Author: Robert Bettmann

Founder of Day Eight, and the DC Arts Writing Fellowship.

Arts In America Wrap Up Post on Ovation–

This is the last post in the initial series I did for Ovation TV.com. We’ll be doing a follow up post once a month with new interviews and investigations into Arts in America.

————————————

Read the intro blog here.

Looking at the videos from the Ivey book event has given me an appreciation for the long view. Here where I write and work from – in Washington, D.C. – we are about to celebrate an important anniversary. This fall the Washington Project for the Arts (WPA) will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Corcoran’s decision to cancel a Robert Mapplethorpe retrospective, and the WPA’s decision to host that show. The Mapplethorpe controversy was the beginning of what came to be called “The Culture Wars,” the outcome of which included the savaging of the NEA’s individual artist granting programs.

Robert Mapplethorpe died four months before the Corcoran/Culture War began. Which is to say: he was not affected by the controversy his work generated. But artists like Mapplethorpe and Serrano grow their vision from participation in their communities. When we look back at what happened after the Mapplethorpe, and Serrano, controversies, the impact is measured not on individual artists, but on communities.

In 2000 Bill Ivey stated that the Mapplethorpe controversy was “the one that let the genie out of the bottle and demonstrated the power of images in creating political conflict around artistic work.” Despite almost 20 years distance, the Culture War mentality has not disappeared; it has infiltrated how we relate to the arts today. Public funding for artists reflects support for the individual, sometimes controversial, voices which come from diverse communities.

When the City of New York eliminated arts education in 1977, Agnes Gund stepped in and created an organization to fill the need. Just like the Washington Project for the Arts decision to host the Mapplethorpe exhibit, her actions should be lauded. But they shouldn’t be necessary. Our individual voices and choices are the last line of defense, but they should not be our only defense.

To read the rest of the post, click here.

What did I learn from All Good Men?

Last Thursday and Saturday evening we completed the first shows with my company – Bettmann Dances. You can connect with Bettmann Dances on Facebook, or through our website. As we move into the next stage with this project, and begin preparation for my 2010/11 project, I’m trying to harvest lessons. They are diverse.

  1. Ask for more of what I need from the dancers. It was really hectic at the end, in part because I was passive about asking for rehearsal time. This is a difficult thing to manage. I didn’t want to ask for too much… we were all working volunteer, and if you ask for too much, they simply say: ok, no, bye. But in the last week of this production I had the feeling that everyone was frustrated by mis-management. Doing big projects takes a lot of time. There’s no way around that. And if I don’t ask for it, I end up simply ‘grabbing it’ through rehearsals that run over. Which is not good process. I’m gonna work on being more proactive and efficient in my scheduling.
  2. I got some really great audience feedback. Someone told me that the piece was ‘epic’, which I consider positive. This was a show of tremendous complexity. It wasn’t very abstract. The characters were complex. The soundscore was complex. There were 22 separate scenes, including the dance scenes. What I learned was to take strength from what is there, and not get depressed about what’s not there. I want people to be astounded by my work. I’m not lowering that bar. But for my first show with my company, having no financial support for myself or my dancers, I feel like we actually brought something deep and rich to the stage. One audience member thought it was very ‘work in progress.’ And while I hate that, I actually feel ok about it. I don’t really love most of what I see in dance today. Thats not a knock on my peers — most of them feel similarly. I created something thoughtful and rich that did not succeed in being undeniably powerful. Next.
  3. I ended up in a conflict with my producers. Though I got my marketing materials in on time (I have the proof – it’s not a question) our listing in the fringe guide was incorrect. They are refunding me $100 of the $700 participation fee, but refused to make any corrections online or in print. The impact on my ticket sales for this run was probably more like 200-500 dollars, but there was also the lost opportunity of getting my company’s name, and this show’s name, in front of the public. Very dissapointing… As a performer you are actually the small fish in the large producing pond. I learned that I can’t expect anyone to take responsibility for their mistakes if they don’t have to. And in my position, they simply don’t have to. I am the small fish. It’s appropriate for me to lower my expectations, so that I can be less frustrated if people don’t respect the work it takes to put something like this together. It’s not important to them, and I can’t expect it to be. A related lesson: I don’t have support where I might always expect it, and I have more support some places where I don’t expect it.
  4. There is no way to get anywhere close to what we did without a huge amount of help. Pretty much last minute I got a group of friends to serve as voices for the recording of the script. Pretty much last minute, a dancer I’ve known for a few years (Sylvana Sandoz) jumped into the production when the dancer originally cast, bailed. I can’t get anywhere close to presenting my vision without a huge amount of goodwill and effort from other people.
  5. I need to be more effective with development for my company. I did get one new board member, which is great. (Welcome aboard, Ashtan.) I had benchmarked myself to get two. I’m still hopeful, but need to recognize that I have to allow myself time to share my vision with more people who might be interested in supporting these productions. The additional lesson learned is that people want to support interesting quality productions, and are willing to really give a lot if you can provide them with that opportunity. My friend Amy wrote a preview on her blog, and a new friend, Jessica McCoy worked for free technical directing the production. I was really impressed with her work as a lighting designer/technical director… Jessica gave a huge amount and took very little to manage. Her ability to work effectively and independently on my behalf was awesome.
  6. This isn’t anywhere close to a complete list, but I need to work on some other stuff now.

I had so much fun doing this show, and am really looking forward to turning it into a film over the fall. There is a place for substantive, joyful, complexly beautiful work. I managed not be heavy-handed. I managed not to offer easy answers. It was complex, and interesting…. next. Here is the review we got:

Bettmann creates a jewel mining the commonalities in poetry, literature and dance in ‘All Good Men’

By Ron Moore, DC Examiner

Somewhere over Washington, D.C. this week Dylan Thomas is smiling. The epic poet like many writers, made a living writing in different genres as the life of a poet is all too often of the starving artist variety. Like the film auteur who makes three films to satisfy commerce so he can make one to please his muse, Thomas toiled as a working writer. But even in his pulp dramas the lyricism is still present.

Robert Bettmann took Thomas film script “The Doctor and the Devils” churned it with his creative sensibility until the cream rose to the top. Skimming off the lyricism he created a new work, “All Good Men” that premiered Thursday night at D.C.s Capital Fringe Festival with an additional performance tonight. It is truly a jewel and a tribute to the commonalities between poetry, literature and dance. Using a dramatic presentation of the script as his score Bettmann creates a symphony of movement literally bringing form and texture to the content.

Emily Horton plays a doctor with a moral dilemma; the purchase of cadavers for the teaching of anatomy seems to produce more bodies than natural circumstances should allow. As she struggles to maintain the demands of a career and reputation with the consequences of what is certainly murder the struggle is played out in exchanges with cohorts and family. The workaday movements belie the inner tension ultimately leading to the poignant stillness of contemplation as bodies literally pile up behind her.

As the doctors wife, William Smith is a whirlwind of expression. His solo dance is stunning and graceful and his character, the fulcrum of the relationships and tensions in the piece makes him the shows anchor.

Sylvana Christopher Sandoz performs with such intensity that it is unsettling; but she leaves you wanting more. Her brutal dispatch of one of the victims is played out with such ferocity that it leaves you nearly as breathless as her victim.

Bettmann as the doctors assistant struggles with his affections for the local bar girl, his grief at her loss and the moral balancing act required by his need to sate his loss with justice while realizing that society will offer no satisfaction. Bettmann plays out the balancing act as a man literally stuck in place; his dilemma pulling him yet his plight is fixed.

This leads to Jenny, poignantly performed by Rachel Merga who provides the bittersweet emotional and human core of the drama. Her hopes and desires squashed by reality take shape as Merga gracefully suffers her destiny. The dance with fate followed by its aftermath is as striking in its simplicity as it is beautiful. Her performance left you desiring a further fleshing out of her story to understand how her journey brought her to this tragic place, but especially for more of this stunning performance and performer.

The only truly discordant note was the scheduling by the Capital Fringe Festival of a boisterous performance next door that diminished at times the audiences ability to hear the score. But that distraction served as an indicator that this is a compelling piece as the audience leaned forward so as not to miss anything. It would be unfair to assume that festival organizers could match shows with harmonic tones since the festival is an amazing feat in itself but it did play a part in the overall milieu and the performers deserved better.

A new show especially by a new company is a living organism and will grow and develop and find its way. Bettmann has created a work of art that establishes his ability to mine gold out of our literary vaults and craft his discoveries into complex and beautiful pieces.

This production will be turned into a film over the next few months. Its a work that serves as an example of artistic craftsmanship and one that should inspire writers and poets to think of their work in terms of dance. Bettmann shows us the essence of literature and it is that essence that makes great art. One hopes that this performance and these performers will give us abundant opportunities to enjoy their contribution to this worlds desperate need for art and beauty.

July 18, 2009

Why the cuts to the DCCAH don’t make sense

I just got off the phone with the DCCAH’s budget officer in the OBP, and have been corrected about some of my misunderstandings in reading the proposed 2010 budget.

District Arts funding appears in the DCCAH’s budget in two ways. Money approved for management by the Commission, and earmarks. The grants are competitive. You apply, go through panel review, and if you are selected, you receive money. Earmarks are written into the budget. They are non-competitive, there is no review, and no oversight.

Looking at the planned FY 2010 budget, it looks like the general fund is down over 50% from the 14 million FY 2009 level. In fact, the planned FY 2009 budget looked very similar to this year’s budget at this stage. Last year, five million in earmarks were tacked on outside of the agency’s budgeting process. This year the same thing is happening. They are apparently still closed-door haggling about the exact earmarks, but in the end, the FY 2010 budget will look quite  a lot like the FY 2009. Looking at the FY 2010 budget right now, it looks like we’re experiencing massive cuts. But that is only because the earmarks haven’t yet appeared. They are not public – in consideration – and only appear on the actual, approved budget. Excuse my alarm in misreading the budget. Things haven’t really changed at all. It’s just that almost half of local arts funding dollars go through politicians, not the DCCAH budgeting/granting process.

It should be noted that the earmark system – while wickedly abusive of political influence and back room pandering – is currently necessary. The largest grants that the DCCAH offers is 250k. If you are a District arts org needing major funds the only way to get them from the District is through an earmark.

______________________________________________________________________________

As some of my readers already know, local arts funding has been particularly targeted in DC’s recently submitted FY 2010 budget. The DC Advocates for the Arts, and I as chair, are engaged in conversations considering what might be an appropriate response to the slashing of local arts funding.

The cuts to the DCCAH dont make economic sense. The only way to understand the cuts is to understand how our priorities shift – as a whole – based on economic trends. For a number of years Gallup has been tracking the interaction of economic issues with concern over environmental trends. The poll below shows that we stop prioritizing the environment when the economy is in trouble. This may not be in our best economic interest. For instance: green economy/green energy jobs would be local jobs, not exportable, based on creation of energy in the United States. Even if we are cutting, the government still spends a lot money. How should we prioritize that spending? Our public officials need to look beyond poll numbers to make decisions in the best interest of the local economy. Gallup env/economy poll

Funding local arts is an efficient means for government to stimulate small business, and support livable communities. The Districts FY 2009 budget was a 9 Billion dollar spending plan. The DC Commission on the Arts and Humanities granting budget – which is the money distributed to local artists, was 13 million in FY09. It is easy to look at rising deficit numbers and assert that we have to cut everywhere. But cutting money that makes you money — that isnt where you start if youre smart. Local arts grants stimulate local tax revenue from emergent and small arts businesses. On top of that – the cuts are far too small to make any difference to the big numbers.

From FY 2009 to FY 2010, the DC Department of Human Resources has been cut from 17 million to 15.3 million, a cut of 10%. The Office of Finance and Resource Management has been cut from 246 million to 240 million, a cut of 2%. The Office of Contracting and Procurement has been cut from 15 million to 12.8 million, a cut of 15%. From FY 2009, the budget of the DC Commission on the Arts and Humanities has been cut by 37% overall, and the general fund (the grants) have been cut 51%, for FY 2010.

Cutting the arts is the wrong decision economically. If cuts must be made, the arts should not be cut more than other lines in the budget. Local government arts spending provides services to district residents (through arts and continuing education) and contributes back through tax revenue. While it might seem antithetical, now is the time to increase, not decrease, individual grants to artists and small arts organizations.