Read the following article and in a paragraph or 2 discuss how you the concepts apply to leading an arts organization.
After posting your discussion pose a question to one of your peers.
Within an arts organization, I would venture to say that most times there are boundaries set before a project has become. The strategy is set, and the artists are confined to its parameters. The article states that planners should make their contribution around strategy-making process rather than inside it”. When thinking about an ideal like this, makes me think that linking a fantastic, inspiring idea to one component of the strategy is a better way to go about it than trying to fit a subpar project within the strategy.
Later in the article it is said about strategic planning that, “the world is supposed to hold still while a plan is being developed and then stay on the predicted course while that plan is being implemented”. I am extremely pleased with the article for being up this, amount other fallacies of strategic planning because it often times gets a bad rep. When looking at this fallacy, (as if it were true), with correspondences to fitting a project within the parameters of strategic planning, I would say that art needs to defy both of these concepts. Artists should be able to make art however and whenever they want. However, within the arts organization it is logical that there is a manager that after the art/creative side has been made and done, the manager looks at what is feasible. Having strategic, soft outlines for artist is smart but creating a box for them to fit in is not.