The Epoch Model: An Arts Organization with an Expiration Date
David J. McGraw, July 2010
This article first appeared in 20UNDER40: Re-inventing the Arts and Arts Education for the 21st Century, edited by Edward P. Clapp. All rights reserved.
Can arts organizations live forever? It is both a hallmark of their design and a measure of their success. The older the organization, the more prestigious it is assumed to be by both audiences and supporters. It is also foolishly assumed that a good arts organization will never decline. In fact, most arts groups have no plan for their eventual end. Their mission statements, their raison d’etre, are so broad and grand that the organizations can never actually achieve them. An organization with an unachievable mission has no choice but to continue or else appear to have been a bad idea from the start. We cling to the belief that great art lives forever, and we force that lofty goal onto our organizations. Anything short of organizational immortality is seen as a failure.
Should arts organizations live forever? The surge of new arts organizations following the birth of NEA in 1965 was truly amazing. Orchestras have grown from approximately a hundred in 1965 to 1,800 in 2008.[1] There were fewer than 100 professional theatres at the NEA’s creation and now number over 2,000.[2] But now this same surge threatens the arts ecosystem. Today’s arts world is an old-growth forest with mighty institutions dominating the scene while new companies struggle to catch any nourishment through the canopy of leaves. We must ask ourselves some hard questions: How can groundbreaking art be created by multi-million dollar institutions on whom dozens, if not hundreds, of people rely for long-term income? Is it any wonder that established arts organizations are criticized for being risk-averse?
Why would arts organizations want to live forever? So much of art is about creation and new work. Many artistic leaders have a revolutionary streak that leads them to work for change.[3] Too many arts groups that were pioneers in their fields have since settled for the nostalgia of their early years. In January of 2008, several leaders from smaller arts organizations in Boston proclaimed themselves “artyrs” and staged a “die in” in protest of the Boston Foundation’s support going almost exclusively to large organizations. Jurgen Weiss, executive director of the Snappy Dance Theatre, commented:
“What I take from it is, ‘Look, here are these big organizations. They’re big. So they must be good. And all these small organizations are having trouble keeping afloat. So by some kind of Darwinian process some of them should die off.’”[4]
If we are to inspire new arts leaders, we need to create not just the next generation of organizations but also new ways to operate these companies. Just as the younger generations of Americans possess different career goals and expectations about job security, new arts organizations should measure success differently than their predecessors. This chapter proposes an alternative organizational model that acknowledges not only the growth but also the decline of a fledgling arts organization, allowing the founders to see the organization through to its completion. This new model will benefit not only the board of directors and executive leadership, but also the organization’s constituents and its local community.
The Natural Lifespan of an Arts Organization
Sir Richard Eyre, former director of the Royal National Theatre, remarked at a 2001 conference in London, "We have to acknowledge that theatre companies have a finite life span and that few manage to sustain artistic ardour beyond seven years.”[5] Sir Eyre further explained, “While theatre as an art form will remain inextinguishable, its survival will not depend on the buildings, institutions and companies that have been established for the needs and aspirations of different generations."[6] How can the arts be served by groups that traded innovation and growth for organizational stability?
The renowned choreographer Merce Cunningham understood the dangers that an innovative dance company would face after the passing of the founder. The dance world watched as Martha Graham’s choreography was tied up in the courts as factions battled for control of the repertoire.[7] And even if the executor of the estate is clearly established, as was the case with Cunningham’s collaborator John Cage, organizations that were founded as experimental companies risk becoming monuments.[8] So the Merce Cunningham Dance Company created a plan to close once its namesake could no longer be active in the daily operations of the company. The Living Legacy Plan, established a month before the choreographer’s death in July 2009, allows the Merce Cunningham company to celebrate its work in a final victory tour, receive support as they transition to new careers, record Cunningham’s oeuvre for future audiences, and create a trust to oversee the access to his work by future artists.[9] The board of directors and executor director Trevor Carlson designed a fitting closure for the company rather than let it drift, frozen in time. As Nancy Umanoff, executive director of the Mark Morris Dance Group, explained, “Merce’s plan is precedent-setting and will serve if not as a specific model, then as motivation and inspiration for everyone to start dealing with the realities of the situation.”[10]
Unfortunately, arts organizations and arts advocacy groups that close on a high note are few and far between. Part of the challenge is identifying when the group has served its purpose and when to step aside for other organizations to take the lead. The Free Southern Theater, an African-American theatre company founded in 1963, realized in 1979 that it had achieved its initial goals and had reached the end of its usefulness, so it decided to throw a funeral for itself, complete with a jazz procession through the streets.[11] The closure of an arts organization need not be a cause for mourning for what might have been as much as a celebration of all that it accomplished.
The Epoch Model
If organizational immortality were not the primary indicator, or even a major indicator, of a successful arts organization, it could have a profound impact on the way we design our companies. While a legacy plan provides a sense of closure after the loss of the founder, many companies begin to decline well before the founder’s passing. Rather than trudge through years of decline, arts organizations can be designed to close in their prime, just as an athlete chooses to retire while at the top of his or her game. This alternative design for an arts organization offers numerous advantages over the traditional model:
The Epoch Model is an arts organization with a defined lifecycle: it is designed to begin and end based on a single strategic plan within a single period of the artists’ lives. This radical concept will force us to rethink the accepted conventions of how we manage art. A shared trait of many works of art is their ephemeral nature, so let us break from the old model and build a new one: an arts organization with an expiration date.
Theatre 2020
To better illustrate the advantages of this concept in practical terms, let us use a specific example. The Epoch Model can succeed in a variety of artistic genres; but for the sake of this example we will use a theatre company. While the best length for an organizational lifespan is open to experimentation, we will follow Eyre’s recommendation of seven years. Imagine a group of young artists and local leaders who want to start a new theatre company in their hometown. The community may have a limited history of supporting arts organizations, but the founders believe in the project and commit themselves to a seven-year run. The board of this hypothetical company decides to begin producing theatre in 2013 and so they name their group Theatre 2020.
Advantages for the Board of Directors
Theatre 2020 can begin, grow, decline, and end under a single board of directors. In order to plan its operations, produce theatre for seven years, and then settle all final accounts, the actual commitment of the board would likely be nine years, not an uncommon commitment for a volunteer board. Consider the tremendous sense of satisfaction for board members to oversee the organization from start to finish. Due to the finite commitment of the board tenure, members will not be faced with guilt or disappointment at abandoning an arts organization, even after years of service. Many arts organizations use board membership term limits to counter this guilt, but the Epoch Model offers an even better alternative in that board members know the length of their commitment when they join and can be confident that the organization will not fall into decline when they leave. There is still the option to replace individual board members or to augment the size of the board, but the risk of the organization straying from its founding mission decreases dramatically. Initially, the novelty of a defined lifespan model may attract some board members. Yet so too will the idea that one cannot delay in joining this board; this opportunity will not present itself again.
Advantages for Executive Leadership and Senior Staff
The Epoch Model will also allow the board to recruit stronger executive leadership than they might otherwise have, given their budget and location. If the board wants to create an arts organization with limited resources in an area that does not have a strong arts infrastructure, they may have a very difficult time attracting up-and-coming artistic and managing directors. One solution is to offer a seven-year contract with clear support for growth, along with the knowledge that the executive leadership would be integral to the identity of the organization. Contracts would be written to allow either party to break the agreement if it is not a good match, but the expectation is that the leadership would commit to a full seven years of service. For many early career leaders, this arrangement would offer the ideal paradox: job security and the opportunity to experiment. In return, the board is able to recruit more desirable candidates and set the expectation of how long this promising leader will stay with the organization. The lure of selecting productions based on the larger arc of the organization would be very enticing to any arts leader.
The Epoch Model offers incentives that make it easier to recruit senior staff as well. In his 2006 article, “Follow the Leader,” social psychologist Gerd Gigerenzer argues that collaborative business teams benefit from starting all members at the same time so that there are no unfair or artificial advantages of having seniority over peer positions or “being patronized as a younger sibling.”[12] Rarely do we think of a Founding Development Director or a Founding Director of Finance, but why not? Imagine if a Development Director had the ability to help plan the organization and to coordinate development goals alongside a single unified strategic plan. A Director of Finance under this model not only has the normal benefits of implementing a new financial plan but also the knowledge that she or he can see the financial operations through to completion.
The Marketing Director has the most to gain from the Epoch Model. In addition to the novelty of creating brand awareness for such a unique company, every production will have a sense of urgency, as limited supply can increase demand. In fact, the organization may see cultural tourists from outside its region as news spreads of this relatively short collaboration of rising artists. Limited runs tend to draw more publicity and can pique the curiosity of even casual art-goers. When Christo and Jean-Claude installed the Gates Project in Central Park, part of the allure for the four million visitors was the fact that the art would only exist for sixteen days.[13] With a nod to Margo Jones changing the name of her Theatre ’47 to Theatre ’48 on New Year’s Eve, the immediacy of Theatre 2020 and its inevitable countdown lends itself well to marketing initiatives.[14]
Another recruitment advantage of the Epoch model is that the company can hire individuals with unique blends of skills that may not fit into a traditional job description. Theatre 2020 could hire a director of development who is also skilled as a stage director or a director of finance who has experience leading youth programs because it doesn’t have to worry about replicating that particular combination of skills once the employee leaves.[15] Jobs can be tailored to individual strengths and staff members will not be pigeonholed into positions that only utilize part of their skill sets. Both the simultaneous start for all senior staff and the flexibility of job assignments will create a flattened hierarchy and a much more organic structure.
Advantages for the Local Economy
The Epoch Model also acts as a safeguard against another trend plaguing the American arts community. Our society values ownership over the rental of property: there is prestige when an organization purchases a building it had been leasing. Larger organizations in ever-larger buildings claim that they can be landlords, adding this nonessential part of a nonprofit to their list of assets (and liabilities). Yet ownership of property, particularly new performing arts centers, has become a millstone weighing down organizations as they struggle in a weak economy. The Nonprofit Finance Fund conducted a survey of 1,315 members in March 2010 and discovered that a third of non-profit organizations which purchased their facilities experienced significant financial decline due to the increase in fixed expenses and another third just barely broke even.[16] While the national recession has impacted nearly every arts organization, formerly robust groups, such as Shakespeare & Company, compromised their fiscal standing in the weakened economy by borrowing heavily and increasing their operating expenses.[17] The acquisition of new property and construction is cited as the primary cause of Shakespeare & Company’s current cash-flow crisis.[18] Arts organizations should be deemed successful when they connect with their audiences and achieve their missions, not when they transform themselves into shrewd property managers.
Since Theatre 2020 will only be in operation for seven years, there is little reason to purchase its own building. But a seven-year commitment could be very attractive to a potential landlord. The organization could help revitalize a neighborhood while allowing the landlord to renegotiate for a more competitive price with the next tenant. The leadership can pick an area for the present needs of the community rather than long-term property values or future risks for the organization. In the current real estate scene, many communities have weakened business rental markets. Under this alternative model, the landlord could commit now to a new arts tenant at a significantly reduced rate while planning for redevelopment once the market rebounds. For example, in 2009, a Cleveland developer purchased nine foreclosed houses to create an “artists village,” thus revitalizing a particular neighborhood and increasing its property value.[19]
This is not to say that an arts space will necessarily be demolished at the end of the lease. The physical structure could remain; only the construct of an individual company will disperse. The Englert Theatre in Iowa City, Iowa, the Maryland Theatre in Hagerstown, Maryland, and the Briggs Opera House in White River Junction, Vermont, are just three of the many American theatres that were converted to other purposes, fell into disrepair, and were restored to a performing arts venue by its community. Given how this current crisis has affected the commercial real estate market, it is likely that many arts spaces will just remain vacant until new companies emerge.
Personally speaking -- as a young theatre artist I grew up working in theatres that used to be churches, grocery stores, cinemas, and schoolhouses. Perhaps the next generation of artists will reclaim…old theatres.
The Myth of the Need for Stable Arts Organizations
A persuasive argument against the Epoch Model is if there is need for a new arts group today, will there not still be a need in seven years? And if the organization is successful in reaching its community, will not the need be even greater? But too many organizations confuse the need for art with the need for their particular company to exist. Despite emergency fundraising pleas, the death of an individual organization is not the death of an art form, nor will it deprive a community for very long. For example, when Fayetteville, North Carolina, lost its only art museum, the Fayetteville Observer published an editorial the very next week calling on the local arts council to both fill the current void by bringing in traveling art shows and to lay the groundwork for a new museum.[20] In fact, a planned turnover of arts organizations may encourage more young artists to stake their claim within their own communities. Many established arts organizations shun local rising talent, relying on itinerant arts leaders from major cities to set up shop and study the community to create art that somehow has a local connection. As Rebecca Novick suggests in her 20Under40 chapter, “Please Don’t Start a Theater Company,” many younger artists have little hope of earning leadership positions within the established arts organizations in their communities and are relegated to “a shanty outside the fancy building.”[21] The Epoch Model can reinvent what it means to be a community-based company and have a profound impact in what it leaves behind.
Although the Epoch Model might appear to offer only temporary good, it can lay stronger foundations for future arts groups than a traditional organization, both locally and within the larger arts community. Some professional artists who moved to the community for the organization may choose to stay and integrate. Volunteers and early career artists now possess the experience to operate their own arts companies. The executive leadership may move on, but this is also a victory as it creates opportunities for the next generation of leadership. Rather than create a vacuum, it guarantees career growth as the end of one company spawns new leadership and new goals for the next organization. Or as Sir Eyre explained, “Like everything else in life, with death there is a birth.”[22] Those rising executive leaders, sporting resumes with a successful tenure, can create new collaborations and keep their art fresh with even greater challenges, which will bring even more recognition to the community that gave them their start.
There will also be tangible benefits for the community in the planned closing of this hypothetical theatre. In a non-profit’s articles of incorporation and subsequent by-laws, all assets after settled debts are donated back to the state or to the local community.[23] Arts groups that close after a long decline have very few assets available after paying their debts, as these debts were often the reason for their closure. The Epoch Model, which closes by choice and not by necessity, is in a position to donate much more to the community that has supported it. The theatre in our example can gift the lighting instruments, sound system, costumes, props, and scenery to other performing arts groups and schools. Office equipment can be gifted to area nonprofits. Following the trend of “green” enterprise, the arts organization can be strategic in how it recycles its assets. These physical assets will be in good condition as they have only seen seven years of use. Best of all, the other arts groups and non-profits will know when these gifts will arrive and plan accordingly, potentially even planning to move into the newly available space. In fact, Theatre 2020 can make this divesting of assets part of its closing celebration as it gives back all that it has received from the community.
Other Applications for the Epoch Model
The Epoch Model can also be applied to the visual arts in the form of a limited residency for a group of artists connected by shared experiences over a specific period of time. Collaborative residencies already exist within some host organizations such as AS220 in Providence or the Cocoon Gallery at the Arts Incubator of Kansas City, but the Epoch Model structures the organization itself as a single residency. Much like the performing arts model, a municipality could choose to revitalize a community by “seeding” a neighborhood with established artists for a defined period of time, both to make new artistic experiences available to residents and to inspire local artists. The key, again, is to not create an ongoing collaboration that will grow stale and decline as the founders move on but to make it a one-time commitment of time and resources that will represent a unique period of the artists’ careers.
The model could also readily be adapted for arts education and advocacy groups. The catalyst for many advocacy groups is a specific need or crisis, but, if the group is successful in meeting its initial goal, it often splinters as some founders consider the task complete while others choose to identify an even more difficult challenge. As is the case with board members, founding members can dedicate so much of their time and resources towards the initial goal that they are unable to sustain the evolving organization for the long term. Some arts advocacy groups decay from within as members lose their zeal. But closing the organization can become problematic as the group’s mere existence becomes associated with the overall mission, so the loss of the organization could be mistakenly equated with public apathy for the cause. The Epoch Model allows the group to sustain itself and its constituents through the tough struggle with the knowledge that everyone’s commitment is restricted to a period of time. Such a restriction reinforces the urgency of the group’s mission.
Challenges and New Opportunities
Given these advantages, what is the biggest challenge for a group that adopts the Epoch Model? Funding. Many foundations and government agencies require an organization to have an established record of creating art to be eligible for grants, which could affect how quickly the short-lived organization can grow.[24] Andrew Taylor, Director of the Bolz Center for Arts Administration, identifies the major obstacle: many grant opportunities are designed to make the arts organization more self-sufficient and independent in its operations, rather than to provide “seed capital and hands-on support” for innovative models.[25] As the organization nears its predetermined end, it will become increasingly difficult to secure funding, given that operations will not result in long-term growth. Individual project grants are still possible, but it may become difficult for funders to separate the organization’s planned end with a smaller project’s goals.
Perhaps the 501(c)3 non-profit format, with its focus on organizational stability at the expense of innovation and growth, is not the best structure for the Epoch Model. This new model may be better suited for business structures such as the low-profit limited liability company (L3C). An L3C is similar to a limited liability company in format but marries the primary functions of both commercial and non-profit companies. Its primary goal is to achieve a socially beneficial objective, but it recognizes a secondary goal of achieving a profit in the process. The L3C is designed to grow and adapt to the needs of the community more quickly than a 501(c)3 organization while offering a financial incentive to its founders to be successful. The L3C model complies with IRS regulations for Program Related Investments, which would enable foundations to have financial dealings, including even partial ownership, of a commercial arts group that served a charitable goal.[26] Therefore a community foundation could financially support a new arts group in an economically depressed area of town in order to create local jobs. Despite these clear advantages, the L3C model might not be the best solution for smaller companies with limited initial funders and short timelines for harvesting investments.[27] Its open structure could also complicate the planned closure of the company if all parties do not continue to support the original plan. As the debate continues over the viability of the non-profit model, arts groups need to consider hybrids and other management structures.
Case Studies: Countdown to Zero and The Nine
While it is common for small collaborations to spring up around short timelines due to the specific schedules of their members, organizations created to follow the fundamental principles of a defined lifespan are rare. One variation of the Epoch Model is being tested by Countdown to Zero, a political theatre collective based in Denver, Colorado. Brian Freeland and Julie Rada founded the group to present ten plays in a countdown of “politically-charged and provoking work.”[28] Once they present the tenth play, they will disband the group. As Freeland explained, “A series of ten plays would give us the freedom to potentially always have the opportunity to do the work as we saw fit. After ten, it was our hope that we would either find another vehicle to do new work or someone else would pick up the gauntlet and run with it in a more permanent fashion.”[29] In other words, the founders have asked supporters for a temporary commitment but they are leaving the door open to future collaborations.
Rather than define themselves by a given time commitment, Countdown to Zero is choosing to place a limit on the amount of art it will produce. Ms. Rada explained why they chose the format of a countdown:
"The idea of doing a countdown was a way of giving it shape and form…. We are not bound by any schedule. We are not bound to a board of directors or expectations of a season. We have the freedom to be as responsive as we want to be. We may find that we want to do four or five pieces and then go a year with no work because nothing has risen to the surface. In our community, what is relevant for us to be saying? So the idea of countdown was a way to give that shape and room…. In our development of our company, everyone was interested in how revolutionary a model that is for arts organizations. How unusual it is to not do something in perpetuity, feeding on ourselves that would defuse our message. We also have to be very choosey about the work we do, with only ten, we have to know that that is what we want to say."[30]
A similar experiment in organizational design is being attempted in Chicago. Bries Vannon has created The Nine, which he describes as “an artistic product, not an artistic organization” that stages nine works without a predetermined schedule. The Nine asks its audience to “forget everything you know about seasons and subscriptions and boards of directors and accept that you are watching a canvas be painted one section at a time. And when that one canvas is full, we will all, artist and audience alike, turn and walk away – together, but leaving the canvas behind to slowly fade on its own time.”[31] The Nine is its own ephemeral work of art.
Countdown to Zero and The Nine follow the Epoch Model principle of not being designed to last “in perpetuity.” They also seek to increase the importance of each project by having such a short run of productions. Yet their decision to not be tied to a particular schedule restricts staff positions and training opportunities and makes them more nomadic by necessity. They do not have a resident space so the organization has very few physical assets to divest at their closing. The Epoch Model could embrace the flexibility and freedom of these alternative groups while still offering some of the daily support of a traditional arts organization.
Change is Inevitable, but Change can be Strategic
A distressingly large number of arts organizations have no clear plan for leadership succession: a recent survey by the Theatre Communications Group revealed that only 15% of surveyed theatres possess such a plan.[32] As more arts leaders remain in executive positions for ten, twenty, even thirty years, the rise of new leadership is halted. Moreover, these excessive tenures make it increasingly difficult for members or supporters to envision the arts group being managed in any other style. Would it not be better for an organization losing its founder to celebrate its successes, disband, and reinvent itself entirely rather than try to paste a new face onto the existing structure and hope that the new leader can be everything that the old one was but more?
The current economic crisis will surely claim the lives of a number of arts organizations. But one cannot help but wonder if it might be like a wildfire clearing out the old growth so that a new forest can emerge. Entrepreneurship, a concept held aloft by the business world, requires a churning and collapse of old systems so that new models can arise. According to government data, only 40% of American start-up companies in the commercial realm survive even 5 years.[33] Even if the current economic crisis claims a quarter of all American arts organizations, do we really think that the arts will die out? The arts themselves will survive and new arts companies will be more nimble and better equipped to adapt to the changing world. As Gary Steuer, director of Philadelphia’s Office of Arts, Culture, and the Creative Economy, notes, “We are just moving into an era where an array of different models exist to make and support art and creativity.”[34]
The traditional arts company model favors organizational stability over artistic growth, providing long-term employment over pushing artists and advocates to new heights, and protecting legacy over creating opportunities for the next generation of arts leaders. The Epoch Model recognizes the natural lifecycle of a collaboration of dedicated artists, gives greater ownership and control to the founding members, and balances the organization within its community. While this alternative design is not intended for all organizations, it calls all of us to reexamine how we manage our arts groups. Are our organizations truly serving their missions or have we chosen mission statements that serve our desire to exist? Like the Merce Cunningham Dance Company and the Free Southern Theatre, arts organizations must recognize when to leave the stage. May all arts organizations have the courage to close their own doors when their time is up and march out into the streets in celebration.
Interested in more information on the Epoch Model or want to join others in this experiment?
Visit www.20Under40.org to join the discussion!
[1] Bauerlein, M., & Grantham, E. (Eds.) National Endowment for the Arts: A History 1965-2008. Washington, D.C.: National Endowment for the ARts, 2009: 228.
[2] Ibid: 251.
[3] Stevens, S.K. “Helping Founders Succeed.” Centerpiece Series, Theatre Communications Group (1999),http://www.tcg.org/pdfs/ACF1993.pdf :3.
[4] Edgers, G. “Small Arts Groups are Dying to be Heard.” The Boston Globe. January 12, 2008. http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/articles/2008/01/12/small_arts_groups_are_dying_to_be_heard/
[5] Reynolds, N. “Subsidy Theatres Attacked by Eyre.” The Daily Telegraph. March 2, 2001.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Lubow, A. “Can Modern Dance be Preserved?” The New York Times. November 5, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/magazine/08cunningham-t.html
[8] Ibid.
[9] Taylor, K. “Merce Cunningham Announces Precedent-Setting Plan for Future of His Dance Company and His Work." Press Release, Merce Cunningham Dance Company. June 9, 2009. http://www.merce.org/p/documents/CDFLegacyPressRelease.pdf ; 1-3.
[10] Lubow, A. "Can Modern Dance Be Preserved?" 2009.
[11] Hill, J. “A Farewell Without Mourning: A Jazz Funeral for Free Southern Theater.” Southern Exposure, 14 (1986): 76.
[12] Gigerenzer, G. “Follow the Leader.” Harvard Business Review 84, no. 2 (2006): 58-59.
[13] Hardymon, F., Lerner, J., & Leamon, A. “Christo and Jeanne-Claude: The Art of the Entrepreneur.” Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Case Study, 2006: 11.
[14] Jones, M. Theatre-in-the-Round. New York: Rhinehart & Co., 1951: 63.
[15] Novick, Rebecca. Personal Conversation, July 6, 2010.
[16] Miller, C. “The Four Horsemen of the Nonprofit Financial Apocalypse.” The Nonprofit Quarterly. Spring 2010.
[17] Nonprofit Finance Fund. “An Independent Assessment of the Current Financial Situation of Shakespeare & Company, Inc.” October 14, 2009: 25.
[18] Healy, P. “Job Cuts Come to Shakespeare & Company.” The New York Times, Arts Beat blog. October 14, 2009.
[19] Alter, A. “Artists vs. Blight.” The Wall Street Journal. April 17, 2009.
[20] Editorial Board, Fayetteville Observer, “Editorial: Revival – Restore? Replace? Either Way, We’ve Got to Have Art.” Fayetteville Observer. June 6, 2010.
[21] Novick, R. "Please, Don't Start a Theatre Company! Next Generation Arts Institutions and Alternative Career Paths." 20UNDER40: Re-inventing the Arts and Arts Education for the 21st Century. Editor: Edward P. Clapp. Somerville, MA: Authorhouse, 2010. 67.
[22] Reynolds, N. "Subsidy Theatres Attacked by Eyre," 2001.
[23] Internal Revenue Service. "Publication 557: Tax Exempt Status for Your Organization." 2008.http://www.irs.gov/publications/p557/index.html
[24] Undercofier, J. “Cultural Entrepreneurship.” Posting on State of the Arts blog, May 22, 2010.
http://www.artsjournal.com/state/2010/05/cultural_entrepreneurship/
[25] Taylor, A. “Preparing the Cultural Entrepreneur.” Posting on The Artful Manager blog, May 24, 2010. http://www.artsjournal.com/artfulmanager/main/preparing_the_cultural_entrepr.php
[26] Community Wealth Ventures, Inc. “The L3C: Low-Profit Limited Liability Company." Research Brief. 2008. 1-3.
[27] Simon, N. “Notes on Structure Lab: Legal and Financial Models for Social Entrepreneurship.” Posting on Museum 2.0 blog, May 3, 2010. http://museumtwo.blogspot.com/2010/05/notes-on-structure-lab-legal-and.html
[28] Rada, Julie. Interview with the author, December 3, 2009.
[29] Freeland, Brian. Interview with the author, December 3, 2009.
[30] Rada.
[31] Vannon, B. “About the Nine.” 2010. http://www.theninechicago.com/index.php?id=5
[32] Voss, Z.G., Voss, G.B., Schuff, C., & Rose, I.B. “In Whom We Trust IV: Theatre Governing Boards in 2007.” Centerpiece Series, Theatre Communications Group (2007). http://www.tcg.org/pdfs/publications/centerpiece/centerpiece_1207.pdf : 2.
[33] Nucci, A.R. “The Demography of Business Closings.” Small Business Economics 12 (February 1999): 25-29.
[34] Steuer, G. “Bridging the Nonprofit/For-profit Arts/Creative Industry Divide" posting on ARTSblog, March 11, 2010. http://blog.artsusa.org/2010/03/11/4394/
Can arts organizations live forever? It is both a hallmark of their design and a measure of their success. The older the organization, the more prestigious it is assumed to be by both audiences and supporters. It is also foolishly assumed that a good arts organization will never decline. In fact, most arts groups have no plan for their eventual end. Their mission statements, their raison d’etre, are so broad and grand that the organizations can never actually achieve them. An organization with an unachievable mission has no choice but to continue or else appear to have been a bad idea from the start. We cling to the belief that great art lives forever, and we force that lofty goal onto our organizations. Anything short of organizational immortality is seen as a failure.
Should arts organizations live forever? The surge of new arts organizations following the birth of NEA in 1965 was truly amazing. Orchestras have grown from approximately a hundred in 1965 to 1,800 in 2008.[1] There were fewer than 100 professional theatres at the NEA’s creation and now number over 2,000.[2] But now this same surge threatens the arts ecosystem. Today’s arts world is an old-growth forest with mighty institutions dominating the scene while new companies struggle to catch any nourishment through the canopy of leaves. We must ask ourselves some hard questions: How can groundbreaking art be created by multi-million dollar institutions on whom dozens, if not hundreds, of people rely for long-term income? Is it any wonder that established arts organizations are criticized for being risk-averse?
Why would arts organizations want to live forever? So much of art is about creation and new work. Many artistic leaders have a revolutionary streak that leads them to work for change.[3] Too many arts groups that were pioneers in their fields have since settled for the nostalgia of their early years. In January of 2008, several leaders from smaller arts organizations in Boston proclaimed themselves “artyrs” and staged a “die in” in protest of the Boston Foundation’s support going almost exclusively to large organizations. Jurgen Weiss, executive director of the Snappy Dance Theatre, commented:
“What I take from it is, ‘Look, here are these big organizations. They’re big. So they must be good. And all these small organizations are having trouble keeping afloat. So by some kind of Darwinian process some of them should die off.’”[4]
If we are to inspire new arts leaders, we need to create not just the next generation of organizations but also new ways to operate these companies. Just as the younger generations of Americans possess different career goals and expectations about job security, new arts organizations should measure success differently than their predecessors. This chapter proposes an alternative organizational model that acknowledges not only the growth but also the decline of a fledgling arts organization, allowing the founders to see the organization through to its completion. This new model will benefit not only the board of directors and executive leadership, but also the organization’s constituents and its local community.
The Natural Lifespan of an Arts Organization
Sir Richard Eyre, former director of the Royal National Theatre, remarked at a 2001 conference in London, "We have to acknowledge that theatre companies have a finite life span and that few manage to sustain artistic ardour beyond seven years.”[5] Sir Eyre further explained, “While theatre as an art form will remain inextinguishable, its survival will not depend on the buildings, institutions and companies that have been established for the needs and aspirations of different generations."[6] How can the arts be served by groups that traded innovation and growth for organizational stability?
The renowned choreographer Merce Cunningham understood the dangers that an innovative dance company would face after the passing of the founder. The dance world watched as Martha Graham’s choreography was tied up in the courts as factions battled for control of the repertoire.[7] And even if the executor of the estate is clearly established, as was the case with Cunningham’s collaborator John Cage, organizations that were founded as experimental companies risk becoming monuments.[8] So the Merce Cunningham Dance Company created a plan to close once its namesake could no longer be active in the daily operations of the company. The Living Legacy Plan, established a month before the choreographer’s death in July 2009, allows the Merce Cunningham company to celebrate its work in a final victory tour, receive support as they transition to new careers, record Cunningham’s oeuvre for future audiences, and create a trust to oversee the access to his work by future artists.[9] The board of directors and executor director Trevor Carlson designed a fitting closure for the company rather than let it drift, frozen in time. As Nancy Umanoff, executive director of the Mark Morris Dance Group, explained, “Merce’s plan is precedent-setting and will serve if not as a specific model, then as motivation and inspiration for everyone to start dealing with the realities of the situation.”[10]
Unfortunately, arts organizations and arts advocacy groups that close on a high note are few and far between. Part of the challenge is identifying when the group has served its purpose and when to step aside for other organizations to take the lead. The Free Southern Theater, an African-American theatre company founded in 1963, realized in 1979 that it had achieved its initial goals and had reached the end of its usefulness, so it decided to throw a funeral for itself, complete with a jazz procession through the streets.[11] The closure of an arts organization need not be a cause for mourning for what might have been as much as a celebration of all that it accomplished.
The Epoch Model
If organizational immortality were not the primary indicator, or even a major indicator, of a successful arts organization, it could have a profound impact on the way we design our companies. While a legacy plan provides a sense of closure after the loss of the founder, many companies begin to decline well before the founder’s passing. Rather than trudge through years of decline, arts organizations can be designed to close in their prime, just as an athlete chooses to retire while at the top of his or her game. This alternative design for an arts organization offers numerous advantages over the traditional model:
- A single founding vision can guide the organization from start to predetermined finish.
- Productions, exhibitions, and initiatives can be selected to follow an artistic arc rather than merely filling generic programming slots year after year.
- The company can plan its organizational growth and contraction with an eye towards its end.
- Its membership can challenge itself to fulfill its mission with greater urgency, knowing that this collaboration is a fleeting opportunity with a defined commitment from each member.
- Audiences will know that they cannot take the organization for granted and that the organization represents a specific period of time, or epoch, of the artistic life of the community.
The Epoch Model is an arts organization with a defined lifecycle: it is designed to begin and end based on a single strategic plan within a single period of the artists’ lives. This radical concept will force us to rethink the accepted conventions of how we manage art. A shared trait of many works of art is their ephemeral nature, so let us break from the old model and build a new one: an arts organization with an expiration date.
Theatre 2020
To better illustrate the advantages of this concept in practical terms, let us use a specific example. The Epoch Model can succeed in a variety of artistic genres; but for the sake of this example we will use a theatre company. While the best length for an organizational lifespan is open to experimentation, we will follow Eyre’s recommendation of seven years. Imagine a group of young artists and local leaders who want to start a new theatre company in their hometown. The community may have a limited history of supporting arts organizations, but the founders believe in the project and commit themselves to a seven-year run. The board of this hypothetical company decides to begin producing theatre in 2013 and so they name their group Theatre 2020.
Advantages for the Board of Directors
Theatre 2020 can begin, grow, decline, and end under a single board of directors. In order to plan its operations, produce theatre for seven years, and then settle all final accounts, the actual commitment of the board would likely be nine years, not an uncommon commitment for a volunteer board. Consider the tremendous sense of satisfaction for board members to oversee the organization from start to finish. Due to the finite commitment of the board tenure, members will not be faced with guilt or disappointment at abandoning an arts organization, even after years of service. Many arts organizations use board membership term limits to counter this guilt, but the Epoch Model offers an even better alternative in that board members know the length of their commitment when they join and can be confident that the organization will not fall into decline when they leave. There is still the option to replace individual board members or to augment the size of the board, but the risk of the organization straying from its founding mission decreases dramatically. Initially, the novelty of a defined lifespan model may attract some board members. Yet so too will the idea that one cannot delay in joining this board; this opportunity will not present itself again.
Advantages for Executive Leadership and Senior Staff
The Epoch Model will also allow the board to recruit stronger executive leadership than they might otherwise have, given their budget and location. If the board wants to create an arts organization with limited resources in an area that does not have a strong arts infrastructure, they may have a very difficult time attracting up-and-coming artistic and managing directors. One solution is to offer a seven-year contract with clear support for growth, along with the knowledge that the executive leadership would be integral to the identity of the organization. Contracts would be written to allow either party to break the agreement if it is not a good match, but the expectation is that the leadership would commit to a full seven years of service. For many early career leaders, this arrangement would offer the ideal paradox: job security and the opportunity to experiment. In return, the board is able to recruit more desirable candidates and set the expectation of how long this promising leader will stay with the organization. The lure of selecting productions based on the larger arc of the organization would be very enticing to any arts leader.
The Epoch Model offers incentives that make it easier to recruit senior staff as well. In his 2006 article, “Follow the Leader,” social psychologist Gerd Gigerenzer argues that collaborative business teams benefit from starting all members at the same time so that there are no unfair or artificial advantages of having seniority over peer positions or “being patronized as a younger sibling.”[12] Rarely do we think of a Founding Development Director or a Founding Director of Finance, but why not? Imagine if a Development Director had the ability to help plan the organization and to coordinate development goals alongside a single unified strategic plan. A Director of Finance under this model not only has the normal benefits of implementing a new financial plan but also the knowledge that she or he can see the financial operations through to completion.
The Marketing Director has the most to gain from the Epoch Model. In addition to the novelty of creating brand awareness for such a unique company, every production will have a sense of urgency, as limited supply can increase demand. In fact, the organization may see cultural tourists from outside its region as news spreads of this relatively short collaboration of rising artists. Limited runs tend to draw more publicity and can pique the curiosity of even casual art-goers. When Christo and Jean-Claude installed the Gates Project in Central Park, part of the allure for the four million visitors was the fact that the art would only exist for sixteen days.[13] With a nod to Margo Jones changing the name of her Theatre ’47 to Theatre ’48 on New Year’s Eve, the immediacy of Theatre 2020 and its inevitable countdown lends itself well to marketing initiatives.[14]
Another recruitment advantage of the Epoch model is that the company can hire individuals with unique blends of skills that may not fit into a traditional job description. Theatre 2020 could hire a director of development who is also skilled as a stage director or a director of finance who has experience leading youth programs because it doesn’t have to worry about replicating that particular combination of skills once the employee leaves.[15] Jobs can be tailored to individual strengths and staff members will not be pigeonholed into positions that only utilize part of their skill sets. Both the simultaneous start for all senior staff and the flexibility of job assignments will create a flattened hierarchy and a much more organic structure.
Advantages for the Local Economy
The Epoch Model also acts as a safeguard against another trend plaguing the American arts community. Our society values ownership over the rental of property: there is prestige when an organization purchases a building it had been leasing. Larger organizations in ever-larger buildings claim that they can be landlords, adding this nonessential part of a nonprofit to their list of assets (and liabilities). Yet ownership of property, particularly new performing arts centers, has become a millstone weighing down organizations as they struggle in a weak economy. The Nonprofit Finance Fund conducted a survey of 1,315 members in March 2010 and discovered that a third of non-profit organizations which purchased their facilities experienced significant financial decline due to the increase in fixed expenses and another third just barely broke even.[16] While the national recession has impacted nearly every arts organization, formerly robust groups, such as Shakespeare & Company, compromised their fiscal standing in the weakened economy by borrowing heavily and increasing their operating expenses.[17] The acquisition of new property and construction is cited as the primary cause of Shakespeare & Company’s current cash-flow crisis.[18] Arts organizations should be deemed successful when they connect with their audiences and achieve their missions, not when they transform themselves into shrewd property managers.
Since Theatre 2020 will only be in operation for seven years, there is little reason to purchase its own building. But a seven-year commitment could be very attractive to a potential landlord. The organization could help revitalize a neighborhood while allowing the landlord to renegotiate for a more competitive price with the next tenant. The leadership can pick an area for the present needs of the community rather than long-term property values or future risks for the organization. In the current real estate scene, many communities have weakened business rental markets. Under this alternative model, the landlord could commit now to a new arts tenant at a significantly reduced rate while planning for redevelopment once the market rebounds. For example, in 2009, a Cleveland developer purchased nine foreclosed houses to create an “artists village,” thus revitalizing a particular neighborhood and increasing its property value.[19]
This is not to say that an arts space will necessarily be demolished at the end of the lease. The physical structure could remain; only the construct of an individual company will disperse. The Englert Theatre in Iowa City, Iowa, the Maryland Theatre in Hagerstown, Maryland, and the Briggs Opera House in White River Junction, Vermont, are just three of the many American theatres that were converted to other purposes, fell into disrepair, and were restored to a performing arts venue by its community. Given how this current crisis has affected the commercial real estate market, it is likely that many arts spaces will just remain vacant until new companies emerge.
Personally speaking -- as a young theatre artist I grew up working in theatres that used to be churches, grocery stores, cinemas, and schoolhouses. Perhaps the next generation of artists will reclaim…old theatres.
The Myth of the Need for Stable Arts Organizations
A persuasive argument against the Epoch Model is if there is need for a new arts group today, will there not still be a need in seven years? And if the organization is successful in reaching its community, will not the need be even greater? But too many organizations confuse the need for art with the need for their particular company to exist. Despite emergency fundraising pleas, the death of an individual organization is not the death of an art form, nor will it deprive a community for very long. For example, when Fayetteville, North Carolina, lost its only art museum, the Fayetteville Observer published an editorial the very next week calling on the local arts council to both fill the current void by bringing in traveling art shows and to lay the groundwork for a new museum.[20] In fact, a planned turnover of arts organizations may encourage more young artists to stake their claim within their own communities. Many established arts organizations shun local rising talent, relying on itinerant arts leaders from major cities to set up shop and study the community to create art that somehow has a local connection. As Rebecca Novick suggests in her 20Under40 chapter, “Please Don’t Start a Theater Company,” many younger artists have little hope of earning leadership positions within the established arts organizations in their communities and are relegated to “a shanty outside the fancy building.”[21] The Epoch Model can reinvent what it means to be a community-based company and have a profound impact in what it leaves behind.
Although the Epoch Model might appear to offer only temporary good, it can lay stronger foundations for future arts groups than a traditional organization, both locally and within the larger arts community. Some professional artists who moved to the community for the organization may choose to stay and integrate. Volunteers and early career artists now possess the experience to operate their own arts companies. The executive leadership may move on, but this is also a victory as it creates opportunities for the next generation of leadership. Rather than create a vacuum, it guarantees career growth as the end of one company spawns new leadership and new goals for the next organization. Or as Sir Eyre explained, “Like everything else in life, with death there is a birth.”[22] Those rising executive leaders, sporting resumes with a successful tenure, can create new collaborations and keep their art fresh with even greater challenges, which will bring even more recognition to the community that gave them their start.
There will also be tangible benefits for the community in the planned closing of this hypothetical theatre. In a non-profit’s articles of incorporation and subsequent by-laws, all assets after settled debts are donated back to the state or to the local community.[23] Arts groups that close after a long decline have very few assets available after paying their debts, as these debts were often the reason for their closure. The Epoch Model, which closes by choice and not by necessity, is in a position to donate much more to the community that has supported it. The theatre in our example can gift the lighting instruments, sound system, costumes, props, and scenery to other performing arts groups and schools. Office equipment can be gifted to area nonprofits. Following the trend of “green” enterprise, the arts organization can be strategic in how it recycles its assets. These physical assets will be in good condition as they have only seen seven years of use. Best of all, the other arts groups and non-profits will know when these gifts will arrive and plan accordingly, potentially even planning to move into the newly available space. In fact, Theatre 2020 can make this divesting of assets part of its closing celebration as it gives back all that it has received from the community.
Other Applications for the Epoch Model
The Epoch Model can also be applied to the visual arts in the form of a limited residency for a group of artists connected by shared experiences over a specific period of time. Collaborative residencies already exist within some host organizations such as AS220 in Providence or the Cocoon Gallery at the Arts Incubator of Kansas City, but the Epoch Model structures the organization itself as a single residency. Much like the performing arts model, a municipality could choose to revitalize a community by “seeding” a neighborhood with established artists for a defined period of time, both to make new artistic experiences available to residents and to inspire local artists. The key, again, is to not create an ongoing collaboration that will grow stale and decline as the founders move on but to make it a one-time commitment of time and resources that will represent a unique period of the artists’ careers.
The model could also readily be adapted for arts education and advocacy groups. The catalyst for many advocacy groups is a specific need or crisis, but, if the group is successful in meeting its initial goal, it often splinters as some founders consider the task complete while others choose to identify an even more difficult challenge. As is the case with board members, founding members can dedicate so much of their time and resources towards the initial goal that they are unable to sustain the evolving organization for the long term. Some arts advocacy groups decay from within as members lose their zeal. But closing the organization can become problematic as the group’s mere existence becomes associated with the overall mission, so the loss of the organization could be mistakenly equated with public apathy for the cause. The Epoch Model allows the group to sustain itself and its constituents through the tough struggle with the knowledge that everyone’s commitment is restricted to a period of time. Such a restriction reinforces the urgency of the group’s mission.
Challenges and New Opportunities
Given these advantages, what is the biggest challenge for a group that adopts the Epoch Model? Funding. Many foundations and government agencies require an organization to have an established record of creating art to be eligible for grants, which could affect how quickly the short-lived organization can grow.[24] Andrew Taylor, Director of the Bolz Center for Arts Administration, identifies the major obstacle: many grant opportunities are designed to make the arts organization more self-sufficient and independent in its operations, rather than to provide “seed capital and hands-on support” for innovative models.[25] As the organization nears its predetermined end, it will become increasingly difficult to secure funding, given that operations will not result in long-term growth. Individual project grants are still possible, but it may become difficult for funders to separate the organization’s planned end with a smaller project’s goals.
Perhaps the 501(c)3 non-profit format, with its focus on organizational stability at the expense of innovation and growth, is not the best structure for the Epoch Model. This new model may be better suited for business structures such as the low-profit limited liability company (L3C). An L3C is similar to a limited liability company in format but marries the primary functions of both commercial and non-profit companies. Its primary goal is to achieve a socially beneficial objective, but it recognizes a secondary goal of achieving a profit in the process. The L3C is designed to grow and adapt to the needs of the community more quickly than a 501(c)3 organization while offering a financial incentive to its founders to be successful. The L3C model complies with IRS regulations for Program Related Investments, which would enable foundations to have financial dealings, including even partial ownership, of a commercial arts group that served a charitable goal.[26] Therefore a community foundation could financially support a new arts group in an economically depressed area of town in order to create local jobs. Despite these clear advantages, the L3C model might not be the best solution for smaller companies with limited initial funders and short timelines for harvesting investments.[27] Its open structure could also complicate the planned closure of the company if all parties do not continue to support the original plan. As the debate continues over the viability of the non-profit model, arts groups need to consider hybrids and other management structures.
Case Studies: Countdown to Zero and The Nine
While it is common for small collaborations to spring up around short timelines due to the specific schedules of their members, organizations created to follow the fundamental principles of a defined lifespan are rare. One variation of the Epoch Model is being tested by Countdown to Zero, a political theatre collective based in Denver, Colorado. Brian Freeland and Julie Rada founded the group to present ten plays in a countdown of “politically-charged and provoking work.”[28] Once they present the tenth play, they will disband the group. As Freeland explained, “A series of ten plays would give us the freedom to potentially always have the opportunity to do the work as we saw fit. After ten, it was our hope that we would either find another vehicle to do new work or someone else would pick up the gauntlet and run with it in a more permanent fashion.”[29] In other words, the founders have asked supporters for a temporary commitment but they are leaving the door open to future collaborations.
Rather than define themselves by a given time commitment, Countdown to Zero is choosing to place a limit on the amount of art it will produce. Ms. Rada explained why they chose the format of a countdown:
"The idea of doing a countdown was a way of giving it shape and form…. We are not bound by any schedule. We are not bound to a board of directors or expectations of a season. We have the freedom to be as responsive as we want to be. We may find that we want to do four or five pieces and then go a year with no work because nothing has risen to the surface. In our community, what is relevant for us to be saying? So the idea of countdown was a way to give that shape and room…. In our development of our company, everyone was interested in how revolutionary a model that is for arts organizations. How unusual it is to not do something in perpetuity, feeding on ourselves that would defuse our message. We also have to be very choosey about the work we do, with only ten, we have to know that that is what we want to say."[30]
A similar experiment in organizational design is being attempted in Chicago. Bries Vannon has created The Nine, which he describes as “an artistic product, not an artistic organization” that stages nine works without a predetermined schedule. The Nine asks its audience to “forget everything you know about seasons and subscriptions and boards of directors and accept that you are watching a canvas be painted one section at a time. And when that one canvas is full, we will all, artist and audience alike, turn and walk away – together, but leaving the canvas behind to slowly fade on its own time.”[31] The Nine is its own ephemeral work of art.
Countdown to Zero and The Nine follow the Epoch Model principle of not being designed to last “in perpetuity.” They also seek to increase the importance of each project by having such a short run of productions. Yet their decision to not be tied to a particular schedule restricts staff positions and training opportunities and makes them more nomadic by necessity. They do not have a resident space so the organization has very few physical assets to divest at their closing. The Epoch Model could embrace the flexibility and freedom of these alternative groups while still offering some of the daily support of a traditional arts organization.
Change is Inevitable, but Change can be Strategic
A distressingly large number of arts organizations have no clear plan for leadership succession: a recent survey by the Theatre Communications Group revealed that only 15% of surveyed theatres possess such a plan.[32] As more arts leaders remain in executive positions for ten, twenty, even thirty years, the rise of new leadership is halted. Moreover, these excessive tenures make it increasingly difficult for members or supporters to envision the arts group being managed in any other style. Would it not be better for an organization losing its founder to celebrate its successes, disband, and reinvent itself entirely rather than try to paste a new face onto the existing structure and hope that the new leader can be everything that the old one was but more?
The current economic crisis will surely claim the lives of a number of arts organizations. But one cannot help but wonder if it might be like a wildfire clearing out the old growth so that a new forest can emerge. Entrepreneurship, a concept held aloft by the business world, requires a churning and collapse of old systems so that new models can arise. According to government data, only 40% of American start-up companies in the commercial realm survive even 5 years.[33] Even if the current economic crisis claims a quarter of all American arts organizations, do we really think that the arts will die out? The arts themselves will survive and new arts companies will be more nimble and better equipped to adapt to the changing world. As Gary Steuer, director of Philadelphia’s Office of Arts, Culture, and the Creative Economy, notes, “We are just moving into an era where an array of different models exist to make and support art and creativity.”[34]
The traditional arts company model favors organizational stability over artistic growth, providing long-term employment over pushing artists and advocates to new heights, and protecting legacy over creating opportunities for the next generation of arts leaders. The Epoch Model recognizes the natural lifecycle of a collaboration of dedicated artists, gives greater ownership and control to the founding members, and balances the organization within its community. While this alternative design is not intended for all organizations, it calls all of us to reexamine how we manage our arts groups. Are our organizations truly serving their missions or have we chosen mission statements that serve our desire to exist? Like the Merce Cunningham Dance Company and the Free Southern Theatre, arts organizations must recognize when to leave the stage. May all arts organizations have the courage to close their own doors when their time is up and march out into the streets in celebration.
Interested in more information on the Epoch Model or want to join others in this experiment?
Visit www.20Under40.org to join the discussion!
[1] Bauerlein, M., & Grantham, E. (Eds.) National Endowment for the Arts: A History 1965-2008. Washington, D.C.: National Endowment for the ARts, 2009: 228.
[2] Ibid: 251.
[3] Stevens, S.K. “Helping Founders Succeed.” Centerpiece Series, Theatre Communications Group (1999),http://www.tcg.org/pdfs/ACF1993.pdf :3.
[4] Edgers, G. “Small Arts Groups are Dying to be Heard.” The Boston Globe. January 12, 2008. http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/articles/2008/01/12/small_arts_groups_are_dying_to_be_heard/
[5] Reynolds, N. “Subsidy Theatres Attacked by Eyre.” The Daily Telegraph. March 2, 2001.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Lubow, A. “Can Modern Dance be Preserved?” The New York Times. November 5, 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/magazine/08cunningham-t.html
[8] Ibid.
[9] Taylor, K. “Merce Cunningham Announces Precedent-Setting Plan for Future of His Dance Company and His Work." Press Release, Merce Cunningham Dance Company. June 9, 2009. http://www.merce.org/p/documents/CDFLegacyPressRelease.pdf ; 1-3.
[10] Lubow, A. "Can Modern Dance Be Preserved?" 2009.
[11] Hill, J. “A Farewell Without Mourning: A Jazz Funeral for Free Southern Theater.” Southern Exposure, 14 (1986): 76.
[12] Gigerenzer, G. “Follow the Leader.” Harvard Business Review 84, no. 2 (2006): 58-59.
[13] Hardymon, F., Lerner, J., & Leamon, A. “Christo and Jeanne-Claude: The Art of the Entrepreneur.” Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Case Study, 2006: 11.
[14] Jones, M. Theatre-in-the-Round. New York: Rhinehart & Co., 1951: 63.
[15] Novick, Rebecca. Personal Conversation, July 6, 2010.
[16] Miller, C. “The Four Horsemen of the Nonprofit Financial Apocalypse.” The Nonprofit Quarterly. Spring 2010.
[17] Nonprofit Finance Fund. “An Independent Assessment of the Current Financial Situation of Shakespeare & Company, Inc.” October 14, 2009: 25.
[18] Healy, P. “Job Cuts Come to Shakespeare & Company.” The New York Times, Arts Beat blog. October 14, 2009.
[19] Alter, A. “Artists vs. Blight.” The Wall Street Journal. April 17, 2009.
[20] Editorial Board, Fayetteville Observer, “Editorial: Revival – Restore? Replace? Either Way, We’ve Got to Have Art.” Fayetteville Observer. June 6, 2010.
[21] Novick, R. "Please, Don't Start a Theatre Company! Next Generation Arts Institutions and Alternative Career Paths." 20UNDER40: Re-inventing the Arts and Arts Education for the 21st Century. Editor: Edward P. Clapp. Somerville, MA: Authorhouse, 2010. 67.
[22] Reynolds, N. "Subsidy Theatres Attacked by Eyre," 2001.
[23] Internal Revenue Service. "Publication 557: Tax Exempt Status for Your Organization." 2008.http://www.irs.gov/publications/p557/index.html
[24] Undercofier, J. “Cultural Entrepreneurship.” Posting on State of the Arts blog, May 22, 2010.
http://www.artsjournal.com/state/2010/05/cultural_entrepreneurship/
[25] Taylor, A. “Preparing the Cultural Entrepreneur.” Posting on The Artful Manager blog, May 24, 2010. http://www.artsjournal.com/artfulmanager/main/preparing_the_cultural_entrepr.php
[26] Community Wealth Ventures, Inc. “The L3C: Low-Profit Limited Liability Company." Research Brief. 2008. 1-3.
[27] Simon, N. “Notes on Structure Lab: Legal and Financial Models for Social Entrepreneurship.” Posting on Museum 2.0 blog, May 3, 2010. http://museumtwo.blogspot.com/2010/05/notes-on-structure-lab-legal-and.html
[28] Rada, Julie. Interview with the author, December 3, 2009.
[29] Freeland, Brian. Interview with the author, December 3, 2009.
[30] Rada.
[31] Vannon, B. “About the Nine.” 2010. http://www.theninechicago.com/index.php?id=5
[32] Voss, Z.G., Voss, G.B., Schuff, C., & Rose, I.B. “In Whom We Trust IV: Theatre Governing Boards in 2007.” Centerpiece Series, Theatre Communications Group (2007). http://www.tcg.org/pdfs/publications/centerpiece/centerpiece_1207.pdf : 2.
[33] Nucci, A.R. “The Demography of Business Closings.” Small Business Economics 12 (February 1999): 25-29.
[34] Steuer, G. “Bridging the Nonprofit/For-profit Arts/Creative Industry Divide" posting on ARTSblog, March 11, 2010. http://blog.artsusa.org/2010/03/11/4394/