(Cross-posted from Musings on Arts Management)
A professor of mine posted this delightful Pinky Show video and asked readers (ostensibly, arts managers):
"Who creates value? How? What is the role of the arts manager (perhaps more than you might think?) in creating value and in deciding what we want to remember and what we want to forget?"
In all areas of the arts, I think the most responsive organizations are changing the subtle indictments charged in the video. Just because we want alternatives to the behemoths, does not mean the behemoths shouldn't exist. (Though, when they show they value these alternatives, it does bestow added value to them, for better or worse.) Still, whatever one is curating (museums, a concert, a literary festival), the thing is only going to be as good as the goals and chosen aesthetic of the person behind it. (And the artists whose schedules you can wrangle to coincide with one's own. But that's another story.)
On one hand, with the democratizing influence of the Internet, of course more people can reach more people, on every subject. On the other hand, arts funding often sucks. This is not news. Organizations with funding have more options than a person with neither a sheltering organization nor funding.
When Kim (in the video) talks about education teaching one what to think and what to value, of course there is some truth to that. But before one can change the system, one should be well-versed in it. (Duh.)
I am encouraged by the variety of art and artists who are showing up in DC these days. Some of it is weird and great. Some of it is weird and crap. These are my judgments. Support what you love.
Of course we create value when we stick a microphone in front of someone, or put them under a spotlight. That's why the more people get involved in creating that value, the better. I will likely never be able to open a wing of museum or donate a million dollars, but I can - from my own specific, culturally-situated perspective - choose which voices I want others to hear.