to cut, or not to cut, that is the question

It shows how quickly the blog-based news cycle moves, that I delay a response to something I’ve read and I’m beat to my reply by a fellow violist (or as Robert Levine would put it: Bratsche Blogging Brother) in Minneapolis!

David Stabler wrote an article on July 25 in the Oregonian about the cuts made by the largest arts organizations in the city, and the effect that they’ve had on the bottom line of those groups.  The basic tenor of the article was that the groups were being fiscally responsible and were keeping their heads above water in difficult financial times (including the Oregon Symphony balancing its budget for the first time in five years).

[L]ike families with fewer dollars to spend, arts groups are finding ways to live within their means.

For the first time in five years, the Oregon Symphony balanced its budget, although the exact numbers won’t be known until an audit in September, said Carl Herko,  a symphony spokesman. In the past three years, the Oregon Symphony posted deficits of $1.5 million (2007), $594,000 (2008) and $488,000 (2009). The orchestra has balanced its budget only four times in the past 20 years. Salary cuts to orchestra musicians and staff, furloughs, lower fees to guest artists and fewer marketing costs reduced the symphony’s most recent budget to $14 million, $1 million less than the previous year.

In addition to budget cuts, donations helped push the orchestra into surplus territory, including three gifts over $250,000 each. On the downside, ticket revenue fell $1.1 million from last year, due partly to four fewer performances. The number of paying customers per performance dropped 11.9 percent.

Then Barry Johnson (formerly of the Oregonian culture writing team) wrote a response on July 27 to Stabler’s earlier piece in his blog.  He was concerned that local arts groups might be doing too much cutting at the expense of artistic excellence and relevance to the community that they serve.  He cited as a primary source for his contention that cutting is counter-productive talks that Kennedy Center director Michael Kaiser has given around the country this year, in which he says that cutting is absolutely the wrong way to bring an arts organization to good health.

If Kaiser is right, then the premise of David Stabler’s article in The Oregonian on Sunday is all wrong, because Stabler equated success with the severe budget cutting the city’s largest performing arts groups did this year to stave off large deficits. No budget deficit, no problem.

Although I’m about to argue that Kaiser is, in fact, right, that isn’t to disparage my old colleague, Mr. Stabler. No one at the paper has kept us better informed about the ongoing state of the major performing arts institutions (Portland Center Stage, Oregon Symphony, Portland Opera, Oregon Ballet Theatre) than he has during the past decade. I just think he’s making a mistake by confusing the absence of red ink for organizational health.

Today, Stabler brought them both together in a dialogue about what cuts mean to arts organizations.

Johnson and I went back and forth in emails yesterday and he gave me permission to share our discussion. I’ve edited out the name-calling, muttering and slights to family members.

Stabler: I agree with Kaiser that cutting can be a mistake. OTOH, I also think that last year’s cuts did not have a dramatic effect, artistically. We’re talking about cutting office space, staff time, furloughs. Center Stage added a show. Next season will be different: Portland Opera is cutting back to three mainstage productions. Easy for us to say don’t cut.

Johnson: Our arts orgs are in a ticklish pickle…right? They cut stuff that’s going to hurt them long-term, even mid-term. If they don’t cut, they disappear. I think most of our groups are just starting to understand how impossible those choices are, but haven’t started to work creatively on them, whether they follow the Kaiser “method” or not. For arts groups, the big problem is: how do we manage to get more of the public to pay attention to and value what we do. That’s a huge problem. Whittling away at budget deficits by cutting salaries/benefits is a disincentive. Trimming the marketing budget keeps you from addressing the problem at all. Pulling back from your artistic ambition makes you less worthy and less likely of succeeding. That’s why I think radical changes are necessary… assuming that arts funding doesn’t improve rapidly in the very near future.

Then Sam Bergman at Inside the Classics brought his take to the table:

Chaos is frequently the enemy of progress, and my take on why so many orchestras, in particular, flounder in tough times is that too many of us don’t find a way to pull on the oars together when we need to most. Faced with a crisis, some musicians dig in their heels and insist everything will work itself out, some managers see an excuse to make the massive cuts they’ve been wanting to impose for years, and some board members feel caught in the middle of it all and eventually do what they would do at their for-profit firms – find the route with the least apparent risk and set a course down it.

But if Michael Kaiser and an increasingly audible chorus of others are to be believed, that less risky route might actually keep us with our heads barely above water for far longer than we can afford.

My take? Stay tuned…