Dance Touring Initiative Full Report by South Arts

South Arts Dance Touring Initiative A Mid-Project Review: June 2009 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; October 2010 Rosemary W. Johnson, Lead Consultant Dance Touring Initiative Consultant Team

ABSTRACT The purpose of this preliminary report is to give a mid-project review of the Initiative through October 2010 in order to share information and present conclusions about the benefits, impact and implications of this initiative for the presenting field.

Executive Summary The South Arts Dance Touring Initiative provides dance presenters a galvanizing, transformative process that creates a dynamic impact on artists, audiences, and communities. By establishing a network and learning community among dance presenters who interact with artists and managers/agents in new ways, the Dance Touring Initiative provides a new paradigm for dance touring and presenting by: • •

• • • •

Building the expertise of dance presenters who understand the process, develop the necessary tools, and take the responsibility to see and learn about the work. Fostering trust and transparency within the presenter network to reach consensus on curating artists, coordinating block tour schedules, and using new fee negotiation methods so that the presenters can effectively harness the “buying power” of the network. Building relationships with artists through direct interaction and pre-tour site-visits to engage artists with the community and create more effective residencies. Developing deeper relationships with dance agents and managers that emphasize their role as resources about the art of dance. Seeking ways to extend the dance network’s values and presenting model to include other presenters and other arts disciplines. Creating common evaluation survey tools to uniformly collect information and determine the community impact of the Dance Touring Initiative.

Through the Dance Touring Initiative, South Arts has established a successful framework for a new model of dance touring and presenting. Based on this success, the Initiative will continue with a second group of participants to further refine and improve these processes and provide further documentation of the model’s successes and value to the field.

Overview: South Arts Dance Touring Initiative Some performing arts disciplines have particular challenges for both presenters and audiences. Modern dance and contemporary ballet are among them. After taking a scan of which organizations were applying to South Arts for grants to support dance, South Arts noticed that only a handful of the same presenters were submitting applications. South Arts had in-depth conversations with leaders in the presenting and dance fields about needs and challenges, and determined that, in addition to general support for touring and presenting in the region, there was a need to develop discipline-specific programs which offer presenting organizations opportunities to acquire deeper knowledge and experience in order to cultivate appreciative and committed audiences. South Arts resolved to develop a series of multi-year projects for professionals in the presenting field to help them address those challenges.

South Arts began with the Dance Touring Initiative (DTI), an intensive three-year program working with eleven (11) presenters1 selected through a competitive application process. Selection was based on their capacity for full participation and their ability to meet program goals. South Arts requires the Executive or Artistic Director to be the senior staff person directly involved in all program components. Other selection criteria include: • Full-time paid staff • Currently making one or two dance presentations each year • An existing, but inconsistent or unpredictable dance audience • An appropriate facility for presenting dance • Solid community partnerships which may include a college or university • Recent attendance at the Performing Arts Exchange (PAE) The presenters are engaging in networking and block-booking while receiving technical assistance and professional development at national and regional conferences and dance festivals. South Arts, with support from the National Endowment for the Arts, is providing matching funds to support the touring of dance companies within the network for two consecutive years. The goals of this initiative are to (1) assist presenters in their ability to more effectively present dance by promoting greater understanding and audience engagement, (2) move presenters from sporadic to regular dance presenting, and (3) create a strong network of dance presenters. The three-year cycle includes two tours, with each organization receiving tour support from South Arts to present one dance company per season. For 2010-2011, the presenters selected Doug Varone and Dancers or Dayton Contemporary Dance Company to provide multi-day residencies and public performances in their communities. For the 2011-2012 tour, the presenters selected either Kyle Abraham, Abraham.In.Motion, Ronald K. Brown’s EVIDENCE, A DANCE COMPANY, David Dorfman Dance, or Lula Washington Dance Theatre. Technical assistance and professional development has been designed to complement each tour and enhance presenters' organizational capacity, including planning for residency activities and audience development. South Arts selected a Consultant Team to facilitate this effort and develop an appropriate professional development curriculum.2 This team approach offers a global perspective of the dance presenting field that includes experiences and knowledge of the artist agent/manager, the choreographer/artistic director, and the dance presenter/service provider. The Dance Touring Initiative’s components include the following: 1. Face-to-face convenings at national and regional conferences, including Jacob’s Pillow Dance Festival in August 2009, American Dance Festival in June 2010, and the Performing Arts Exchange conferences in Norfolk, VA (2009), Pittsburgh, PA (2010), and Baton Rouge, LA (2011). A final convening will take place in Atlanta, GA in the fall of 2012. 1 2

A complete listing of the selected presenters is included in Appendix A. See Appendix A for a complete listing of the Presenter Participants and Project Team. 3

2. Monthly facilitated conference calls or webinars that focus on tour development, residency and outreach development, and specific topics such as marketing and promotion, audience development, and assessment. Other colleagues at each presenter’s organization may participate in one or more of these conference calls when appropriate to the topic. 3. A mentoring component to match each participant with an experienced dance presenter in the Southern region who has participated in the Jacob’s Pillow National Leadership Forum or who has demonstrated leadership in the dance presenting field. Each mentor was matched with a DTI presenter based on the mentor’s knowledge areas that could strengthen their mentee’s dance presenting experiences as well as similarities in programming interests, communities, venues or audiences. 4. The development and booking of tours for 2010–2011 and 2010–2012. Because a strong residency was a key component, South Arts’ subsidy included funding for an advance visit by the dance company’s artistic director to facilitate residency planning and community engagement. Initially, the first tour’s goal was to block-book a single dance company by all DTI presenters, and for the second tour, South Arts strongly encouraged the presenters to develop one or more block tours, but it was not a requirement. The purpose of this preliminary report is to give a mid-project review of activities through October 2010 in order to share information and present conclusions about the benefits, impact, and implications of this initiative for the presenting field. A final report will be issued in 2012 following the final convening in Atlanta, which will be scheduled after the 2011–2012 tour.

Year One: July 2009 – October 2010 The first year of the Dance Touring Initiative focused primarily on professional development, building a learning community among the participants, and creating a process for developing a block tour for 2010–2011. The first year included face-to-face convenings at Jacob’s Pillow Dance Festival and the Performing Arts Exchange in Norfolk,VA, monthly conference calls, and site-visits by the artistic directors of dance companies selected for the first tour. In addition, South Arts completed the mentor/mentee matches and encouraged each pair to make their initial contact.

Jacob’s Pillow Dance Festival, August 12–15, 2009 (Becket, MA) The convening at Jacob’s Pillow Dance Festival was the first face-to-face meeting of the Dance Touring Initiative, and was preceded by an introductory conference call with presenters, consultants, and South Arts staff. Jacob’s Pillow provided opportunities for participants to immerse themselves in the art of dance. The consultant team designed a variety of activities to provide an in-depth look into modern and contemporary dance: 1. Group sessions with the consultant team to “Create the Context” by exploring expectations for the Dance Touring Initiative and learning tools for developing dance literacy skills, and to “Explore the Work” through formal and informal group discussions. 4

2. Viewing six dance performances presented during August 12–14 at various Pillow venues, including Doug Varone and Dancers in the Ted Shawn Theatre (saw two performances of the same program), Rubberbandance Group in the Doris Duke Theatre, and Kyle Abraham/Abraham.In.Motion, Solas An Lae, and VIA Dance Collaborative in the InsideOut series. 3. Sessions with selected Jacob’s Pillow staff and Pillow Scholars-in-Residence: • Ella Baff, Executive Director, shared aspects of her vision as a dance presenter and how she perpetuates the Pillow’s much-admired 75-year history. • Norton Owen, Director of Preservation, introduced the Pillow Archives, shared some of its treasures, and gave an overview of the works created at the Pillow over the years and the artists who danced there. • Pillow Scholars Suzanne Carbonneau and Philip Szporer facilitated an informal discussion on the development of modern and contemporary dance and the different terms used to describe its various movement styles. • The group also took a behind-the-scenes technical tour of the two theatres at the Pillow. 4. Sessions with artists and/or their agents who were in residence at the Pillow during August 12–15: • Doug Varone, Artistic Director of Doug Varone and Dancers, led the group through an enjoyable movement “mapping” exercise that tied aspects of their individual stories to language and gesture, followed by a discussion about his work and the company’s performance. • Harold Norris of H-Art Management led a discussion about residencies and “outreach,” the origins of the concept, ways it has been used and abused, and useful resources and effective practices. • Victor Quijada, Artistic Director of Rubberbandance, talked about his work and career. Then, joined by his agent Harold Norris, they discussed how they function as a kind of “tag team” to collaborate with presenters in the design of programs and residencies. 5. Informal gatherings to discuss performances, talk with artists and agents, and build connections within the group. The immersion experience at Jacob’s Pillow provided all the necessary ingredients for the successful launch of the Dance Touring Initiative. The purpose was to begin with the art form, and the priorities were seeing and talking about the work. As one presenter later confirmed, “Any opportunity to see work and engage directly with artists is incredibly valuable to me as a presenter.” Activities were carefully balanced between formal and informal group sessions with the presenters, consultants, and South Arts staff, and the enrichment activities that took place at the Pillow, which included performances, pre- and post-performance talks, sessions with artists and agents, Pillow scholars, and Pillow staff. In Group Session I, “Exploring the Context,” presenters discussed and reached a consensus on what they hoped to learn through their participation in the Dance Touring Initiative. These divided into four broad areas:

1. Tools and techniques to become a more effective dance presenter – learning more about the nuts and bolts of the business, such as the booking process, funding, marketing, making curatorial decisions, etc. 2. How to increase knowledge of dance, personally and for their staff and audiences. 3. How to create sustainable relationships for dance between artists, audiences, and communities. 4. How to create impactful outreach that educates and connects schools and communities. The session then moved into a discussion of “dance literacy and how do we get it?” Two perspectives were presented and considered: the non-dancer’s and the choreographer’s take on experiencing and understanding contemporary dance. Presenters learned that the main barrier to dance literary is that people do not recognize that they have the capacity to “get it,” that they have the ability to observe and talk about what they see, regardless of whether the work is meant to be abstract or a narrative, and regardless of their knowledge of dance. The solution for this is to make a safe environment where audience members feel empowered to explore and talk about dance. When asked about the value of this group session, a novice dance presenter commented, “all this for the non-dance presenters [novice dance presenters] helps with my understanding of modern dance,” while a more experienced dance presenter noted that “Ivan's presentation [Acquiring Dance Literacy: A Twelve-Step Program for Adult Concert-Goers] was worth the trip in and of itself.”3 The performance experiences at Jacob’s Pillow included seeing work in all three venues: the Ted Shawn Theatre (Doug Varone and Dancers), the Doris Duke Theatre (Rubberbandance Group), and the Inside/Out Stage (Solas An Lae, and VIA Dance Collaborative). Kyle Abraham/Abraham.In.Motion, also scheduled for the Inside/Out Stage, was moved into one of the dance studios because of rain. The presenters augmented their performance experiences by attending pre- and post-performance talks conducted by the Pillow Scholars-in-Residence, and were further informed about the artists’ work through individual sessions scheduled with Doug Varone and Victor Quijada. Opportunities to practice their skills in talking about the work extended to informal discussions with the artists, consultants, agents, and each other in the Pillow Pub every evening after the performances. In addition, there was a facilitated discussion about each performance at the next group session following that performance. The presenters had the opportunity to see the same performance twice by Doug Varone and Dancers, planned as an intentional educational experience to expand their understanding of how they view an artist’s work. According to one presenter, “The idea of seeing Varone two nights in a row was brilliant. It was [felt like] a different performance. I'd like to see it a third time.” The following is a summary transcript of the facilitated discussion after viewing the second performance. The group was seated in a different part of the house for the second show…Some felt that they had more sense of the whole piece, and were more able to focus on the entire stage. Some felt more relaxed, and let go of the “I’ve got to get it” urge. 3

See Appendix B, “Acquiring Dance Literacy: A Twelve-Step Program for Adult ConcertGoers.” 6

Others remarked that their memory of the movement wasn’t the same as the actual movement. Some movement they thought was from Lux was actually from Castles. Overall the experience was very different for the group. Some were more aware of the tension in Short Story. Many were able to let the movement happen, concentrate on the flow, and take in the experience as a whole. A few were able to discern Doug's use of pairings of one/three/four that he had mentioned during a Q&A session after the Mapping Exercise. In general, the presenters found that the individual sessions planned specifically for the DTI group and the artists and agents to be more informative and helpful in understanding the work than the public pre- and post-performance discussions that were facilitated by the Pillow Scholars-in-Residence. “The dialogue with Victor helped more than the Pillow Talk to prepare me for the performance,” noted one presenter, while another presenter remarked “Doug connected the dots.” At the same time, the teambuilding nature of Doug Varone’s mapping exercise directly impacted the presenters’ coalescence as a networking group. “I really found Varone's excercise valuable because it helped us relate better to one another and bond a little closer. I feel I know more about our group and each of the members,” wrote one presenter about his/her experience. Despite the overall positive experiences with these sessions, they also raised a number of questions that remained unanswered and left the group wanting to learn more about how to build the most effective artist/agent/presenter relationship. One presenter reflected: I still have questions that I think were supposed to have been addressed in the Norris and Quijada/Norris bit [session]. Do agents jack up dance fees more so than in other presenting areas? I think I've seen evidence of this, but I'm too new to know. How do you get the residency activities that the artist wants to do and can do well? When is it right to demand a conversation with the artist--after the ink dries? I don't think all agents are my friends--some are looking out for me and know what I'm trying to do. Most are unwanted phone calls. How does one build that relationship, especially not knowing what the future holds in terms of funding, tastes of the board, etc.? The sessions with the Pillow staff provided the opportunity to learn about the operation of Jacob’s Pillow as a major, national dance festival, from the Executive Director’s level down to the behind-the-scenes production tour. One presenter talked about how these sessions were informative and interesting: “Norton's ability to tie historical context into the contemporary environment was enjoyable. Access to Ella and Pillow Scholars was informative and provided an opportunity to see how the mission of the Pillow (to engage and deepen public appreciation and support for dance) is carried out by a level of staff members.” The university dance educators/presenters of the group wanted more in-depth time with Norton Owen and the Pillow Archives: “His presentation was exceptional, but I could have taken a dance history class from him instead of seeing the potential of the archives (and then running off to the next activity).” In the joint session with the Pillow Scholars-in-Residence, one presenter reported, “I loved the scholars--it was nice to hear their diverging and converging viewpoints. [It was] worthwhile to have them together in the same place.” Another presenter remarked that “the scholars were better together in a casual atmosphere than they were alone in their pillow talks.”

What did the eleven DTI presenters find most valuable about their experiences at Jacob’s Pillow? • • • •

• • • • • • •

Presenter #1: Putting names to faces and learning the problems and successes of other dance presenters and dance artists. Presenter #2: I found out that even the experts (Jacob's Pillow & H-Art Management) can screw up marketing.4 Presenter #3: The Pillow itself - what it means to contemporary dance and the dance companies that we saw in the two main theatres. It was totally awesome. Also, getting to know one another. You can't put a price on that. Presenter #4: The opportunity to understand the environment in which my DTI colleagues work, live and serve proved to be very valuable. The result of understanding each other’s agendas should assist in designing a program to meet the needs of our diverse constituents. The Pillow also provided a great environment to work in; access to the Pillow Staff to discuss ideas and concepts will assist me in refining my theory on delivering accessible dance to my community. Presenter #5: I'm in good company, doing a good job, beginning to exercise my own vision. I've inherited a 48-year-old series, and after the Pillow, I'm confident that I can steward it through the next quarter century. Presenter #6: Almost everything. Great to meet all the others and talk about our institutions and experiences with dance. Meeting the artists and talking with them about the presenter/artist experience. Seeing all the dance. Presenter #7: Meeting presenters with a variety of experience from different and varied venues, and developing ideas about how to present dance and make connections with audiences. Presenter #8: Seeing several different types of dance groups over a short period and discussing them with colleagues. Presenter #9: The two major performances, dance scholar sessions, session with Ella Baff, group interactions. Presenter #10: Seeing dance and getting to know my colleagues. Presenter #11: The interaction with artists, DTI participants and facilitators. I really enjoyed both the formal and informal conversations. The workshops were helpful, but the opportunity to discuss ideas and thoughts with others was the best thing I took from this experience.

In the final group session at Jacob’s Pillow, the group had a brief discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of their experiences. In general, the group recognized that the successes at Jacob’s Pillow included building a network, building commonality and common links, creating a learning community, starting with the art form, creating dialogue with the artists, and developing a broader understanding. On the other hand, the presenters still had questions about the tour process, how to apply the knowledge, wanted more “nuts and bolts” information, and wanted more time for group interaction and participation. As one presenter succinctly summed it up, “Over the course of the experience, we went from visionary and non-threatening (dance--what 4

This remark was in reference to the session with Victor Quijada and Harold Norris, during which it became clear that the marketing of Rubberbandance Group as “hip hop meets ballet” totally misrepresented the intentions of the artist and his work. 8

the?) to nuts and bolts. Putting the Pillow first (before Norfolk5), and putting team building first, will make this process easier. That said, when we got to the Saturday activities6, we all freaked out and started talking about our venue rigging and electrics, etc.” Another presenter offered this compliment to the planning by South Arts staff and the Consultant Team: “…it was the most perfectly executed event I've ever attended. I would like to complain and ask for more time together at the Pillow, but instead you left me wanting more. Nice work.” The convening at Jacob’s Pillow proved to be the most effective way to launch the Dance Touring Initiative. The Consultant Team and South Arts staff agreed that “starting with the art form,” separate from the business of booking and presenting dance, gave the presenters the luxury of connecting with the artists and their work, established the sense of the group as a learning community, and provided the best foundation for approaching the Marketplace at the upcoming Performing Arts Exchange in Norfolk, VA, the next face-to-face convening of the group.

2009 Performing Arts Exchange, September 23–26, 2009 (Norfolk, VA) As a part of the Jacob’s Pillow evaluation survey, the Dance Touring Initiative presenters were asked a series of questions to help plan their next convening at the 2009 Performing Arts Exchange (PAE) in Norfolk, VA. Because PAE was the first opportunity for the DTI presenters to put their Marketplace skills and group bargaining power into action, the first question dealt with what topics they considered most critical to discuss regarding their work together in developing a block-booked tour. Of the six topics presented on the survey, the following ranking emerged, with 1 being the most critical and 5 the least critical: 1. The selection process used to determine one or possibly two companies (rating average of 1.82%) 2. Artist fee ranges (rating average of 2.64%) 3. Optimal calendar dates for each presenter (rating average of 3.64%) 4. Specific residency activities needed (rating average of 3.91%) 5. Technical limitations for each presenter (rating average of 4.27%) 6. Repertoire restrictions (rating average of 4.73%) It is not surprising that in initially thinking about how to create a block tour, the most critical topics everyone focused on were how the decision would be made, the fee ranges that would be most comfortable for everyone, and how dates would work with respect to everyone’s presenting season. However, in planning for the DTI sessions at PAE, the Consultant Team and South Arts staff worked to provide experiences that would: • • •

Bring the conversation back to the art form Challenge the presenters to move outside their comfort zone when considering artists Develop a different block-booking model for the Marketplace (the PAE exhibit hall where artists/managers and presenters meet to do business)

The second DTI convening planned for the Performing Arts Exchange in Norfolk, VA in September 2009. 6 The final group session at Jacob’s Pillow. 9

• •

Focus on developing relationships with the choreographer/artistic director and the agent/manger Consider how to engage audiences in their community in partnership with the artists

To maximize the Marketplace experience at PAE, the Consultant Team and South Arts staff planned a pre-conference convening that began on Wednesday, September 23, 2009. Building on the experiences at Jacob’s Pillow, guest speakers were invited to address the group, including Leslie Gordon, Executive Director of the Rialto Center for the Arts at Georgia State University and also a DTI mentor; Jodee Nimerichter, Co-Director of the American Dance Festival; and Jane Forde, then-Manager of the National Dance Project (NDP) at the New England Foundation for the Arts. Leslie and Jodee offered two different perspectives of dance presenting – one a university presenter and the other a major, national dance festival. Both spoke about and answered questions on how they curate work, how they contextualize contemporary/modern dance for audiences, and how they build and utilize partnerships for residencies. Jane Forde briefed the group about the opportunities for artists and presenters through the National Dance Project’s production grants and tour subsidies, including tour-only support. At Jacob’s Pillow, each of the DTI presenters received a DVD of the artists who were awarded production grants for 2009-2010 and were asked to review this work prior to meeting with Jane Forde at PAE. They were also provided a handout that showed each of the NDP production grant artists, their agents, and who among these was represented at PAE. Following these presentations, the group launched into a discussion of selection criteria for the first tour, and a grid was developed and distributed to the presenters to use during their Marketplace hours at PAE. The grid contained information about possible dates with weekends vs. weeknights identified, number of performances, desired length of residencies and types of residency activities, fee ranges, minimal information about each presenter’s stage dimensions, and seating capacities. In addition to the grid, the presenters received the compilation of technical specifications for each venue submitted prior to PAE to use as a more detailed reference in the Marketplace. Finally, the presenters identified a list of 15 companies in which they were interested and divided into groups to complete their research assignments on these companies in the Marketplace.7 For the Performing Arts Exchange’s professional development workshops, the DTI presenters were asked to attend the Dance Presenters Roundtable led by Andrea Snyder, then-Executive Director of DanceUSA, on “Truth or Dare: Let’s Talk About Dance Presenting.” This session was followed by a special DTI discussion with Andrea to learn more about DanceUSA and what it provides for the dance presenting field, followed by a facilitated conversation around the topic of “Dance in the South: What do you want? What does it look like?” The discussion touched on: • • • • 7

Connecting on a local level Making it relevant to the date and time Taking the responsibility to make those connections Using liturgical dance as an entry point

See Appendix C for the “Booking Information Form” used to research each company. 10

• • •

Finding talking points and famous people/events from the community to shape the themes Taking it to the community, i.e. in some small communities the church is the place where the art and people connect Helping people understand the story, especially for the general public

The most exciting work for the DTI presenters at PAE took place during the group sessions on Saturday, September 26. Before the discussion began, the ground rules were spelled out: • • • •

Speak one at a time Listen Questions are as important as answers There are no wrong answers or dumb questions

Goals of the discussion included: • • • •

Discuss what is important to the group Discuss shared goals Discuss what each presenter wants individually and the type of experiences that are needed for each community Discuss strategies for audience development goals

Each presenter then talked about their agendas/goals for their residency experience and indicated which dance companies they were considering. These are summarized as follows: •

• •

•

• •

Presenter #1: A company that can give a ½ week residency with outreach to public schools, master classes, and pre/post conversations to share new idiom with the audience; a company that represents diversity and has the ability to communicate well about the artistic process. Presenter #2: A company that can provide outreach activities and other types of residency work such as pre/post discussions, and can give a cross-disciplinary experience with music and themes that can be understood by the audience. Presenter #3: A company that supports curricula goals of my institution, has excellent teachers for master classes/workshops, is choreographically sophisticated and excellent to support academic principles, can create a strong connection with students, enhance the artistic climate for the whole university, and can provide partnership opportunities with the community. Presenter #4: Similar to Presenter #2, a company that can provide “out-of-the-box” residency opportunities, a diversity of programs, loves the greater good idea [not just there to perform], wants to support a positive learning/work environment during the residency, and works in a respectful and ethical manner. Presenter #5: All of the above are good, but I need an “event” to market, a “must-see” experience, an “obvious” hook, and I also want to build a long-term relationship with a dance company. Presenter #6: Interested in community collaboration and wants to stretch, and is willing to do some things that could work for the other presenters around the table.

• • • •

•

Presenter #7: A company that has excellent teachers, will treat students well, and treats company members well. Presenter #8: All of the above, a company that provides outreach, provides relevance, and has the ability to work with cultural leaders in the community – a “community builder.” Presenter #9: Outreach is important, but not an overriding factor. Will have master classes, but has a new venue and wants a company that provides a more accessible “sound byte” with multiple marketing angles to avoid oversaturation of an artist. Presenter #10: Wants to branch out and take some risk with artistic selection, and wants an artist who is able to communicate, wants to do some innovative outreach components, such as engaging the visual art community and other students (athletes), and wants to provide an uplifting experience. Presenter wants to move away from dance as a spectacle, i.e. dance “focus” vs. dance theater. Presenter #11: Wants a company that is willing to do community activist work to develop audiences, and presenter wants the ability/knowledge to explain the work.

The final session took place after the Marketplace closed on Saturday, during which the presenters “took ownership” of the process and, in essence, led the discussion about narrowing down the list. Each company that was initially proposed in Wednesday’s session was reported on by various DTI members and facts/information about each company were listed for discussion. Consensus was reached on which companies would be included in the “short list” of four companies for further discussion. There was a definite impact felt throughout the 2009 Performing Arts Exchange as a result of the Dance Touring Initiative. Gerri Combs, Executive Director of South Arts, reported hearing positive feedback from the agents, who said that having the DTI presenters in the Marketplace “shopping” as a group gave excitement and energy to the Marketplace. Other positive feedback was that this model is interesting and the Consultant Team approach is working well. The most important outcome, however, was that the DTI presenters coalesced as a network and took ownership of their work together. As a result of their experiences at Jacob’s Pillow and PAE, there was now a comfort level and trust among the group members to make decisions together about the 2010–2011 tour.

Finalizing the Tour for 2010–2011 During the weeks following the 2009 Performing Arts Exchange, the block-booking process was further refined through a series of conference calls. It was determined at PAE that a “tour wrangler” and a “vice-wrangler” would initially negotiate with the agent on behalf of the group. Each presenter would subsequently talk with the agent about developing the specifics for their particular residency. Full press kits and videos were requested from the agents involved, and the Consulting Team worked to give the presenters ideas on how to modify their usual booking procedures in favor of a group bargaining approach. It became quickly apparent via email conversations that the group was struggling to agree on just one company for the 2010–2011 tour, and they were overly concerned with fees rather than thinking about other factors that should be influencing the decision-making process. South Arts staff and the Consulting Team discussed the following questions and concerns:

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Does the group needs more time to choose an artist? The presenters are basing a lot of decision-making on their project cost. There are scheduling issues with having companies available for contiguous half/full week residencies. Can one or two people do advance residency work prior to the tour instead of the whole company, i.e., setting a work on students before the company’s residency takes place? How will applications for NDP tour-only support affect the timing of making a decision? It is evident that cutting-edge work is not what the presenters are seeking for this first tour – they want to play it safe. What if a presenter is ready to book before a group consensus is reached? How do we ensure that money is not the main issue or deciding factor? Discuss the process that occurs when negotiating and how they can help each other during the process. It is not possible to get real budget numbers until we know the where and when of each stop on the tour. What is the wrangler and co-wrangler's role going to be? How should South Arts and the Consultant Team fit in? Potentially think about needing to have another set of tour wranglers if the group of presenters splits into two groups, each presenting a different company. Have the presenters think about what is appropriate for their community in regards to the educational activities. Emphasize that there is funding available to bring the artist to the presenter for a site-visit prior to the actual residency. This is a key opportunity to get community, staff, and organizational buy-in.

When it came to fee negotiation for the group, the primary question was – would it be possible to harness the “buying power” of the group? By this time, the list of four companies had narrowed to three, and South Arts approved the idea of supporting a block tour by two different companies for 2010–2011 and letting the presenters decide which block tour best fit their needs. The Consultant Team suggested a strategy for the wranglers to ask agents for a weekly fee, inclusive of transportation but excluding housing. The following grid was then developed for price comparison: DTI Price Comparison Grid Quoted weekly fee, incl. of transportation but excluding housing Housing needs

Room needs Daily room rate (est., single or double)

Company X

Company Y

Company Z

32,000

33,000

25,000

8 dancers 1 Artistic Dir 1 Tech Dir 10 people 6 singles 2 doubles 8 rooms 120

8 dancers 1 Artistic Dir 2 Tech Dir 11 people 3 singles 4 doubles 7 rooms 120

9+ dancers 1 Artistic Dir 3 Tech Dir 13+ people 13 rooms 120

Weekly rooming expenses Total weekly fee, all-inclusive Half-week fee South Arts per site subsidy Net before NDP subsidy Assume 15% NDP subsidy Net half-week fee

6,720 38,720 19,360 8,750 10,610 2,904 7,706

5,880 38,880 19,440 8,750 10,690 2,916 7,774

10,920 35,920 17,960 8,750 9,210 2,694 6,516

By December, the group reached a consensus on two dance companies for the 2010–2011 Tour: Doug Varone and Dancers and Dayton Contemporary Dance Company. Each company was assigned a Tour Wrangler volunteer from the group of presenters interested in that company, who worked with the respective agents to finalize tour dates and develop dates for the advance site-visits by the Artistic Directors in the spring.

Presenter Interviews: The First Year’s Journey In May and June of 2010, Rosemary Johnson conducted personal interviews with each DTI presenter in order to gather the most complete and confidential feedback concerning their experiences during the first year of the Dance Touring Initiative. The questions were organized into three primary areas: 1. Developing the 2010–2011 Tour 2. Artistic Director Site-Visits and Residency Development 3. Impact of the Dance Touring Initiative Program In compiling information from the interviews, responses emerged about how the Dance Touring Initiative was impacting the diversity of presenters represented and how they were creating their own learning community, with South Arts staff and the Consulting Team serving as additional resources. The interviews also provided great information on what was working well and what needed improvement or clarification. Developing the 2010–2011 Tour 1. In what ways did you feel empowered by the presenter network in talking with artists and agents? In what ways did it seem business as usual? a. Presenters who are less experienced with presenting dance: • Gave courage to ask questions and talk with agents empowered by a certain amount of knowledge • Learned to hold my own in a conversation • Able to carry what I learned into watching other dance performances • Would not have undertaken a project of this scale without DTI • Gained confidence from open conversations and brainstorming in face-to-face meetings • Felt more comfortable because of the network, especially at PAE • Working together as a group helped in the learning process • Learned that you didn’t have to order off the menu

• An eye-opening experience • Made some hard choices with a lot of give and take • Never been involved in the booking process before • Didn’t enjoy working with an agent and “haggling” • Unable to make any comparison with “business as usual” b. More experienced dance presenters: • Being able to discuss the pros and cons of each company • Meeting face-to-face and brainstorming • On one hand, it was business as usual because of my past experience; on the other hand, it was very empowering to be a part of the network • Learned to reframe how to look at modern dance • Amazing opportunity for presenters backed by resources and the energy of South Arts staff and consultants • The group, by sheer numbers, gave us buying power, but the approach ended up being a typical booking process • Amazing that everyone got on the same page • Having the “business insiders” there helped group to feel empowered • A lot has been business as usual • Presenters should be talking more and taking the power to talk money • Felt less empowered at first because it was confusing, then felt more empowered when the group came together and formed two tour groups, then felt less empowered because it got away from us again when the agent did not have “buyin” to the different approach to tour development that we were exploring c. Other thoughts (including “needs improvement”): • Didn’t have time to get ahead of it to make it a strong collective effort • Took a while to figure out how the group would work together • Negotiating within the group and project parameters was more difficult because of university or organization restrictions, i.e. scheduling and oversight of contract negotiations • Booking process needed to have one-on-one to tailor the residency to the local venue and community • One tour group was driven more by the agent than the other group • Beginning of DTI was a little confusing, perhaps because of the particular differences within the group • Interesting that now presenters in one group are thinking about presenting the other group’s company for the following tour • It was confusing about what South Arts was covering financially for the network • Would like to look at companies that represent a variety of budget sizes because of financial concerns • Everything was influenced by the agent, the company, South Arts, the consultants, and the presenters trying to figure out the process 2. In what ways did the presenter network and the role of the "wrangler" help in coordinating the efforts of the group? How could that structure be strengthened? • Good to have a spokesman for the group • Great to have a point person to get answers for general questions

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Efficient in starting the conversation, working with the group, and then going back to the agent Group was good about identifying questions and the wrangler was guided by the group’s discussions The role was clear and the tasks were delineated except the fee negotiation was the most vague part of the process Group was never led into a formality that allowed that [fee negotiation] to happen and needed more guidance about this approach in order not to do it “business as usual’ Good to have point person in the beginning and also to have help with coordinating and setting up the overall tour We didn’t negotiate as a group It is hard to let go and function as a group There needs to be organized transparency The wrangler is essential, like the director of a show, and it is better for the rest to have less contact with the agent The structure worked well, but there needs to be more lead time (i.e. five months) From a business point of view, you get the most bang for the buck Some in the group were more experienced than others, and some felt pressured to make a decision quickly It was helpful and affirming to watch those with more experience For the one group, the structure did not work as well, while the other group’s artist and agent supported DTI’s goals and concepts The process needs to be standardized in some way with roles and tasks clearly defined Everyone is so busy and sometimes we got stuck on task lists We are not sharing as much as we could (i.e. marketing) The true potential of the network remains to be seen

3. In your situation, what part of the tour development process happened because of the network, and what part had to be accomplished locally? a. Local concerns and issues • Local schedule (semester class schedule, department schedules, schedules for other performances, schedules of residency partners) • Time commitment to other job responsibilities, related or not related to presenting • What is most accessible to my community/audience • Involving stakeholders in selection process (i.e. college dance students who watched prospective companies’ videos and then had to write about what they liked or didn’t like) • Appealing to the demographics of the community I serve • Sensitive issues to the community (i.e. male duet in Doug Varone program) b. Network concerns and issues • Coordinating the tour dates for 11 presenters – some want weekends, others can do weekdays • The differences between presenters (venues, communities served, budget sizes, staff sizes, etc.) make it difficult and even unrealistic to find one company that can meet the needs of everyone

• • • • •

The differences between university/institutional presenters and stand-alone presenters The resistance by staff and the community to modern dance Modern dance is a hard sell – easier to find companies that are accessible to audiences It is important to foster buy-in from the agents and managers about the DTI process The grant subsidy makes it possible to take the risk of doing “art” vs. “entertainment”

Artistic Director Site-Visits and Residency Development8 1. How did the site-visits and participation of the artists affect the development of the residency in your community? • Artistic Director (AD) asked great questions and had good ideas about how to talk about the repertory (i.e., male duet), and was willing to be flexible about the repertory and program order. AD suggested other company members to teach master classes for the predominantly ballet-based dance studios in my community. • Site-visit was great to brainstorm ideas and get a lot of people involved. Artists were accommodating and flexible, but we were respectful of one another and worked well together to address needs on both sides (artist and presenter/community). This worked much better than the conversations with the agent. • Artistic Director provided more ideas about what was possible for the residency because AD was able to directly connect to the students, faculty, and the community. The preplanning phone call with the AD was crucial in maximizing the benefits of the site-visit, which resulted in the development of a great residency. • The Artistic Director was a great introduction of the company to the community and helped to open dialogue with community partners. Each meeting with a partner led the residency development in a new direction. Would love to emulate this process with other artists in developing their residencies. • It was good to talk to the Artistic Director before the site-visit. The AD had new ideas about residency possibilities I had not thought of, and was great at facilitating technical discussions after seeing the venue. • A site-visit for residency planning is a huge benefit and a huge luxury. I am concerned about how I can budget for this so that site-visits can be a part of future residencies.9 • Site-visit was very productive, but time was limited because of my schedule. I had very defined objectives going into it, but was open to letting ideas develop during the visit. As

In order to share expenses, site-visits were scheduled contiguously for each presenter tour group, if possible, with an overnight stay in each community so that meetings could be scheduled with potential residency partners and participants, and the performance venue could be assessed for potential issues with technical requirements for the proposed tour repertory. 9 As a direct result of these highly successful DTI site-visits, South Arts implemented a new grant program that provides matching funds to presenters to assist with incorporating site-visits into their residency planning. 17

•

a result of the site-visit, I developed a new partnership with the local dance community and the artist was able to better adapt their work to my venue after seeing the space. The site-visit was critical to developing the residency. I had originally thought about it as a menu format – here are defined residency activities this artist does, so select only from these. But meeting with the artist opened up the gamut of possibilities. This was the best part of the whole process. The Artistic Director reworked the menu of residency activities I had prepared and helped me take a step back and rethink everything. Having the artist there opened up everything, including finding some additional money so that the AD could set a work on the dance department students. It got dance directors involved. When the artist got there, they added the seasoning to the “meat and potatoes” residency.

2. What limitations or obstacles prevented you from getting everything that you wanted? • I was limited because the local public school system is not supportive of the arts and not open to interruptions in the school day for in-school residency work of field trips to the theatre. • After the site-visits, it felt more comfortable dealing with the agent and the booking process and residency planning. It was helpful for South Arts to explain to the agents what we are trying to accomplish with the DTI booking process. • Funding has been an issue in that all of the funding is not confirmed yet, but my administration is being supportive. • The site-visit was too short and there was too much to do in one day. However, the overall site-visit schedule for the group was done in a way to maximize administrative and travel costs. I understand now how critical the advance work is to audience development and engagement. • The only limitation was the time constraints of the site-visit. • Missed some opportunities with residency partners because I couldn’t get the meetings scheduled when the artist was there. • Schedule conflicts and working in a university environment. Some things can’t be finalized this far out because that semester’s schedule hasn’t been confirmed. • No limitations from the dance company. However, there are concerns about local participation, especially the church choir performing with the company. • There were no limitations because of working directly with the artist. However, there were time issues with the site-visit schedule. • Too many activities for a one-day site-visit. In the process of building a community choir for the performance, I hadn’t thought of the rehearsal time as a residency activity. • Money can be limiting with the menu-style residency building because there is a separate price for everything. It is better to work with a block fee for everything. 3. In what ways has the community become involved as a result of the site-visit? • The dance committee is very excited, which includes the head of the education department, resident choreographer who has a Master’s degree in dance, four women who either have children taking dance or who run studios, and a professional dancer who danced with Martha Graham.

• • • • • •

• • •

A local recording studio that recorded major artists in the 1960s became involved as a direct result of the site-visit. The AD and the studio director had worked together in the past, and this relationship was not known until the site-visit. I invited the dance community to be a part of the planning, which helped with the marketing and outreach components of the project. We visited an alternative school and did a residency activity during the site-visit, which will now be incorporated into the pre-show discussion. I developed a new partnership with a local art gallery, and the residency will be reaching a broader campus community. The site-visit included a downtown area for a gallery showing, with the strategy that a contemporary art audience would be a good target for a modern dance audience. The Artist spoke at a Rotary Club meeting, and I was pleasantly surprised by the response from older, stodgy business people. Liturgical dance was a conversation piece, and they wanted to know how to involve their church team, what liturgical dance is, and if a workshop for non-dancers would be offered. Other than the choir director, I haven’t been able to pull together a community component. My site-visit was early in the schedule, and I didn’t have time to organize the community component for the site-visit. The residency will include two dance studios, is strengthening my partnership with the arts council, and I am building new partnerships with the Department of Institutional Diversity and the Dance Department. I got a lot of community buy-in and even some extra things that were “NIC,” or not in the contract. For example, the company was willing to split up on Sunday morning to do a demonstration of liturgical dance in more than one church.

4. How has the development of this residency differed from other residencies you have done? • This has been more involved because the usual residency is just a performance and a master class. This is my first time to do a three-day residency. • I have hardly done any residencies in the last 10 years, and before that dance presenting and residencies were within the dance department only and involved working directly with choreographers and their small companies. This did not involve working with agents. With DTI, the scale is bigger and the stature of the artists is different (better known). • This residency is much more expansive. Previous residencies were based on formulas given by the artist/agent or I went with what had been successful before. This is broader and deeper. • The site-visit ensures that it will be a meaningful residency as opposed to a hopeful residency. The agent can be helpful or a hindrance. You get more insight into the company through the site-visit. • Much more involved and in-depth, and provides the ability to tailor the residency and build relationships. Previously, just a master class and performance was the “typical” residency. • Something new that has never been done before is having the artist set work on a group of college dancers.

• • • •

Never been able to collaborate on this level before. As a presenter, this is a big part of my creative process. It needs to be an experience for the community before, during, and after the performance. This was the first time that I have ever worked directly with the artist/company to develop the residency. Having the artist on site made the company and their residency easier to sell than trying to do it alone. For example, the Artistic Director was able to actually discuss curriculum with the high school principal. As a result, the types of activities are broader and deeper. Three things are different: 1) the negotiation of a package deal, 2) other artistic genres I present (pop, country) won’t deal with residencies because they are “entertainment” artists, and 3) wish that more artists could do advance site-visit because this would change the community impact.

Impact of the Dance Touring Initiative 1. What impact has DTI had on you as a dance presenter/curator? How has DTI affected your approach in making curatorial decisions for dance? • Opened my eyes to a whole new world. Knew that dance was missing from my programming, and DTI has taught me how to work it into the season. Because of the group interaction and conversation, I am aware of and looking for things about dance and feel more and more comfortable as a dance presenter. • The greatest impact has been the group bonding and getting to know people you would never have met or worked with otherwise. I am personally interested in the group process because of recent leadership training. Being able to interact with the group and observe and be a part of how they made decisions has enlarged my view. • I view dance presenting in a different way. Having a network of colleagues is amazing, and I have several on speed dial. • I am using the process in booking another artist for a residency. DTI hasn’t really changed my aesthetic ideas toward dance, but the interaction with the network makes me feel more comfortable in discussing ideas about dance. • There is more visibility and excitement for the program – I already sent out a press release about what is happening. As a dancer, I am more open to avant-garde, and now I thinking about how to expose audiences to dance. I have already incorporated doing preconcert talks before performances for audience development. • The biggest benefit is being “forced” to convene as a group of people to think and talk about the art form. Being able to go to Jacob’s Pillow for the first convening allowed us to become immersed in the art form. I like using DTI as a curatorial approach, but not yet feeling comfortable with the group approach. • DTI has had a positive impact. It is good to be working with other presenters, regardless of their experience. DTI is block-booking+ or to the 10th degree. Negative parts of DTI experience – have not been able to utilize the Google site because of my personal schedule. Conference calls don’t seem to have a resolution or outcome, and need to be more facilitated. • The impact is still working on me. What has been important has been the time spent together with the other presenters – being able to learn from each other, bouncing ideas off each other, which is critical to continuing the group beyond DTI.

•

• •

More resources have been available through South Arts and the presenter network. I no longer feel that I am working in a vacuum because there is a real learning community. The booking process is easier, but needs to be adapted or changed for each individual market. I have more of an appetite for what I can talk about, and what I have seen and can visualize bringing to the stage. Seeing the work live has made me more discriminating in my taste. DTI has persuaded me to get a little more adventurous eventually. It has given me building blocks on how to engage the audience and develop a better dance vocabulary.

2. What professional development activities have been the most beneficial to you? What would be beneficial to you in the second year? • Learned about NEFA/NDP and other funding for dance. Jacob’s Pillow opened my eyes in so many ways. The opportunity to see one company twice from two different locations in the house gave a totally different perspective about the work. Being exposed to the history of dance and who has been at Jacob’s Pillow. Important to talk informally about the performances at the Pillow Pub. Learned a lot from these discussions. PAE was great for the group interaction. Putting information about each presenter on the sticky wall [a group facilitation tool] helped to learn a lot about each other. Great being able to pick brains of other presenters, which helped me learn more about contemporary dance, as well as talking with other presenters in my state over the last year. For the second year, we need to find some contemporary ballet companies to consider. My audience will prefer contemporary dance that has more ballet in it, especially if the music is classical. Are we doing block booking or just looking on our own? We need to decide early. • The professional development was a little rocky at the beginning because there were some in the group who were more sophisticated than they were given credit for in their knowledge of dance (like me) or had a lot of presenting experience. But, adjustments were made quickly. Loved Jacob’s Pillow and the informality of the setting. PAE seemed weird because of the Marketplace atmosphere, which was a new experience. The best part of PAE was the DTI group meetings. • The mapping exercise at Jacob’s Pillow was influential in selecting Doug Varone. Jacob’s Pillow really set the tone for DTI, in addition to the Dance Presenters’ Leadership Forum book we received. I have referred to it several times. Dance presenting is newer to my programming than other arts disciplines. I was not as familiar with all the residency possibilities. I am learning about dance and how to develop goals for dance projects and residencies, and how to match an artist with community needs. Conference calls are good but it is hard to engage in a deep, meaningful conversation when it isn’t face to face. Video conferencing might be better. • Jacob’s Pillow experience with the Scholars helped with ideas for communicating about modern dance. It started in the conversations with the group, and was then reinforced by discussions with the Scholars and Ella Baff. You have to identify what the audience’s obstacles are before you can figure out how to overcome them. As a wrangler, conference calls allowed me to fairly represent the group and get feedback. An hour is a good length for the calls. Second year: would like more opportunities to talk about other genres, how dance is balanced within the overall programming, and how to develop presenting local dance artists.

•

Conference calls tended to be repetitive. In talking about the pre-planning visits, the same information was discussed over and over. Perhaps the groups should have had more separate conference calls. Jacob’s Pillow was great for learning about how to develop audiences. PAE was frustrating to narrow it down to one company, but overall it was a positive experience. Second year: not sure what would be good for professional development because it is so new. Most valuable sessions were at Jacob’s Pillow, the session on the 12 Steps to Acquiring Dance Literacy, and the conference call presentation on Building Audience Participation and learning points of connection to get people in the door. Question that I most frequently struggle with is how to create the through-line for audiences when you are limited in how much dance you present each year. Jacob’s Pillow helped the network understand each individual presenter’s situation. The collaboration and sharing of ideas and goals was very useful, even though they were sometimes different. Second year: very concerned about the network after PAE 2011 because there will only be conference calls and no face-to-face meeting until PAE 2012, which is the end of the program. The most beneficial part has been the face-to-face meetings and working to build the group dynamics of the network. Conference calls were good to get the details worked out. Second year: if we want to extend the project, the presenters need to be able to talk to each other more and figure out more about each other. There are so many different entities – how can they best fit together? For modern dance, there is more of a hierarchy of pricing and types of dance available. I need a better understanding of what the audience can accept and how to expose them to new experiences. Full sessions have focused on the needs of the group, with conversations about different companies and different possibilities. Focus on where each presenter is and their demographics, what has worked well and what hasn’t. In conference calls, it is harder to express personal views and get group interaction. Learning about developing a project-based local program and how to really “curate” the process. The Jacob’s Pillow sessions, the interaction of the artists and other people, and the geography of the site made it like a summer camp experience. The timing of everything, however, has been very fast. I am learning more about dance. At Jacob’s Pillow, the Pillow Talks provided a lot of insight even though it was standard residency stuff. Jacob’s Pillow was a wonderful eye opener. The Inside Out Performances were not the same quality except for Kyle Abraham. Learned some really cool ways of doing things at Jacob’s Pillow, such as the Pillow Scholars and the talk about the archives. I learned the most at the Pillow Pub – getting people’s gut reactions and talking one-on-one with the artist. Ivan was a great resource about the entire history of modern dance. At PAE, it was difficult to get other business done because DTI took up a lot of time. Conference calls: Structured monthly call is sometimes confining and not always interesting. Second year – more hands-on stuff like the mapping exercise and seeing as much dance as possible.

3. How has DTI impacted your community? Your board and staff? • Two staff members were the biggest complainers and anti-Castles because of the male duet. However, most of the board has been pleased with the selection of the company. It has given me the opportunity to educate my staff about modern dance, and my boss has

•

• • • • • • •

•

been behind me 100%. Conference calls were usually very structured and difficult to achieve the same group interaction. Some people are better at conversing on a conference call than others, so they tended to dominate the conversation. The fullness is yet to be realized, but the site-visit was the beginning of creating the buyin that is necessary to fully realize the community impact. I am aware of now much work is yet to be done. The marketing staff has gotten involved and the choir director who will be working with the company. A dinner with the administration during the site-visit helped to pull people into the project. Administration realizes the value of the project and how it impacts the community. It has raised community perceptions about the quality of our work as a presenter. It is the first outside funding that the Cultural Center has received, and is bringing validation to the work there. DTI has also brought a link to the National Dance Project. Initially, the community was aware, and the college community has become more aware. The community as a whole is not yet aware, but the staff is very aware. DTI has had no community impact, and it probably won’t until the tour. So far, it has had more personal impact than with the staff or community. However, the staff did participate in the site-visit with the artist, which was very beneficial. It has been a rough year financially, so it is hard to keep things in perspective. The concept of working with new artists is exciting to the staff. In a previous residency, the dance company had a very positive impact on the community, and the DTI will build on that. So far, it has only impacted the staff. Subscription renewals are just beginning, and the community impact is yet to be realized. The dance community is aware of DTI, but not the general ticket-buying public.

4. What can South Arts do differently to improve your DTI experiences? • Wish there was more money to be able to convene more face to face and view as much live dance as possible in other places. • Money is really short for convening the group, but the phone calls are very helpful. • DTI is a great model and has been a very enjoyable experience. The face-to-face component is critical to its success. • Mechanics could be clearer and less bureaucratic (i.e., registration for PAE, reimbursement for expenses). Schedule is so intense at face-to-face meetings. Allow more time to explore on your own. • South Arts has been there to support and answer questions without hovering or influencing decisions. • Impressed with their level of involvement, but not sure what impact that staff maternity leave and turnover will have on DTI. • The most important part is that they are the convener and a funding source for the network. They are doing a good job. • South Arts has done what was needed to support the program. In the initial sessions, the different presenter models need to be considered more with discussion about their differences. • South Arts is amazing and handled all the changes throughout as the process evolved. 5. What can the consultants do differently to improve your DTI experiences?

•

• • • • • • • • • •

All of them need to keep challenging the group to consider all the possibilities. What if money were not an obstacle? Who would we consider? Through conversations about these possibilities, we can find ways to achieve our dreams because we will begin to see more possibilities and opportunities to make those things happen. Overall, they are organized, easy to work with, and know a lot about the business. Sometimes, I felt like an agenda was being pushed because of the company choices that the group made. Consultants are a great resource, especially all the information provided at Jacob’s Pillow and the booking worksheet that was provided as a tool. Lay out in advance how they want the presenters to develop the tour. The agent and the presenter/service provider on the team talk about the business side and the artistic director provides more information and feedback from the artist’s perspective. It has been very valuable to have the artist’s voice represented. I need to revisit the Jacob’s Pillow Leadership Forum book. Strong, individual personalities have been a plus. The consultants may not agree with each other or the presenters, but that is a strength. In general, they have been an organizing force to keep everything on track. Their input will be more helpful in the future now that the group is past the “overview” and “intro” part of the project. Some sessions need to be just with the presenters so that they can decide what they want to do and how. South Arts should be involved, but not the consultants. It has been good to have the input of all three, and with a “gentle touch.” We need a little more free time for interaction.

6. In what ways have you utilized the mentor component of DTI? • Talked with my mentor twice and got some good ideas on how to handle the repertory issue (male duet), good general advice on logical approach to presenting dance at his venue and community, and how to talk to the company’s tech director about my venue limitations. • Used the mentor and the group to ask questions about the booking and contract process. Not sure, however, that the mentoring has worked out the way it was intended because mentor and mentee are so busy. It was easier and more valuable to access the group and use the group as a learning community. • Had a good conversation with my mentor, who offered good perspectives for my questions. I plan to be in touch again with more questions. • Hasn’t worked out so well. They have emailed back and forth but have not been able to schedule a time to talk. • Talked extensively a couple of months ago, but not much lately. It has been nice to know that the mentor is there if needed. • Had one conversation that was very helpful, insightful and proved to be true (about church politics). Will contact again after the site-visit. Phone contact has worked well. • Haven’t communicated with them yet, and not sure who my mentor is. Not sure if this component was necessary for the more experienced presenters. • We’ve been playing phone tag with no real connection yet. • Talked about an hour-and-a-half a couple of months ago. It was a great level of conversation and very informative. It has been easy to pick up the phone to ask questions.

•

Would like to explore how the mentors could become part of the network (i.e. already having a conversation about what we are both presenting and how we can work together). Still trying to get in touch with mentor. I am not sure of the value of this because of my 25 years of experience as a presenter. I talk with other presenters a lot and not sure this is a worthwhile time investment.

Year One Lessons Learned The South Arts Dance Touring Initiative has dared to ask the question “How can we build a network that approaches dance presenting in a deeper way in order to strengthen the dance presenting field in the South?” A tremendous effort has been made in the first year to develop a new model to answer this question. Important lessons learned from the first year include: 1. In seeking a new model for booking and presenting dance, not having a pre-defined process was both a strength and a weakness. It created an environment in which the presenters, South Arts staff, the Consultant Team, and the artists and agents involved in the developing the first tour made a commitment to asking questions about how they can do business differently in order to create more impactful experiences for everyone. The outcomes of deepening and strengthening the field were pre-defined, but the process of how to get there was left open to exploration. Some were more comfortable with this organic process than others. 2. Key contributing factors to building a successful network include the dance immersion experience of seeing dance live and talking about those experiences as a group, face-to-face group interaction experiences, both formal and informal, and learning about and from each other’s work as presenters. 3. Direct interaction with the artist and the advance site-visit were transformative experiences and provided the best residency-planning scenario. 4. Having “buy-in” about the DTI concepts from the presenter group, agent, and artist provided the best block-booking experience. 5. Diversity among the presenters with regard to experience, size, resources, and venues should be addressed sooner in the network-building process. 6. Recognition that the project team is navigating a space between the individual person who is the “presenter” and their institution as the “presenter.” How will knowledge/skills learned through the Initiative be shared within each institution? How can South Arts facilitate that process?

Year Two: June 2010 – October 2010 The second year of the Dance Touring Initiative launched with the face-to-face convening at the American Dance Festival in Durham, NC, and continued with a second convening at the 2010 Performing Arts Exchange in Pittsburgh, PA. The second year also encompassed the first DTI Tour with Doug Varone and Dancers and Dayton Contemporary Dance Company, while planning began for the second DTI Tour in 2011–12. Primary questions facing South Arts staff and the Consulting Team included: •

• • • • •

Would the DTI presenters choose to block-book for the second tour? The program guidelines did not require them to do so. If they did move in that direction, how many companies would be booked for this second season? How can the formation of blocks be encouraged? How would the booking process change for the development of the second tour? What lessons learned could be applied? How could things be done differently? The Dance Touring Initiative was beginning to attract attention in the Southeast and beyond. What needs to be done to maximize visibility for the program and share the progress that is being made? How can the mentors and conference calls be more effectively used for continuing professional development? What topics would be most useful for the DTI presenters? With the first tour beginning in the Fall of 2010, what common evaluation tools would be most useful to measure the impact on audiences and the community? What did South Arts want to learn? What did the presenters want to learn? What will happen when the Dance Touring Initiative project period ends? Will the network continue, and if so, in what ways? How can South Arts and the Consulting Team facilitate this process? What are the goals beyond DTI?

With the network and learning community firmly established in Year One, everyone looked forward to the next chapter. And the journey continued!

American Dance Festival, June 22–25, 2010 (Durham, NC) In preparing for the convening at the American Dance Festival, the Consultant Team and South Arts staff revisited the successes at Jacob’s Pillow. What types of experiences should be offered again, and what new experiences could be offered at ADF that were not available at Jacob’s Pillow? Again, the schedule presented five different types of experiences for the participants: 1. DTI group sessions focused on information sharing about various topics and organizing the advance work for the 2011–2012 Tour in preparation for the 2010 Performing Arts Exchange. The group was committed to getting a head start by doing more in-depth research prior to PAE. Information topics included sharing results of the first-year interviews and site-visits, sharing information about each presenter’s 2010–2011 seasons, the development of the DTI website, marketing for the 2010–2011 Tour, an update on NDP finalists for production grants, and the new ArtsReady Program 26

developed by South Arts as a disaster-preparedness guideline for arts organizations. Group sessions also included discussions and reflections about each performance experienced at ADF. For performances, the ADF schedule was closely studied to determine the best “fit” for the needs and interests of the group, and it was decided to visit ADF during the week that Dendy Dancetheater and Rubberbandance Group were performing. Dendy Dancetheater gave the presenters a chance to interact with a Southern-born artist, and viewing Rubberbandance Group again offered the presenters the opportunity to view the artist’s work a year later. It would be interesting to see Victor Quijada’s work again with regard to how he is adapting his work to presenters and audiences, meaning the development of new work and how it needs to conform to what presenters can provide and the technical limitations of venues. His newest work was Center of Gravity, which was in the final round of NDP Production grant applications. Dendy Dancetheater was selected as the company performance that the group would see twice while at ADF. Sessions with selected ADF staff and other dance professionals in residence included: • Jodee Nimerichter, Co-Director of American Dance Festival, led a tour of ADF classes and venues at Duke University. • Charles Reinhart, Founder and Co-Director of American Dance Festival, presented a session on ADF history and also his work with Paul Taylor Dance Company and its history. • Thomas DeFrantz provided an illustrated talk on the Horton/Ailey lineage, which was very informative for the participants presenting Dayton Contemporary Dance Company during the 2010–2011 Tour. • Dance critic and writer Suzanne Carbonneau presented a workshop on communicating about or describing modern/contemporary dance. This was a session loosely based on ADF’s Journalism Institute, but geared toward the presenters’ needs to communicate with and educate their constituents for the upcoming 2010–2011 Tour. • ADF’s Engaging Dance Audiences Project: Jodee introduced Ruth S. Day, the cognitive scientist working on ADF’s Engaging Dance Audiences project on audience perception and memory. She discussed the development of the online dance perception quiz that is now available at www.americandancefestival.org. Sessions with artists and/or their agents who were in residence at the American Dance Festival during June 22–25 included: • Catherine Miller-Dennis of Dendy Dancetheater led the group in an interactive workshop, filling in for Mark Dendy who was unable to be at ADF due to an illness. She also led the Q&A session after the group attended the company’s performance for the second time. • Harold Norris, H-Art Management, and Victor Quijada, Artistic Director of Rubberbandance, conducted a post-performance discussion and also met with the DTI group during their last session at ADF to talk about current directions for Victor’s work. Informal gatherings for social interaction and to discuss ideas. As there was no Pillow Pub equivalent at ADF, the group had a series of dine-arounds each evening.

One experience that was selected to repeat at ADF was a movement residency workshop for the presenters and the opportunity for the DTI group to meet with each Artistic Director individually. Rather than these activities being orchestrated by the Consultant Team, two of the DTI presenters volunteered to coordinate these sessions with the artists and agents as another “taking ownership” exercise. However, these sessions did not have the same impact at ADF that was achieved at Jacob’s Pillow for several reasons, none of which were a reflection of the presenters’ advance work or the artists’ presentations. In the case of Dendy Dancetheater, Mark Dendy was unable to be at ADF because of health-related issues. Instead, Catherine MillerDennis, a long-time member of the company, met with the DTI group for the post-performance Q&A and also led the interactive workshop experience. Although she was certainly knowledgeable about Dendy’s work and provided an effective workshop, it was not the same type of experience. One presenter summed up the group’s sentiments, “Catherine Miller was lovely, but it was a disappointment not to have Mark Dendy.” They missed the direct interaction with the choreographer after having that experience at Jacob’s Pillow and during the advance site-visits preparing for the 2010–2011 Tour. In the case of the session with Victor Quijada and Harold Norris, the discussion left some presenters with questions about the residency part of working with his company. Even though the performances experienced at Jacob’s Pillow and ADF were not meant to be “shopping expeditions,” the presenters were seeking to develop a deeper relationship with the artist and envisioning how they could partner with him to build meaningful residencies for their audiences and communities. At this particular moment in Victor’s work as a choreographer, he was totally immersed in developing his artistic voice and finding dancers who could effectively perform what he was creating, and less concerned with how he could engage the public with his work through residencies. For some of the presenters, this made it more difficult to envision bringing the company to their communities. However, another presenter offered a different perspective on this discussion: “The Victor session provided greater value, because of the comparison we could make to previous meetings and conversations with this particular artist. It is allowing us to follow his trajectory.” Another Jacob’s Pillow experience that was repeated was seeing the same performance twice, in this case, Dendy Dancetheater. Again, the reactions were totally different for the DTI group. Part of this was the absence of the Artistic Director, Mark Dendy, but part of it was also because the controversial content of the work would be difficult to present to audiences in smaller Southern cities located in predominantly rural areas of their state. According to one presenter, “I was not looking forward to seeing Dendy a second time, but must admit that I was surprised at how much more I saw and appreciated upon a repeated viewing. Unfortunately, this is not something I could present at my institution.” This response begs the question – how can presenters move their audiences along the same audience development path that the presenter is moving in the evolution of their appreciation for modern/contemporary dance? This goes to the heart of South Arts’ goals for the Dance Touring Initiative. In evaluating the performance experiences at ADF, one presenter noted that “none of the performances had the same ‘reach out and grab you’ effect of the performances at Jacob's Pillow. Rubberbanddance seemed like the re-working of the piece from the year before [that] somehow got rid of the passion, too.” This opinion was balanced by other another’s view that “it is always

incredibly valuable to be able to see dance and particularly to see a company or piece multiple times.” The evaluation of the ADF staff and resident professional sessions yielded clear favorites with Tommy DeFrantz’s session on the Horton/Ailey lineage ranked first and the session with Charles Reinhart on the ADF/Paul Taylor history ranked second. One presenter beautifully summed up these sessions for the group: “I loved learning more about what's going on in dance currently (the audience perception presentation) as well as the historical perspectives presented by Tommy DeFrantz and Charles Reinhart.” The strengths of the American Dance Festival experience were described as follows by the presenters: • •

• • • • • • •

The history of ADF and modern dance was far more interesting than the selection of programming. Conversations as a group both formally and informally; discussions with the artists. I particularly enjoyed the ADF history and the EDA audience perception presentations as well. I also really enjoyed the tours of the different studios and getting to see young dancers in action. Thomas DeFrantz was the highlight of the trip. Could listen to whatever he has to say for an entire week. Just being there. Seeing and feeling the energy and commitment of the students. Thomas DeFrantz's session was terrific. Group interaction and dance history. The ability to see fully produced performances. I found our discussions together were most valuable and what I learned from my colleagues. I also found the Horton/Ailey history very helpful for my presenting DCDC.10 Continuing to work with the others in the group, planning for next year, seeing work of dance companies. The opportunity to immerse myself in a dance culture for several days and to share the experience with this group of colleagues.

Because the individual and collective identities of the DTI group had emerged after working together for a year, the group sessions at ADF evolved into less structured, didactic sessions and became interactive conversations of a learning community in which all parties expressed ideas and offered instructive comments and suggestions. The group was more sophisticated in their interaction and took responsibility for how they would continue that interaction in the second year. This was particularly evident in their approach to selecting companies for the second tour and the fact that they wanted to continue block-booking, but perhaps expand it to three or four companies instead of two and begin thinking about how other Southern presenters could be invited to participate in DTI tours. Everyone looked forward to their next experience together at the 2010 Performing Arts Exchange.

DCDC – Dayton Contemporary Dance Company, one of the two companies on the DTI Tour in 2010–2011. 29

2010 Performing Arts Exchange, September 29–October 2, 2010 (Pittsburgh, PA) As the DTI group approached the 2010 Performing Arts Exchange and booking the second tour, they were light years ahead of the previous year. At the American Dance Festival convening, they developed a list of forty dance companies of potential interest, divided them up among the group to do further research and report back to their colleagues, and scheduled an aggressive series of conference calls to be completed before PAE. They determined that the information needed for reporting back on each company was: • • • • • • •

Program content or current projects for 2011-12 touring season The focus of the artistic director’s work Examples of previous outreach/residencies Openness to advance site-visit by artistic staff Video links/websites Tech rider/flexibility of technical needs and adapting spaces Ballpark base fees

Following the conference call reports and discussions, the Consulting Team administered a survey to determine where the group was on narrowing down the list. The goal was to come up with a short list companies and then invite the agents who would be at PAE to make a presentation about their artist(s) during one of the pre-conference DTI group sessions on Wednesday, September 29. Based on the survey results, eight presentations were scheduled with agents representing 13 different dance companies. In order not to leave out companies of interest who were not being represented at PAE or who did not have agents, Ivan Sygoda, the agent/manager on the Consulting Team, agreed to gather information and make presentations for these companies. Agents were asked to talk about the following: •

• • •

What works are touring in 2011–2012 o Size of cast o Rooms requirements (singles doubles) o Tech requirements o Company schedule for loadin/tech/rehearsal/loadout Residency schedule Availability for site-visit (in 2010-2011) to plan the company’s residency Fee for a full week (without transportation or housing)

The goal of the last point was to share the necessary housing and transportation expenses among the presenter block rather than building it into the fee. The issue with this approach, however, is that it may not be possible to book contiguous dates for one tour. The agent/manager member of the Consultant Team made a presentation on the variables that influence how an artist’s fee is put together.11 It was agreed that if the weekly fee was known, then the group needed to feel empowered to figure out the best way to divvy up the resources to make the booking work for both artist and presenter. 11

See Appendix D on “Fee Structuring and Negotiation.” 30

Also on the agenda for the DTI group sessions at PAE was a discussion about Dance Touring Initiative values that were developing within the group. This was deemed important in order to talk about the program at state consortia meetings occurring at PAE and identify other presenters who may be interested in any tour blocks that developed for 2011–2012. A second reason for formalizing these values was to more effectively engage agents and artistic directors in the way that the DTI presenters wanted to operate in booking artists and developing residencies. The 2010 Performing Arts Exchange provided more opportunities to see dance than PAE in 2009. In all, there were two juried showcases that included dance and seven independent showcases, along with full performances by Pittsburgh Ballet and RIOULT that were separate from, but occurred during PAE. It was difficult for the group to attend all of these performances, and several were busy with appointments and booking the rest of their seasons in addition to dance. There were three PD@PAE (Professional Development) sessions dealing with dance that most of the group attended, but several opted for other sessions because of the in-depth dance discussions that took place as a part of DTI. They wanted to experience other opportunities. South Arts reached out to the DTI mentors and offered travel subsidies to get them to PAE and have face-to-face meetings with the group. A roundtable discussion with Elizabeth Auer, University of Florida/Gainesville and Leslie Gordon, The Rialto Center for the Arts at Georgia State University, provided a fruitful discussion of their curatorial process and how they create a complete experience for their audiences. A successful artist/DTI group dinner meeting with David Dorfman gave presenters the opportunity to talk one-on-one with the artist about his work, and his company was under consideration again for the second tour after being in the top three for the first tour. At the final DTI group session on Saturday, October 2, each presenter shared his/her top two company preferences and from the ensuing discussion, four block tours emerged: Kyle Abraham, Abraham.In.Motion, Ronald K. Brown’s EVIDENCE, A DANCE COMPANY, Lula Washington Dance Theatre, and David Dorfman Dance. Four presenters volunteered to do the initial “wrangling” with the agent on behalf of their group. Then the group moved into the final discussion on determining values for the Dance Touring Initiative. Each member of the group shared their reflections on DTI, and highlights of this rich discussion are included as follows: The biggest byproduct is how much I’ve grown in dance presenting and all that we’ve been through together. An interesting journey that has led to insightful thoughts, not just about dance but presenting other things as well. This has been a really terrific journey. I’m learning a lot from all of you and more so from the experiences we’ve shared at these events and finding our way here. I’m looking at things now I’d never have ventured to before, and putting that in the context of an audience is the next question: How can I bring my audience along? My conversations with agents this year have been different. For instance, [with one artist I’ve explored his involvement with] diabetes; he would do a Q&A with kids. He has a history of drug and alcohol abuse, he will talk about that. I’m

looking at more residencies with all artists. I’m not interested in one-night stands. I want a relationship. I went through an agent for a mainstream artist and said ‘so I’m an hour and 45 minutes away, what’re the odds I could get a free planning visit?’ The agent looked at me like I was on drugs. I’ll pay for her time, but if she’s serious about doing a residency, we need to talk about it. [The planning concept] is spreading. This should be called the DTI: Dance Therapy Initiative. I’m interested in Kyle, I never in the world thought I would consider a weeklong residency. The opportunities with his new piece we saw at the Pillow – the identity piece, and the Alzheimer’s connection. Also Dorfman: with his discussion of the prophet idea, we have a divinity lecture series we could tie to. Also he’s willing to work with athletic teams, he was on a baseball team, he has the language. It would be interesting to set a piece on a football team; put athletics in the arts. Following the 2010 Performing Arts Exchange, the conversation from the values discussion was distilled by Rosemary Johnson and modified by the group into its final form.

South Arts Dance Touring Initiative Statement of Values The South Arts Dance Touring Initiative provides dance presenters a galvanizing, transformative process that creates a dynamic impact on artists, audiences, and communities. This process empowers presenters to develop a sustainable approach to the art of presenting modern dance and contemporary ballet by incorporating the following dynamics: Creating a Learning Community of Dance Presenters – We value building expertise in dance presenting, understanding the process, developing the tools and taking the responsibility to see and learn about the work. We welcome a diversity of viewpoints that enriches the experience, provides resources to the learning community and creates continuous dialogue that deepens and widens relationships. We recognize the advantages of teamwork and that building consensus is not just a single choice, but also a doorway to new possibilities and ideas for engagement. Building Community with Dance Artists – We value opportunities to partner and build relationships with dance artists in the work that we do in our communities. We recognize the power of artists and community working together over time in order to inform, develop and tailor programs into meaningful residencies. We believe in the value of continuous dialogue between the creators, agents, presenters and audiences in order to come full circle in our understanding of their work. Developing a New Approach to Dance Touring – We value developing relationships with dance agents and managers that emphasize their role as resources about the art of dance. We recognize the importance of their partnership in developing ongoing relationships with dance artists and an understanding of their work. We seek to have continuous dialogues that move

away from a “commodity” approach to dance presenting and revolve around the art form and how we can meaningfully engage our communities through the work of their artists.

Lessons Learned from the 2010 Convenings The Dance Touring Initiative solidified its purpose and values through the convenings at American Dance Festival and the 2010 Performing Arts Exchange. The group had matured as a network and learning community, and felt empowered to launch a successful first tour while planning block tours for four companies for the 2011–2012 Tour. The second tour would also incorporate presenters who were not in the DTI network, thus expanding the network’s influence. A year later, the network’s newly developed method of operation based on their values statement was informally validated by an outside consultant, Suzanne Callahan of Callahan Consulting for the Arts. She offered her perceptions of the inner workings of the DTI group after observing one of the group sessions at the 2011 Performing Arts Exchange:12 Implied Outcomes The brief conversation that I observed among participants suggests that the Dance Touring Initiative has fostered change in at least five areas: 1. New knowledge, in how to present dance and the ways to attain what is best for the presenter’s organization, community, and the artist. 2. New and changed practices, meaning that presenters applied what they had learned, they were in fact using different business practices to present dance and likely other art forms. Areas of practice mentioned during the hour were booking, promotion, fundraising, and residency planning. 3. Increased social capital,13 which in this case takes two forms. One is the meaningful and lasting relationships that had developed between peer presenters and artists; the strength of these relationships, and knowledge and support they were getting from peers, was changing the way they think about and do business. The second was the sense of community that was formed among them as a group, and how that implied an increase in capacity and a change in attitude toward presenting dance. 12

More detailed information about the 2011 Performing Arts Exchange in Baton Rouge, LA, will be included in the Initiative’s final report. Suzanne Callahan’s observations are presented here as a summary testament and independent validation of the network’s major milestones that were actually accomplished through the first four face-to-face convenings, ending with the 2010 Performing Arts Exchange. 13 Social capital is a sociological concept, referring to connections within and between social networks. It highlights the value of social relations and the role of cooperation and confidence to get collective or economic results. It accentuates different aspects of interaction. According to Putnam, just as a screwdriver (physical capital) or a university education (human capital) can increase productivity (both individual and collective), so do social contacts affect the productivity of individuals and groups. From Putnam’s Bowling Alone and Wikipedia. 33

4. Changed attitudes, toward artists, agents, and the task of presenting overall. Presenters ended this Initiative thinking of these groups as potential partners working toward a common goal; they left with a more positive attitude toward presenting itself and toward each other as peers. 5. Changed status, presenters moved from seeing themselves as individual novices in dance presenting, who perhaps lacked confidence, to autonomous collaborators who, armed with their new skills, could confidently plan and book dance for the betterment of their organizations and communities. Evidence of Outcomes from the Discussion14 A new knowledge base has been built among the presenters who participated in the Initiative. The group appeared to change its approach to both communicating and negotiating with agents and thus dance companies. This new way of working, which they learned through direct peer experience, led to stronger artistic partnerships, which led to high quality residencies and an interest in collaborating in order to enhance the residency for all involved, including the artists. As one presenter said, Even though we were doing Lula twice, I would not have been able to book them without the methods I learned here. The group came to realize the importance of the advance site-visit with the artist in shaping the overall residency, and specific events that the artist could offer. There was a sense that this was a new realization for them, leading to instituting a new practice of valuing and scheduling site-visits with artists prior to engagement. In turn, presenters’ attitude toward artists appears to have changed, as they had a new realization that a dance company, when guaranteed a fee over a longer time period, would in fact be generous and flexible in what it would offer to a group of presenters together. The discussion implied that the artists, too, were happier.15 The booking process had become about solid and lasting relationships, with artists, rather than one-time transactions—again indicating a realization or change in attitude. The group is leaving with new relationships among peers, with whom they can—and very likely will—work collaboratively in the future. Also implied was a new camaraderie, and power, to work as a group with agents that the group seemed to genuinely enjoy. It appeared that the booking process had gone from a difficult chore to a collegial process. As a testament to their new knowledge, its relationships and perhaps the promise of designing high-quality residencies, this group of presenters spoke of their new sense of autonomy within their profession. These presenters now possess the relationships and skills to do this work on 14

A disclaimer: It should be noted that these observations come only from two discussions, one with the program managers and one with program participants. It is assumed that the entire Initiative, including field trips and consultants’ role contributed to the outcomes expressed, but the exact nature of the treatment, and the effects of each component of the program, is not known or attributable. Additionally, there was not a pre-test, measuring participants’ skills, attitudes, or relationships at the onset of the program. Nonetheless, and though the comments in the discussion were solely retrospective, they, in the evaluator’s opinion, appear to indicate genuine change that is attributable to the Initiative.

This point was confirmed informally by Doug Varone later in a casual conversation. 34

their own. Throughout the conversation were examples of new methods that were being used and this sense of autonomy. This is perhaps the best possible outcome for a project designed to increase capacity. One presenter described this change: This is a room full of skiers and you just taught us to snowboard and we are going out there. As another stated, We were not presenting dance before. Now I am doing Ron [Brown] and three companies. I email folks and learn how to merge things with music â&#x20AC;Ś I can apply things to other genres. In summary, the outcomes that South Arts and its consultants had expressed appear to have been realized. Giving these presenters the assets of new skill sets, solid relationships, and camaraderie has led them to a much stronger place: they can use, own, and leave with what they had learned in presenting dance and, it would appear, apply it to other art forms. A presenter summed up: There is not a downside to this initiative. We had learned how to put things together which is what we needed to learn.

Appendix A: Dance Touring Initiative Participants Dance Touring Initiative Presenter Participants Michael Crane East Carolina University S. Rudolph Alexander Performing Arts Center Greenville, NC

Sharon Moore North Carolina State University Center Stage Raleigh, NC

Brad Downall Glema Mahr Center for the Arts Madisonville Community College Madisonville, KY

Dennis Sankovich Mississippi State University Riley Center Meridan, MS

Eric Fliss Miami-Dade County Department of Cultural Affairs South Miami-Dade Cultural Arts Center Miami, FL

Consultant Team

Angela Gallo Coker College Department of Dance Hartsville, SC

Ivan Sygoda Pentacle New York, NY

Shannon Hooker and Shane Fernando University of North Carolina Wilmington Presents Wilmington, NC

Stephen Wynne TALK Dance Company Jackson, MS

Charles Irvin Cumberland County Playhouse Crossville, TN

Mentors

Moira Logan University of Memphis Department of Theater and Dance Memphis, TN Bart Lovins Hardin County Schools Performing Arts Center Elizabethtown, KY

Rosemary W. Johnson Alabama Dance Council Birmingham, AL

Elizabeth Auer University of Florida Performing Arts Gainesville, FL Tania Castroverde Moskalenko Germantown Performing Arts Center Germantown, TN Bill Doolin Florida Dance Association Miami, FL

Rebecca Jane Edwards Cultural Development Foundation of Memphis Memphis, TN Leslie Gordon Georgia State University Rialto Center for the Arts Atlanta, GA Jenny Hamilton New Orleans Ballet Association New Orelans, LA Bridgette M. Kohnhorst Vanderbilt University Great Performances Nashville, TN Mary Luft Tigertail Productions Miami, FL Gail Robinson-Butler West Kentucky Community and Technical College Paducah, KY Debra Smith Newberry Opera House Newberry, SC George Thompson Georgia Institute of Technology Ferst Center for the Arts Atlanta, GA

Project Director Nikki Estes South Arts Atlanta, GA

Appendix B: Acquiring Dance Literacy: A Twelve-Step Program for Adult Concert-Goers Interactive Dance Lab ®© 2009, Ivan Sygoda. All rights reserved. 1. Resolve that you want to re-animate your curiosity about contemporary concert dance and experience its satisfactions for yourself. Affirm that nothing within yourself need stand in your way. 2. Acknowledge that while everyone is a dancer, not everyone is a choreographer—a creative artist capable of bending movement into meaning and emotion, and committed to perfecting the art and the craft of it. 3. Realize that just like the writer facing a blank page, the choreographer has assigned her/himself, from the moment s/he enters the studio, the awesome task of making choices. 4. Marvel at the myriad areas in which choices are made—movement, shape, spacing, not to mention casting, costumes, sound, lights, sets, props, titles, program notes, etc. 5. Understand that not electing to make use of any of the above elements is as much a choice as using them. The same is true of modifying any choice mid-piece. 6. Remember that dance happens in four dimensions, that it occupies all the vectors of space and time that life does, and that none of these vectors fit into the technological bandwidths that shape so much of contemporary culture. This does not make concert dance old-fashioned or irrelevant any more than it makes life itself superfluous. 7. Think of yourself as the concert-going equivalent of Virginia Woolf’s “common reader,” an intelligent person with experience of the world capable of bringing that intelligence and experience into the performance space and empowered to call on these personal resources in your encounters with the work. 8. Practice watching the dance actively, energetically. Meet the dance halfway across the footlights. 9. Pay attention in any way that strikes your fancy to the choices made by the dance-maker and to the ways they evolve and (possibly) resolve in the course of the piece. Given all the variables potentially in play simultaneously, the choreographer has to be a juggler of sorts. She may be known to drop a ball or three. He may not prove to be very adept at the task. Similarly, as the pro-active viewer, you have a lot of variables to follow. Begin by focusing on just one or two that catch your attention—partnering patterns, energy levels, use of rhythm or repetition, the relationship of the movement to any music used, the role of (virtuosic) technique. Try to observe non-judgmentally (“technique” is not necessarily “better” than whatever the opposite might be called) and see if you can discern patterns, organizing principles, anything that might make the total add up for you to more than the sum of the parts. The dance may well be abstract, but what you are doing is constructing your own “narrative” of your viewing experience. 10. Empower yourself with both the right and the responsibility to question the dance proactively. Once the dance crosses the metaphoric footlights, it is yours. Even if you got in for free, you “invested” your own precious time and attention. What you “purchased” is your own experience of the work. Here’s a lovely paradox: it is the effort you bring to the viewing enterprise more than the efforts contributed by the choreographer and performers that gives

the thing enduring value for you. You yourself are the sole judge and jury. An acknowledged masterpiece may be well-danced yet leave you cold. An imperfect work can prove involving, even transformative. 11. Respect the hard work of the collaborating artists and performers, even if the result does not prove to your liking. But judge the work on the terms the work itself declares are relevant, not the values introduced by extraneous models and examples, by tendentious critics, fashion-conscious friends, media hype or your own pepperoni-challenged digestive tract. A good work will often tell you how to watch it. Take a deep breath, square your shoulders, and stay with it to the end. 12. See it again. You won’t always feel you “got it” to your satisfaction the first time. And it won’t always (or even often) be your own fault. Not all choreographers are masters, and not all works succeed, even on their own terms. Some works prove to have “private” organizing structures—movement principles rooted in mind-body practices accessible only to acolytes, private psychodramas articulated only (if at all) to therapists, dance idioms indigenous to academies you didn’t attend. We re-read books and re-screen movies, but almost never have the opportunity to see a dance twice so that if can reveal more of itself to us. If you can, see the dance again the next night. It will be different, not so much because the dance has changed, but because you have. And then see something else the following week. As they say on the bottle: Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Appendix C: Booking Information Form Company Name Artist Representative’s Name Artist Representative’s Phone Artist Representative’s Email Website (online press kit/video available?) Dates (weeks) available for block booking tour Size of company Number of hotel rooms required (singles/doubles) Ground transportation required (personnel & equipment) Technical requirements: (minimum requirements; negotiable, etc. – get a copy of tech rider if available)

Types of residency activities

Fee ranges: Full week, half week, multiple performances, # of residency activities included, inclusive fee or lodging/ground transportation additional, etc. Other information (types of programs or rep info, unique attributes of company, etc.):

Appendix D: Fee Structuring and Negotiation Sample Fee Template Sample Company Weekly Fee Structure Salaries Artistic Director Dancers Tech Director Total salaries Fringe benefits Per diems @ $35 for 8 Lodging: 3 doubles +2 singles @120 Airfare: round trip @ Airport transportation @$20 each way per person Miscellaneous Net expenses Administration Booking TOTAL EXPENSES

Rate 1,000 700 1,000

#People 1 6 1 8

25% 280 600 250

6 6 8

7% 18%

Total 1,000 4,200 1,000 6,200 1,550 1,680 3,600 2,000 320 600 15,950 1,489 3,828 21,267

8*$2,000=

21266.66667

16,000 / .75 = 21,333