. Amtrak free ticket awards start at 1,000 points.
• Amtrak Guest Rewards members will be offered opportunities to experience unique access to "behind the scenes" Broadway events, previews, and special Amtrak-only award redemption options.
• Audience Rewards members will receive special offers from Amtrak that deliver value and savings for people who want to visit New York City and see a show.”
I'd love to see statistics on how many specifically Broadway-bound theatergoers there are.

New Article: Obama’s Foreclosure Fix — What’s McCain Thinking Today?

2009-02-18T17:48:00.004-05:00

The Fox Forum asked me today if I'd be interested in writing something about the housing stabilization plan offered by the President, and here is what I wrote. It's very short, but I think it does make the point.

Here's the tease:

The proactive and progressive nature of President Obama’s plan should give Senator McCain a bit of pause, for it was he, let’s recall, who placed squarely within the center of the national spotlight his belief that the recovery of the economy would not be possible without the immediate stabilization of the housing market.

For the rest (just a little bit), click here.

Obama Unveiling Foreclosure and Housing Stabilization Plan Today

2009-02-18T11:29:00.005-05:00

I have in my possession an advance copy of the speech President Obama is due to deliver later today in Arizona, announcing his plan to forestall more foreclosures in the national housing market and thereby begin to stabilize the housing situation.

The speech itself was embargoed until 9am EST this morning; he's delivering the speech at 12:15. Here it is:

I’m here today to talk about a crisis unlike any we’ve ever known – but one that you know very well here in Mesa, and throughout the Valley. In Phoenix and its surrounding suburbs, the American Dream is being tested by a home mortgage crisis that not only threatens the stability of our economy but also the stability of families and neighborhoods. It is a crisis that strikes at the heart of the middle class: the homes in which we invest our savings, build our lives, raise our families, and plant roots in our communities.

So many Americans have shared with me their personal experiences of this crisis. Many have written letters or emails or shared their stories with me at rallies and along rope lines. Their hardship and heartbreak are a reminder that while this crisis is vast, it begins just one house – and one family – at a time.

It begins with a young family – maybe in Mesa, or Glendale, or Tempe – or just as likely in suburban Las Vegas, Cleveland, or Miami. They save up. They search. They choose a home that feels like the perfect place to start a life. They secure a fixed-rate mortgage at a reasonable rate, make a down payment, and make their mortgage payments each month. They are as responsible as anyone could ask them to be.

But then they learn that acting responsibly often isn’t enough to escape this crisis. Perhaps someone loses a job in the latest round of layoffs, one of more than three and a half million jobs lost since this recession began – or maybe a child gets sick, or a spouse has his or her hours cut.

In the past, if you found yourself in a situation like this, you could have sold your home and bought a smaller one with more affordable payments. Or you could have refinanced your home at a lower rate. But today, home values have fallen so sharply that even if you made a large down payment, the current value of your mortgage may still be higher than the current value of your house. So no bank will return your calls, and no sale will return your investment.

You can't afford to leave and you can't afford to stay. So you cut back on luxuries. Then you cut back on necessities. You spend down your savings to keep up with your payments. Then you open the retirement fund. Then you use the credit cards. And when you’ve gone through everything you have, and done everything you can, you have no choice but to default on your loan. And so your home joins the nearly six million others in foreclosure or at risk of foreclosure across the country, including roughly 150,000 right here in Arizona.

But the foreclosures which are uprooting families and upending lives across America are only one part of this housing crisis. For while there are millions of families who face foreclosure, there are millions more who are in no danger of losing their homes, but who have still seen their dreams endangered. They are families who see “For Sale” signs lining the streets. Who see neighbors leave, and homes standing vacant, and lawns slowly turning brown. They see their own homes – their largest single assets – plummeting in value. One study in Chicago found that a foreclosed home reduces the price of nearby homes by as much as 9 percent. Home prices in cities across the country have fallen by more than 25 percent since 2006; in Phoenix, they’ve fallen by 43 percent.

Even if your neighborhood hasn’t been hit by foreclosures, you’re likely feeling the effects of the crisis in other ways. Companies in your community that depend on the housing market – construction companies and home furnishing stores, painters and landscapers – they’re cutting back and laying people off. The number of residential construction jobs has fallen by more than a quarter million since mid-2006. As businesses lose revenue and people lose income, the tax base shrinks, which means less money for schools and police and fire departments. And on top of this, the costs to a local government associated with a single foreclosure can be as high as $20,000.

The effects of this crisis have also reverberated across the financial markets. When the housing market collapsed, so did the availability of credit on which our economy depends. As that credit has dried up, it has been harder for families to find affordable loans to purchase a car or pay tuition and harder for businesses to secure the capital they need to expand and create jobs.

In the end, all of us are paying a price for this home mortgage crisis. And all of us will pay an even steeper price if we allow this crisis to deepen – a crisis which is unraveling homeownership, the middle class, and the American Dream itself. But if we act boldly and swiftly to arrest this downward spiral, every American will benefit. And that’s what I want to talk about today.

The plan I’m announcing focuses on rescuing families who have played by the rules and acted responsibly: by refinancing loans for millions of families in traditional mortgages who are underwater or close to it; by modifying loans for families stuck in sub-prime mortgages they can’t afford as a result of skyrocketing interest rates or personal misfortune; and by taking broader steps to keep mortgage rates low so that families can secure loans with affordable monthly payments.

At the same time, this plan must be viewed in a larger context. A lost home often begins with a lost job. Many businesses have laid off workers for a lack of revenue and available capital. Credit has become scarce as the markets have been overwhelmed by the collapse of securities backed by failing mortgages. In the end, the home mortgage crisis, the financial crisis, and this broader economic crisis are interconnected. We cannot successfully address any one of them without addressing them all.

Yesterday, in Denver, I signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act which will create or save three and a half million jobs over the next two years – including 70,000 in Arizona – doing the work America needs done. We will also work to stabilize, repair, and reform our financial system to get credit flowing again to families and businesses. And we will pursue the housing plan I am outlining today.

Through this plan, we will help between seven and nine million families restructure or refinance their mortgages so they can avoid foreclosure. And we are not just helping homeowners at risk of falling over the edge, we are preventing their neighbors from being pulled over that edge too – as defaults and foreclosures contribute to sinking home values, failing local businesses, and lost jobs.

But I also want to be very clear about what this plan will not do: It will not rescue the unscrupulous or irresponsible by throwing good taxpayer money after bad loans. It will not help speculators who took risky bets on a rising market and bought homes not to live in but to sell. It will not help dishonest lenders who acted irresponsibility, distorting the facts and dismissing the fine print at the expense of buyers who didn’t know better. And it will not reward folks who bought homes they knew from the beginning they would never be able to afford. In short, this plan will not save every home.

But it will give millions of families resigned to financial ruin a chance to rebuild. It will prevent the worst consequences of this crisis from wreaking even greater havoc on the economy. And by bringing down the foreclosure rate, it will help to shore up housing prices for everyone. According to estimates by the Treasury Department, this plan could stop the slide in home prices due to neighboring foreclosures by about $6,000 per home.

Here is how my plan works:

First, we will make it possible for an estimated four to five million currently ineligible homeowners who receive their mortgages through Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac to refinance their mortgages at lower rates.

Today, as a result of declining home values, millions of families are “underwater,” which means they owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth. These families are unable to sell their homes, and unable to refinance them. So in the event of a job loss or another emergency, their options are limited.

Right now, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – the institutions that guarantee home loans for millions of middle class families – are generally not permitted to guarantee refinancing for mortgages valued at more than 80 percent of the home’s worth. So families who are underwater – or close to being underwater – cannot turn to these lending institutions for help.

My plan changes that by removing this restriction on Fannie and Freddie so that they can refinance mortgages they already own or guarantee. This will allow millions of families stuck with loans at a higher rate to refinance. And the estimated cost to taxpayers would be roughly zero; while Fannie and Freddie would receive less money in payments, this would be balanced out by a reduction in defaults and foreclosures.

I also want to point out that millions of other households could benefit from historically low interest rates if they refinance, though many don't know that this opportunity is available to them – an opportunity that could save families hundreds of dollars each month. And the efforts we are taking to stabilize mortgage markets will help these borrowers to secure more affordable terms, too.

Second, we will create new incentives so that lenders work with borrowers to modify the terms of sub-prime loans at risk of default and foreclosure.

Sub-prime loans – loans with high rates and complex terms that often conceal their costs – make up only 12 percent of all mortgages, but account for roughly half of all foreclosures.

Right now, when families with these mortgages seek to modify a loan to avoid this fate, they often find themselves navigating a maze of rules and regulations but rarely finding answers. Some sub-prime lenders are willing to renegotiate; many aren’t. Your ability to restructure your loan depends on where you live, the company that owns or manages your loan, or even the agent who happens to answer the phone on the day you call.

My plan establishes clear guidelines for the entire mortgage industry that will encourage lenders to modify mortgages on primary residences. Any institution that wishes to receive financial assistance from the government, and to modify home mortgages, will have to do so according to these guidelines – which will be in place two weeks from today.

If lenders and homebuyers work together, and the lender agrees to offer rates that the borrower can afford, we’ll make up part of the gap between what the old payments were and what the new payments will be. And under this plan, lenders who participate will be required to reduce those payments to no more than 31 percent of a borrower’s income. This will enable as many as three to four million homeowners to modify the terms of their mortgages to avoid foreclosure.

So this part of the plan will require both buyers and lenders to step up and do their part. Lenders will need to lower interest rates and share in the costs of reduced monthly payments in order to prevent another wave of foreclosures. Borrowers will be required to make payments on time in return for this opportunity to reduce those payments.

I also want to be clear that there will be a cost associated with this plan. But by making these investments in foreclosure-prevention today, we will save ourselves the costs of foreclosure tomorrow – costs borne not just by families with troubled loans, but by their neighbors and communities and by our economy as a whole. Given the magnitude of these costs, it is a price well worth paying.

Third, we will take major steps to keep mortgage rates low for millions of middle class families looking to secure new mortgages.

Today, most new home loans are backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which guarantee loans and set standards to keep mortgage rates low and to keep mortgage financing available and predictable for middle class families. This function is profoundly important, especially now as we grapple with a crisis that would only worsen if we were to allow further disruptions in our mortgage markets.

Therefore, using the funds already approved by Congress for this purpose, the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve will continue to purchase Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage-backed securities so that there is stability and liquidity in the marketplace. Through its existing authority Treasury will provide up to $200 billion in capital to ensure that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can continue to stabilize markets and hold mortgage rates down.

We’re also going to work with Fannie and Freddie on other strategies to bolster the mortgage markets, like working with state housing finance agencies to increase their liquidity. And as we seek to ensure that these institutions continue to perform what is a vital function on behalf of middle class families, we also need to maintain transparency and strong oversight so that they do so in responsible and effective ways.

Fourth, we will pursue a wide range of reforms designed to help families stay in their homes and avoid foreclosure. My administration will continue to support reforming our bankruptcy rules so that we allow judges to reduce home mortgages on primary residences to their fair market value – as long as borrowers pay their debts under a court-ordered plan. That’s the rule for investors who own two, three, and four homes. It should be the rule for ordinary homeowners too, as an alternative to foreclosure.

In addition, as part of the recovery plan I signed into law yesterday, we are going to award $2 billion in competitive grants to communities that are bringing together stakeholders and testing new and innovative ways to prevent foreclosures. Communities have shown a lot of initiative, taking responsibility for this crisis when many others have not. Supporting these neighborhood efforts is exactly what we should be doing.

Taken together, the provisions of this plan will help us end this crisis and preserve for millions of families their stake in the American Dream. But we must also acknowledge the limits of this plan.

Our housing crisis was born of eroding home values, but also of the erosion of our common values. It was brought about by big banks that traded in risky mortgages in return for profits that were literally too good to be true; by lenders who knowingly took advantage of homebuyers; by homebuyers who knowingly borrowed too much from lenders; by speculators who gambled on rising prices; and by leaders in our nation’s capital who failed to act amidst a deepening crisis.

So solving this crisis will require more than resources – it will require all of us to take responsibility. Government must take responsibility for setting rules of the road that are fair and fairly enforced. Banks and lenders must be held accountable for ending the practices that got us into this crisis in the first place. Individuals must take responsibility for their own actions. And all of us must learn to live within our means again.

These are the values that have defined this nation. These are values that have given substance to our faith in the American Dream. And these are the values that we must restore now at this defining moment.

It will not be easy. But if we move forward with purpose and resolve – with a deepened appreciation for how fundamental the American Dream is and how fragile it can be when we fail in our collective responsibilities – then I am confident we will overcome this crisis and once again secure that dream for ourselves and for generations to come.

Thank you, God Bless you, and God bless America.

The specific, line by line details of the plan can be seen at this PDF here.