When I read the blog, where my prolific colleague Christian Henner-Fehr mentioned last week three very interesting issues - namely the definition of Art Manager, and the value of our services (or: howmuch should we charge) and Art Management as a discussion platform, it caused me to make some analysis and reflect, as these three articles are closely intertwined. Let me just shortly illustrate my experiences, and air some thoughts:
Being an Art Management consultant, predominantly in Slovakia as well as in the Czech Republic, I am spending a lot of time explaining my music colleagues, what I do - or could do. Christian Henner-Fehr correctly points out in his articles, how grey(ish) this field indeed is. Even so, that despite several decades of adding this subject to their curriculum, none of the educational institutes match the definition of what this subject should contain. While some would primarily offer his/her services to assist cultural groups obtaining funding or sponsorship others - like myself - see it also as a kind of awareness raising task, to make these institutions improve their effectivity, viability and visibility. (And no, I am not an artist manager, who organises concerts, an impression which mostly encounter.) While it is indeed an obvious fact, that finance is the greatest barrier, and submitting subsidy/sponsorship applications is for most of them priority number one, I would always stress to my clients, that it takes more than obtaining a financial injection, since after this project there's still another horizon to come. Sooner or later they must become independent enough (else I would become some sort of bureaucratic subsidy-administrative assistant for the ensembles). Therefore the greyishness of Art Management is somehow a benefit to us, where we can creatively co-operate with our clients to reach our joint objectives - thus not being limited to one chore.
In my view, it is in this very niche, where I have to play a significant role as a consultant, to show them the way ahead. To be aware, that what they offer has a value, which they should adequately bring to the market. And there comes the other issue: what should we charge?
Being a consultant, people mostly associate with exuberant fees, a slick office, at least 200 world-wide branches, and you name it. However, we move around in a field, which has in some exceptional spots on the globe maybe offering six digits (e.g. Berlin, Vienna, New York, Tokyo) but for the rest, the majority is moving on a more humble elevation. We are facing sometimes a cruel dilemma, of offering a valuable lasting solution (the famous example of giving a fishing rod to the hungry and teach them how to fish, rather than just a fish), and a certain degree of idealism to support financially poor cultural groups, hardly able to keep their head above the surface. The price for our (professional) services should not be underrated, neither overrated. Especially, when we teach our client his worth as well. But when you client is open to changes, and provided your input is taken seriously, it is an investment which pays off well. For both parties involved, that is.
MS
Being an Art Management consultant, predominantly in Slovakia as well as in the Czech Republic, I am spending a lot of time explaining my music colleagues, what I do - or could do. Christian Henner-Fehr correctly points out in his articles, how grey(ish) this field indeed is. Even so, that despite several decades of adding this subject to their curriculum, none of the educational institutes match the definition of what this subject should contain. While some would primarily offer his/her services to assist cultural groups obtaining funding or sponsorship others - like myself - see it also as a kind of awareness raising task, to make these institutions improve their effectivity, viability and visibility. (And no, I am not an artist manager, who organises concerts, an impression which mostly encounter.) While it is indeed an obvious fact, that finance is the greatest barrier, and submitting subsidy/sponsorship applications is for most of them priority number one, I would always stress to my clients, that it takes more than obtaining a financial injection, since after this project there's still another horizon to come. Sooner or later they must become independent enough (else I would become some sort of bureaucratic subsidy-administrative assistant for the ensembles). Therefore the greyishness of Art Management is somehow a benefit to us, where we can creatively co-operate with our clients to reach our joint objectives - thus not being limited to one chore.
In my view, it is in this very niche, where I have to play a significant role as a consultant, to show them the way ahead. To be aware, that what they offer has a value, which they should adequately bring to the market. And there comes the other issue: what should we charge?
Being a consultant, people mostly associate with exuberant fees, a slick office, at least 200 world-wide branches, and you name it. However, we move around in a field, which has in some exceptional spots on the globe maybe offering six digits (e.g. Berlin, Vienna, New York, Tokyo) but for the rest, the majority is moving on a more humble elevation. We are facing sometimes a cruel dilemma, of offering a valuable lasting solution (the famous example of giving a fishing rod to the hungry and teach them how to fish, rather than just a fish), and a certain degree of idealism to support financially poor cultural groups, hardly able to keep their head above the surface. The price for our (professional) services should not be underrated, neither overrated. Especially, when we teach our client his worth as well. But when you client is open to changes, and provided your input is taken seriously, it is an investment which pays off well. For both parties involved, that is.
MS
2 comments:
Great post, Michael. I'd like to touch upon one point:
"While some would primarily offer his/her services to assist cultural groups obtaining funding or sponsorship others - like myself - see it also as a kind of awareness raising task, to make these institutions improve their effectivity, viability and visibility."
Would you describe it as a "either...or" or as a "both...and"? I think we should consider both approaches as a whole. Do you agree with me?
Hi Christian,
You're right stress this; it is indeed "both ... and"
Michael Srba
Post a Comment