Two violinists and a player to be named later

Like the Exhibitionist, I've been keeping tabs on a big Arts Journal online discussion of arts journalism this week. It's rather ivory tower-ish. The best thing I've come across in it is a link to this Poynter piece by Chris Lavin, who compares newspapers' arts and sports sections - as well as the arts organizations and sports teams they cover.

I know administrators and publicists from various ballets, operas, orchestras, theater groups and museums read HubArts, and you should all read this piece. Especially those of you concerned about the amount of attention you're getting from the media these days. Which seems to be most of you. Here's the key paragraph:

When compared to the open access a sports franchise allows, most arts organizations look like a cross between the Kremlin and the Vatican. Casting is closed. Practices closed. Interviews with actors and actresses limited and guarded. An athlete who refuses to do interviews can get fined. An actor or actress or director or composer who can't find time for the media is not uncommon. How would a director take to a theater critic watching practice and asking for his/her early analysis of the challenges this cast faces with the material -- the relatively strengths and weaknesses of the lead actor, the tendencies of the play write to resist rewriting? How often have journalists either ignored or been kept from financial problems that plague many arts organizations until a "crisis'' makes publicity -- late as it is -- unavoidable.

Exactly! In the arts world, and perhaps especially in Boston's arts world, constant complaints about lack of coverage are often canceled out by the attitude that access is a privilege. With some arts organizations in this city, it takes weeks to arrange even the most benign feature. An interview with a curator or conductor is vetted with a control-freak tenacity more appropriate to the White House press office - and sometimes with as many hoops to be jumped as a Tom Cruise Vanity Fair cover.

One never hears a sportswriter complain that he wasn't allowed to interview the catcher because the team publicist told him "we're really trying to focus our coverage on the pitcher now." Or that he'll have to wait to ask the coach about lineup changes "because we need to wait on that story until it's closer to the playoffs."

This sort of thing is said in most cases by publicists caught between a rock and a hard place. They want the coverage but fear that the administrators at whose mercy they serve will be displeased with the results. Or that the hothouse-flower artist can't handle the hurly burly of the modern media scene - a scene that, let's face it, can be crass and sometimes just plain stupid. Yet by trying to manage for favorable coverage, they are often managing for no coverage. Perhaps a less-than-ideal story might be better than none at all?

You want more coverage? Let us watch batting practice.

Comments

[Lis Riba]

That's not universal, though. For the last season or so, Actors' Shakespeare Project has been keeping a blog with rehearsal notes, Q&A features, and links to external articles. Bypassing the press altogether, so fans can find out how things are going.

I find it pretty cool!

Comments don't allow HTML, but the blog is @ http://actorsshakespeareproject.squarespace.com/journal/