Skip to main content

Tiny vs Small, or Can we agree on a definition?

I've recently noticed that a lot of performing arts organizations like to throw around the adjectives "small" and "intimate" when describing themselves, their facility capacity, or their organization structure. The words always make me stop for a second and ponder whether folks are using them because they are accurate descriptions or because they just currently carry a certain cache within the nonprofit industry. When we're competing against a 600-seat for-profit presenting arts organization for our audiences money/time/attention/hearts, it sounds lovely to say "an intimate theater experience", as if the audience will be on stage with the performers. But any house over about 200 seats is not going to be intimate, unless there are only two rows around an arena-style stage.

The same goes for "small" staffing structures: a nonprofit arts organization operating in a small town may feel like they have no staff compared to the city's university presenting arts consortium. But the nonprofit organization still has three full-time employees, 2 part-time assistants, and a whole slew of volunteers. Compared to the group who is perhaps all volunteer, or has one part-time administrator trying to cover all bases of management, those 4 FTE employees are a logarithmic increase in resources. I see this in budget descriptions ("We have a small budget of $350,000/year" vs "We have a small budget of $110,000/year"), team sizes, and audience numbers.

Forcing a comparison between "small" and "large" is easy. Every organization knows who the "big dog" in town is. What is more difficult is agreeing on how to compare one similar-looking organization to another. Both may be doing similar output artistically, but with vast differences in back-end resources and processes. It would make discussions about growth and partnerships much easier if the industry as a whole could define "small", "midsize", and "large" when it comes to our arts organizations. I'd probably add "extra-small", "medium", and "our whole organization could fit in their closet" as possible sections, too.




Comments

  1. stubbornkellySeptember 28, 2012 at 10:20 AM

    I usually leave out the adjectives in these cases and let the numbers speak for themselves. Or, go with something like, "Our goal is to use our 100-seat space to create an intimate experience for all participants, actor and patron alike."

    KED

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

High Art vs Low Art

“The masses seek distraction whereas art demands concentration from the spectator.” - -The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, Walter Benjamin, 1936 Is there any more contentious question in the art world than the concept of “high” versus “low” I like venn diagrams. And shouldn't art really be in the middle?  art? Who gets to judge? What are the parameters in which to judge? There is no standard definition for either concept and personal explanations range from simple to incredibly complex. One common theory about how to explain the difference is high art is “popular” and low art is “unpopular”, that is, appealing (or not) to many people. This also links to another version of the difference: that high art fosters the widest connection between people while a smaller subsection enjoys low art. This is in direct contradiction, though, to the idea of low art being part of mass culture (raising yet another question of “is art culture” or merely a com...
Post a Comment
Read more

Pass the Collection Plate, Please.

Various sizes of buildings, with some sort of seating arranged in rows, facing a slightly raised platform. may have curtains around the platform. people --primarily men-- take the platform to orate to the audience seated before them. A plea for donations is made at some point, either before or after the show, which may have music and will definitely have directives masked as stories on how to be a human in this day-and-age. children will be seen, maybe, but definitely not heard. the men in charge will believe they have been given a special gift for leading this particular group of people. and the people, for whatever reason, will also believe this. and this group of people will believe that their building and person and each other are completely different and somehow better than all the other exact same groups around their town/city/county/state/nation. If theater wants to be treated as church and church as theater, then both are getting exactly what they have been setting up for the p...
Post a Comment
Read more

Death & The Theater

I was listening to a recent episode of the Tim Ferris podcast and the guest, happiness scholar Arthur C. Brooks, was discussing death meditations. And the little lightbulb in my brain turned on with the thought, "We need to talk more about death in theaters." I know, I know, that seems like an illogical statement because it feels like we're always talking about the death of theater. This whole summer has been filled with articles and op-eds from across the country about how large regional theaters are dying in major cities. But that's not the kind of death Brooks was talking about, and in reality, it isn't death these articles are complaining about, either: they are trying to stay alive in a “E’s just resting” fashion, to find some kind of life-support for the theaters, to keep them going, receive new money from new audiences or donors, new shows, new gimmicks to draw more or different people in the door. Anything to keep from dying. We don't talk about death...
Post a Comment
Read more