Archives for category: E. Slomba Arts Interstices

Some people consciously seek out situations that throw them a little off-balance.  The first time I can recall doing this was during girlhood in Virginia Beach, Virginia, waiting in the breakers until the moment when it was possible to jump up, lean in and let the waves confuse all sense of vertical and horizontal, stealing the body from the horizon and giving it back different.  I decided that, despite sand-scrapes and a nose full of salt-sting, the experience was worth it, many times repeated and never-ever the same.

The sea is just the sea.  But when you consciously decide to throw yourself into its most unpredictable spaces, that’s a situation.

Situations are possibilities, refreshingly unscripted.   To locate the beginning of a situation, you need do nothing more than claim it.  To fulfill the middle of a situation, you invent something to do and see what happens next.  To pinpoint the end of a situation, you must be very still and quiet and watch carefully.

Seeing life as a series of situations you will never be bored, and you will never wait passively like a baby bird for the next sweet or shiny object.  You will also make life interesting for other people.  Sometimes exhilarating, sometimes quite nerve wracking, but interesting.

I have long been introspective about a profound, hard-to-explain connection to the water.  Not just any water, but salt water in particular.  Coastlines are liminal, shifting places; that is part of it.  To “live on the water”  is to belong to not one but two places at once that require each other to have any meaning.   That in itself  is rather irresistible.

But also, I think, the coast is the original situation.  Derive (the long walk that brings insight through studying subtle changes in ambiance – see Guy Debord) most often understood as an urban praxis, can also be achieved along the shore.  In mythology, people and things are always getting washed up on beaches, having encounters there of one kind or another.  Civilization is there, in the form of honky-tonk vendors, tai chi classes, all kinds of social displays awaiting attendance and interaction.  The built environment is there, but also the possibility of leaving it.  People are there, for many different reasons.  Narrative is always there, to be pondered and unlocked.   I could tell you some stories.

In fragments that survived antiquity to sound postmodern, Sappho wrote: “if you’re squeamish, don’t prod the beach rubble.”   Well, artists and entrepreneurs and leaders of organizations are anything but squeamish.   There are many possibilities and tools today for making a living out of our desire to prod various kinds of rubble, connect unpredictable material in unpredictable ways and renew a sense of shared vitality, authenticity and meaning in our work.

It is quite disorienting to imagine what the emerging world might be like when the limits of  social structures that create false senses of safety are revealed.  But, as anyone who lives near water knows quite well, change truly is the only constant, and if we consciously seek out the right opportunities to experience and negotiate chaos, we might learn and pass along some of its charms.

“The challenge is making sure that everyone has a shared vision of what is being built and why throughout the development process. ”

http://www.projectsatwork.com

Yes, that is the challenge, isn’t it, for all our projects as thought workers? Not just accessing a vision, as in top-down “here’s the vision”-vision, but a shared vision.  In the ideas economy, it’s no longer enough to develop a product.  You are also in parallel developing the shared vision of the product and why it is being built.  In other words, you are producing a story about its cultural significance.

To get at shared vision, an organization has to invite probing questions and make it authentically safe to ask and answer them.  Here are some…

  • Who has input into what is being developed/built?
  • Do different types of stakeholders get to talk with one another?  Do they want to?
  • Do people get to see each other’s work and how it fits together?  Are they curious to want to?
  • Are people – including workers – invited to add their own meanings about what is significant to them personally about the product?
  • How often is it discussed why we are developing/making this thing?
  • What does “throughout” mean to us…daily, weekly, monthly, formally, informally, over coffee, at certain critical checkpoints, whenever we log-in, at different times according to their  functional schedules?  Does “throughout” have a beginning, middle and end?
  • How does this story get told?
  • How does it feel different to produce something that has cultural significance?
  • (How) do we recognize cultural significance as a part of quality?

This August I’m taking my two boys cross-country, stopping at organizations along the way to share and discuss Agile practices.   In our family, having a blast is never mutually exclusive with getting things done.   Quite the contrary!

Departing from New Haven on July 25, cities along our proposed route include: Portland, ME; Montreal; Ottowa; Minnesota/St. Paul; Helena, MN; Seattle; Portland, OR; San Francisco; Salt Lake City; Boulder; Kansas City; Chicago; Detroit; Buffalo/Toronto; and Saratoga Springs.

Please let me know of a manager I should look up,  or if you’d like to discuss materials to include on the memory sticks.  Linked In is the best way to get in touch.

Let’s see what grows from this rapid velocity, face-to-face exchange.   As our pediatrician once remarked, sometimes things are just so old school they’re innovative!

It appears that “getting to be human again”* tops the list of intrinsic rewards for working in an Agile way.  Putting people at the center instead of the usual – process at the center – enables the creation of platforms for visibility so experts can practice more of what Fast Company columnist Scott Anthony calls  “associational thinking,” that is, the ability to make surprising connections.  Inviting people to step up onto this platform so their work can be better seen and they can claim a more effective vantage point from which to see the work of others is key to the Agile mindset and workspace.  In fact, in the Agile framework the workspace reflects the mindset, and vice versa.

I’ve written before about the concept of unrepeatability, but yesterday in conversation something clicked.  Every task to which today’s knowledge workers apply themselves truly is, in essence, unrepeatable.  There will never be an exact set of problems like the one you’re facing today.  Documenting the story of how you define, approach and tackle this unique set of circumstances, not by checking boxes on a form but by setting up transparency so that the narrative is evident to all stakeholders creates a culture of shared meanings.

The freedom to follow an idea from concept to prototype and then improve upon it in a close-knit group is the natural high of innovation.  Access to a tribe of people who either contributed with you to solving commonly-identified problems and/or understands the effort that it took to study and innovate and make an attempt is the trade-off when you give up working in a silo.

The opportunity to create – and partake in – culture as we work is the opportunity to heal from the Industrial Revolution.   I see that Agile is, at its core and throughout its DNA, artfully human, and I am glad.

*More on this coming in an interview on Stealth Agile with Devin Hedge of Big Visible Solutions – stay tuned Friday for TGIF!

The lesser-known academic discipline of Informatics is rapidly gaining relevance in the space between art and business.  It is essentially the study of how information is organized and distributed through human systems and so, in the bigger picture, how meaning can be captured and accessed through technology.

  • The Indiana University School of Informatics (BloomingtonIndianapolis and Southeast), defines Informatics as “the art, science and human dimensions of information technology” and “the study, application, and social consequences of technology.”
  • The University of California, Irvine Department of Informatics  defines Informatics as “the interdisciplinary study of the design, application, use and impact of information technology. The discipline of informatics is based on the recognition that the design of this technology is not solely a technical matter, but must focus on the relationship between the technology and its use in real-world settings. That is, informatics designs solutions in context, and takes into account the social, cultural and organizational settings in which computing and information technology will be used.”
  • The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Informatics interdisciplinary major  defines Informatics as “the study of information and the ways information is used by and affects human beings and social systems.”

Seems to me there is a place where the business of conceptual art and the art of creative businesses start to look, project for project, as if they are undertaking parts of the same human enterprise.    How to make things mean things, to large groups of people, and then organize and disseminate those meanings in ways that continue to keep the meaning-makers and partakers engaged.   Hmmmmm……

Last Friday, Yale Dance Theater presented The Legacy of Merce Cunningham in a great big open space – the university’s Payne Whitney Gymnasium.  This Friday, I’m still thinking about it.

Merce Cunningham is dead, and his company formally disbanded.  Yet a unique choreographic approach dedicated to highlighting qualities of un-repeatability and randomness in the universe persists.   Cunningham’s work pokes holes in the way we always try to locate beginnings, middles and endings in the harsh neutrality of ever-flowing occurrence.

The gym was an unusual venue for seeing modern dance, despite the obvious kinesthetic connections.  It made me recall how  my own first exposure to the art form was for phys-ed credit in college, where we learned to slowly curve the spine down vertebra by vertebra, a classic Cunningham technique.  The dancers had a chance to tell us afterwards how dwarfed they felt moving from their rehearsal studio to this grand hall of physicality, performing movements that seemed to carry very different qualities with no walls close around them and no mirrors to look in.   Enhancing the openness they were experiencing viscerally and making it more intense, the dancers were called upon to exercise choices provided for them within the choreography.

This kind of Choice – not “improvisation” per se but a vein of spontanaeity embedded within a defined set of choreographic instructions – consists of, for example, what corner to head towards, or whether to start off on a 45-degree or a 90-degree angle.   The result of each dancer exercising their options in this manner created – as it creates each time it is performed – an “unpattern” of graceful inevitability, composed of bodies that cut dislocated trajectories yet somehow managed not to collide.  The total effect gave the appearance of swallows on the early evening sky above the autumn river in Connecticut, the way they gather and swell and then pull away, exposing rhythms within chaos.

The program featured a “MinEvent,”  an uninterrupted sequence of excerpts drawn from full-length pieces produced over the years.  Each MinEvent is unique; this one included parts of Pond Way(1998), Rorotorio (1983), Numbers (1982) and Canfield (1969).  Pond Way had premiered at Jacob’s Pillow Dance Festival when I was working there, another small gift of coincidence.

Meg Harper and Jennifer Goggins, both former principal dancers with the company and now legacy-bearers who had worked all semester with the Yale students, spoke about the working process as well as Cunningham’s intent.  They explained what the audience members who gathered for this experience would NOT see.

First and foremost, we would not see narrative.  No story was meant to be conveyed by the movement, no build up of tension and then struggle then cathartic release, no cause and effect.

Along with structured Choice for the dancers, Cunningham was extremely keen on incorporating chance operations in building up his choreography.  He and his long-time artistic collaborator, composer John Cage, used the I-Ching as an instrument of Chance to dictate how they would put together particular forms and sequences.  In performance, the dance and music created in this manner were meant to take place within the same physical space, but be unrelated.  For the presentation, we were treated to a Cage composition performed live alongside the dance by Yale School of Music Musicians.

It is this break from narrative that is one of the most seductive qualities of the work, in my opinion.  The mind is thwarted in its pattern-seeking.  Cause and effect is limited to muscles pulling bones, a torso falling over the hips, an arm twisting,  a sound being made, and then another sound…

Cunningham and Cage, as collaborators playing together, setting up rigorous conditions for Games of Choice and Chance, exploring their limitations and possibilities, seemingly made space happen.

It’s still happening.

 

***

Over the course of the semester, the students of Yale Dance Theater reflected on the legacy of Merce Cunningham’s ideas on the YDT blog at   http://ydtp.commons.yale.edu

In the start-up world, once funding is secured and a project slated to begin, there is a period known as project initiation.

As detailed in Ganthead’s project management newsletter this month (www.ganthead.com) , this “is not a case of seeking out the template and putting a couple of sentences in each section. The document is secondary; it’s about talking to all of the stakeholders, understanding their motivations for wanting the project completed, capturing the assumptions and risks that inevitably have to be made this early on and providing a common starting point for the project. This will give every stakeholder the same knowledge base for the project…”

I suspect it would be useful to see more internal project launch meetings in the arts when a grant gets approved, making it news throughout the organization and ensuring that even frontline staff  (box office, reception, etc.) know what the money’s for and why the project’s being undertaken.  Too often in the need to keep slugging along on the next deadline, this moment gets shortchanged.  Sometimes the disconnect is more symbolic than functional, with some staff perceiving the grants office as existing in a parallel universe while programming “just gets on with things.”

The grantwriter is the specialist who knows all the ins and outs of what was stated in the proposal.   Hopefully these were developed collaboratively, with input from many departments, but again the grantwriter is the one who’s had their head in the project long before it occurs, pulling all the pieces together, zooming in and out to keep track of the big picture AND the details.

They should also be able to explain these verbally in plain English to everyone who has a role or a stake in the outcome.  When the specialist and spokesperson roles are separated, sometimes important things get lost in translation.  Why take that risk when money is at stake?

Once funding is secured, there is a “project management” hat that the grantwriter can wear – if supported and authorized to do so by leadership – to help clarify commitments and assignments.  Why not have a staff meeting with refreshments and let the grantwriter debrief the whole team?  This will help the organization strengthen its relationships with funders and prepare to document outcomes with precision and intent.


Arts workers, your tribe just got bigger by a factor of X –

 (hint: your best ideas represent X)…

Here’s something that’s not exactly news, but worth proclaiming loudly at this particular moment.  Entrepreneurial business – that is, the start-up world, which includes those hip software guys and gals and their innovative counterparts within larger companies – sees itself as more closely aligned to the arts than to traditional business.  The arts has friends in high places, not only friends but a tribe of genius-level thought workers – rainmakers and gamechangers who represent the very nexus of the global ideas economy.

Entrepreneurs are striving hard now to do what arts managers have been doing for decades, dealing nimbly and effectively with climates of extreme uncertainty, while making it look way cool.  Consultants – whose reputation has arguably been sliding in an era of post-recession budget constraints  – are well positioned to reinvent themselves as the scout bees of this new landscape, since we work as both arts managers and entrepreneurs, and sometimes for organizations in both the non-profit and for-profit sectors.  As we discussed and agreed at the Dance/NYC symposium in February, the sector is not as important as the work itself, and the fact that it is fulfilling its mission and connecting with its intended audience.  Now, more than ever, is a great time to mix things up.

Entrepreneurial science has developed specific frameworks to map and describe a reality-based, arts-friendly way of getting things done – one of these is Agile, another (closely related) is Scrum.  If more arts workers learn this language, we can communicate better with our extended tribe.

I just returned from a three-day conference at the Microsoft “Nerd” Center in Cambridge– the Agile Games.   The experience strengthened my notion that if the arts and the start-up world can just find ways to share respective models and frameworks, connect our discourses and put the right people in touch with each other to improve both sectors’ ways of working, we can fast-track towards – in the words of keynote speaker Michael Sahota – “learning to play and playing to win” in the new ideas economy.

Arts administration and Agile project management form a natural alliance for spotting opportunities within chaos, welcoming change and adding layers of complexity with soul-stirring results.  But first, we must look up from our deadlines, recognize other stripes and types of “creatives,” deconstruct our jargon and identify what we’re passionate about.  When that “strategic planning” work is done and we’ve identified our next big “wow!,” it is fairly safe to bet (aka project) we can find funders interested in our collaborations.

Many will say we’ve already been doing this.  Okay, yes, Agile is very much a description of what arts workers do all the time.  However, if we go ahead and learn it –  delve into a set of specifics that has been determined to have global relevance – we can carry on with greater intention for the sake of our field and the positive, world-transforming attributes that we have always known art represents.


 

One of the first tenets of strategic planning is assessing Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats to determine where to best apply next efforts.  However, it is most customary to perform the SWOT process on a bounded entity: an organization, for example or a city, or a given situation,  or anything else that has been clearly defined.

What would happen if we instead practiced SWOT at the seams of human enterprise – exploring the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats that live in the liminal spaces, the interstices, spaces in between?  Those are the spaces of greatest interest, spaces of exchange and collaboration, contest and tension, where trans-actions occur.

I used this leadership idea in my last corporate job, Director of Programming for a large assisted living company, where I was responsible for facilitating exchange among peers at nine sister communities in Greater New Haven.  As a group, we Directors of Programming were hung up on several “sticky wickets” – recurring problems that everyone agreed were irritating, complex, and tough to wrap our heads around solving.  As an internal communications strategy we started holding monthly meetings focused on our interfaces with other departments in the company.  One month was Programming and Hospitality, the next month Programming and Sales…you get the idea.  We performed SWOT at the seams, and invited a regional rep from that other department to participate.  Those notes were golden, and although I cannot go into gory and/or glorious detail due to non-disclosure, I can just tell you we did manage to un-stick some fairly serious wickets and prepare for an internal quality audit in which most of us scored 100%.

I continue to bring this approach into my work with nonprofit organizations and Boards.  Whenever the relationship between two “things” becomes troublesome, charged, or simply particularly interesting for any reason, there’s value to be earned by a quick SWOT at the seams.

For the arts and entrepreneurial business, for example, the space covered by this blog, possible strengths might include: a rich combination of left-brainers and right-brainers, intelligence up the ying-yang, co-gravitation to urban areas, similar low-overhead space requirements, a high percentage of passionate workers, extraordinarily strong interpersonal bonds within teams, ongoing relationships with “early adopters” among customers, and leadership possessing the right set of nerves for big risk-taking that can lead to big wins.  Weaknesses might include: lack of basic understanding of each other’s work processes, use of jargon that can block communication, unequal access to technological resources and infrastructure, a kind of outsider/insider mentality  that can at times be perceived as offputting or even cultish, and leaders who are burning both candle-ends and constantly traveling, wishing they could teleport and/or be in two places at once.

The opportunities here at the seams of the stART up world (get it?) might be outlined thus: thinking outside the box by default (in fact, who saw the box last?  Do we recall what it even looks like?) , a future orientation that can lend precision to forecasting, authentic concern with how products connect to hearts and souls, an aura of extreme coolness  – some would say even a glamorous mystique, and a common investment in cities.  Plus, and this is a great, BIG plus, funders would really like to see us get together more often.

One way of describing aspects of this interface some might consider threats: mission creep, socializing for its own sake, and loss of institutional memory and identity.  Hate to end on a down note, but we’re out of letters.

You might as an exercise wanna try SWOTting the seams in between two bounded entities.   If you ever do, lemme know what happens…