A report prepared by the Urban Institute (http://www.urban.org/publications/411311.html) found that “While 96% of Americans value art in their communities and lives only 27% value artists.” I believe this general tone enables great creative solutions developed by creative people to go undiscovered. As an example the solution a theater company develops to find flexible rehearsal space is not immediately interesting to small businesses, yet there are dozens of books that offer case studies of small businesses solutions that could be enriched by the experiences gathered by creative professionals.

I am fortunate to be an old acquaintance of David D. Timony, the current Chair, Fine Arts Department at Girard College. He responded to a question I posted on Twitter and Facebook about a use for empty commercial spaces. David replied he had a unique solution/case study where his school “traded” their unused space with a not-for-profit in an arrangement where both parties gained great value. It’s a wonderful example of a creative solution that can be useful to any organization, company or individual seeking “free” workspace.

Wise Elephant (WE): How did you come about the idea to barter work-space for teaching-time?

David D. Timony (DT): I’ve worked with dance companies in the past and was a co-founder of a Manhattan company. Space was always the hottest commodity and bartering for space was pretty common, though the barter was not always dance related; I have seen people barter accounting services, bedrooms in apartments, and even translation services. My NYC company actually had mirrors and bars in someone’s bedroom as rehearsal space when we couldn’t book unused space at art galleries or colleges.

A movement that was getting some press prior to the current recession was the “small schools” (http://bigpicture.org) movement which makes use of the idea of infusing the surrounding city resources for educational purposes as one of its sustaining objectives. There are some great examples of these schools in Chicago and New York. When you can bring communities into the schools and offer real-life examples of learning, there is benefit for all. I thought that this would be a perfect opportunity to open our campus to the community for mutual benefit.

WE: Can you describe your current relationship with one of your barter-tenants?

DT: We have three companies in-residence at Girard College right now. Each of the groups has the same arrangement–exchange of dedicated studio space and office space in exchange for weekly instructional time with a group of interested students. This has come to realize itself, essentially, in student companies. It’s great to have them on campus–they are sometimes in the lunchrooms and use the offices as their primary point of business and meeting. the students see them doing what professional artists do. The influx of visitors to campus due to meetings, previews, and rehearsals brings traffic onto the campus that may not have ever been here which is an added benefit.

WE: How did you find each other?

DT: I was eager to see how we could meet some content standard needs with the resources that our school possessed rather than tapping into funding sources which, as you know, are always stretched. One of our campus buildings has high ceilings and skylights which we always dreamed of turning into art/music studios and I thought that they would make inspiring dance studios. I searched the internet for Philadelphia based modern companies because, in my experience, modern dancers come from a traditional background of training and departed at some point–they could bring a diverse experience to the table. From that search I, literally, started calling companies in alphabetical order. The first company who called me back was Miro Dance Theatre (www.mirodancetheatre.org). I was surprised how many working companies do not have active listings, web pages, and phone numbers.

WE: Has this relationship led to new collaborative ideas?

DT: There have some incredible outcomes from this partnership. As a school, we’ve been able to incorporate yearly performances by the professional companies as well as the student companies which have been well received. One company has partnered with 21st Century Community Learning Centers and developed an international exchange of dance. The system is going live this year and allows our student dancers from Miro Dance Theatre to view video techniques and assignments from partner companies in the UK and Hong Kong as well as post assignments for the other companies. We are hoping to have this culminate in some type of international performance–live over the web would be awesome if we could work out the particulars.

The first company was key in us meeting the second and third companies. We now have a theatre company and a classical Indian company in-residence and the work that they are all doing here is wonderful. This year Philadelphia Magazine name us the Best Private School Performing Arts program due in large part to our residency programs. It seems that every year, there is some manner of recognition for the companies-in-residence and for the school; we are very grateful for that because we know that it is recognition of hard work by everyone involved.

WE: Who did you have to gain approval from at your college for the barter? Was it a hard sell?

DT: I met with the President and Head of School and it was a very easy sell on my part. The burden falls on the artists to make it work with the school community. We were very thankful to have had the idea received with such eagerness. From there we were able to simply do what we do as teachers and artists to recruit and retain students for the program. As a boarding school for students in grades 1-12, Girard College has been open to adding programs to supplement instruction and activities.

WE: Could this work for other disciplines, such as accounting or technology?

DT: I would like to see this type of partnership move into other content areas. The idea of resident scholar may be a little more challenging to operationalize. You don’t want to bring someone onto campus who simply ends up tutoring or providing homework help. Those things are important, but it would then be a redundant service to the campus. It is also dependent upon the needs of the individual versus the resources of the school. As an institution, space is something we have. That being said, spaces are what they are–a perfect artist studio may be (and likely is) very different from what a scientist would like to use on a regular basis.

WE: Is this a threat to teachers? As an example if you trade space for dance classes is there a dance teacher now out of work?

DT: It shouldn’t be seen as a threat to teachers. We didn’t have dance before so it’s all gain for us. Beyond that, it’s intended to be supplemental to the full curriculum that we offer at Girard College. The practitioner faculty have a specific role as do the classroom faculty.

WE: From your experience could this model also work for community service? Such as a city would offer space in buildings in trade for community service?

DT: In corporate settings, this seems like the perfect model. I’m not an accountant, but it seems obvious–especially in times like these–that the potential tax benefits of in-kind donations could be very helpful. I remind people that donations to non-profit entities will provide you with the same tax benefit (or more) than it did last year–a much better return than current investments.

Imagine if you had an office space in your building: you are already paying for that unused space, the computer network, the heating and air conditioning. Maybe you cannot rent the space for a number of reasons. If you set up a desk in that room with a computer and a dedicated phone line, you could create a base of operations for any of a number of eligible 501c3 organizations in your area. The 501c3 includes the in-kind donation into its bottom line which increases the eligibility for larger grants and puts it on a different plane financially. You are able to write off that donation for full value and will likely benefit from the increased traffic to your business and gain a reputation as a responsible community member. That’s an easy sell, in my opinion.

WE: Have you tried to be evangelical about this idea? Given it as a case study to other universities? Would you?

DT: The resident companies have been very pleased with this arrangement and I’m a little surprised that others who have seen it have not tried to emulate it somehow. It may be that some groups do not want to work with kids or whatever their reasoning may be–it’s definitely not for everyone. I look around Philadelphia and see these opportunities everywhere. It seems that every school in the city, private or public, could afford a little space in exchange for professional instruction.

——-

end

I first met Rivka Katvan at the loft/studio she shares with her husband, Moshe, on west 17th street in NYC. I knew the studio for its product shots; super-clean, sharp, still-life, work. At the time I had no idea about Rivka’s editorial/personal work, and found it by accident when I read a review of one of her series.

Since then I’ve followed her new works, and was struck most recently by her images of Cus D’amato’s boxing gym. Maybe it’s my nostalgic predisposition for boxing imagery a la George Bellows and the “Ashcan School”  mixed with escapism of a simpler life in the country. Either way, its always neat to see the personal work of an artist, which is sometimes very different than the work they do for their “day job.”

(We put together a short portfolio of Katvan’s boxing images, here, in tandem to this brief interview.)

WE: What about this gym and boxers in particular did you find most intriguing?

RK: During my photo essay on Catskill small town America I was introduced to the Cus D’amato Boxing Gym an historic site of the old court room with Art Deco details and the famous boxers that have graced it:
Cus D’amato, Floyd Patterson, and Mike Tyson. This boxing gym fueled my creative fire. The contrast between the art of boxing and the ornate interior of the gym was intriguing.

WE: So you live upstate as well as in the city?

RK: Yes.

WE: How or why did you decide to live upstate?

RK: We live upstate on the weekends and holidays/vacations to get away sometimes from the hustle and bustle of city life (we do love it, but a break is nice at times).

WE: What about the upstate experience influences your work? More than you thought
it would?

RK: The most influential experience has been the examples of the American small town, which provide a refreshing contrast to the urban community and prove stimulating for artistic expression.

WE: Can you provide an example of this contrast that influences your work directly?

RK: Looking at the people and the place, you just figure it out. Four years ago, on a trip during Memorial day I was intrigued by the people, it was so Americana. I was invited to show my work there. The local people were very inviting; in fact they made comments and suggestions about my work.

WE: Should all photographers be doing some sort of personal editorial work?

RK: Definitely. It actually helps to inspire you and to bring some artistic flare into your commercial work.

WE: In what direction do you see the photography moving?

RK: Very Avant Garde, much less traditional.

WE: Do think this is because photographers need to differentiate themselves more and/or is it because so many agencies are using stock photography?

RK: I think photographers want to come up with something different. My wrok is very traditional, But a lot of people, specially at the photography salon I take part in on, every 3rd Wednesday of he month, I see different types of work, ask questions.

Last I went there I saw young woman, who puts masks on her subjects, creates situations in a very untraditional way. A lot of people are trying to be different. Everything has been done, what more can you show?

But I still go back to the romantic photo. It speaks to me, the traditional always speaks to me. These days 95% of ehat you see in a final image was done in photoshop. I’m not criticizing it, its another form of art, but its up to you. I like old photographs.

WE: What advice would you give a new photographer just launching their career?

RK: Just keep shooting even if you don’t have access to any work at the moment. Build up a nice portfolio, put it out on the web and if you can afford it, just promote yourself as much as possible.

——-

Learn more about Rivka Katvan at her website: http://katvan.com

How to survive as an image-maker in the digital age? Copyright is hard to protect, technology allows easy entry to creative forms (digital cameras; fix-it software, effects), and the revenues that support creative professionals (and more) are shifting. My gut instinct is to fight against the crowdsource trend though I believe the subscription business model might save, and launch, many businesses. My artist clients rage against stock anything, stock photo, micro-stock, even huge seemingly unregulated networks of portfolios. “How does that build value?” they ask me. I’m not sure that matters. There is a market for low-cost imagery, music, video, and therefore business will fill the gap.

The below interview with Jon Oringer, Founder & CEO of Shutterstock, is a means to understand what is going on in the crowdsourced- stock realm. I’m not saying I’m a believer, but I do think its necessary to learn about the facets to better make forward-looking career decisions.

—–

WE: How did you find yourself starting a stock photo business, what was the spark?

JO: I had used other agencies’ stock images for businesses I launched in the past. However, I noticed that prices were either too high, or the content was stale if reasonably priced. There was no marketplace that adequately served both image buyers and sellers.

So, I taught myself the basics of photography and began shooting stock photos. In the span of six months, I had over 100,000 images.  I uploaded 30,000 for sale onto a subscription site that I created.  Within hours, dozens of photographers were asking me to sell their images as well.  I realized that millions of photos were being taken every day by professional to amateur photographers and not being monetized.

A marketplace with a unique price point needed to be created. However, I didn’t want to build another credit-based photo site.  As a result, in 2003, we combined subscriptions with user-generated content, and Shutterstock was born.  We were the first stock image agency to offer the popular 25-A-Day subscription plan.

WE: What recommendations are you making to your creative clients to survive this downturn? Is there a new path we should be taking?

JO: The key to surviving the downturn is to look for creative ways to cut costs without compromising service or quality.

For example, Shutterstock uses the innovative business model of crowdsourcing. Crowdsourcing allows us to harness the talents of our global base of submitters who sell their creative work on our site.

This allows customers from around the world to obtain high quality royalty-free photos, illustrations, vectors and video at much more affordable prices than traditional stock companies.

In the current Web 2.0 environment, we expect to see more businesses and entrepreneurs find original and creative ways to use crowdsourcing to fulfill their business needs.

WE: Do you think stock photography has contributed to the greatly increased competition of the photo world?

JO: The playing field has largely been leveled by the technological advancement and affordability of digital cameras, which allow talented amateur photographers to create professional quality images.  Photography as a hobby is expanding as people find that they don’t need expensive equipment to take great photos, just talent and experience.

Shutterstock contributes to this trend by providing a channel for amateurs and professionals alike to sell their work.

WE: What makes a good stock image?

JO: A good stock image needs to be marketable, technically sound and associated with relevant keywords.

In many cases, ensuring that an image is technically sound can be the easier part, since determining this is based on a variety of factors that include framing, lighting, and composition.

It is also essential to tag images with precise and relevant keywords.  Customers search our library by keyword so images will only sell if they are associated with the right keywords.

Taking a marketable image can be more challenging, as photographers need to keep in mind that the purpose of a stock image is to help sell or promote a product, concept, or idea.

As a result, we always encourage first-time submitters to study the images from successful Shutterstock submitters, as well as our Top 50 Images to get a feel for how a good stock image should look.

Given that we review every image and accept only 40 percent of what we receive, this is an important first step to getting images accepted on our site.

WE: Has stock photography diminished, increased, or shifted in another way, the value of the still image?

JO: Online stock photography has increased the value of the still image by creating and expanding a digital image marketplace that didn’t exist several years ago.

Thanks to the advances in digital cameras, talented amateurs can now create valuable, high quality photos and reach a world-wide audience.  In fact, many of our submitters are making significant incomes from their images on Shutterstock.

As a result of our innovative business model, these individuals can now monetize their passion for photography, whereas before, they didn’t have this opportunity.

WE: What message can you offer to photographers who make their living on assignment work, who feel threatened by (and have lost jobs to) stock photography?

JO: Businesses and individuals will always need custom photo shoots and freelance photography assignments; we don’t see Shutterstock replacing this work.

It is true that some photographers are concerned about the quickly changing landscape of the photo business.  However, most of these changes have occurred due to the technological advances in digital cameras.  As a result, the market has responded, and many photographers are also adapting.  For example, photographers who once used film and darkrooms are now using digital cameras and photo editing software.  Those who once submitted their photos to traditional stock photo agencies are now submitting to online stock photo agencies like Shutterstock.

Further, many former traditional stock photographers find they receive a more consistent income by submitting images to online stock photography sites.  An image on Shutterstock may never stop earning – photographers can receive commissions from an image for years after submitting it.  In this sense, the images have more long-term value. Stock photographers who have learned how Shutterstock works have built up high quality portfolios, and report consistent, high monthly earnings.

WE: What is the long-term view for Shutterstock?

JO: Today, Shutterstock is the world’s largest subscription-based online stock photo company.  We are pleased with our growth, and our main focus is to continue to offer and develop new innovative solutions for anyone who needs stock imagery and footage.

——

Learn more at http://www.shutterstock.com

Illustration has been around since the dawn of time. I confidently assumed it would succeed in outlasting the bumps and bruises of the digital wave. Photo initially exploded (although in some ways its currently imploding), but illustration was caught in the rut on the road blazed by new digital technologies. The success of illustration as a business, like most businesses, required a handful of pillars to keep it strong. Leaders who believe in the medium, who can see the big picture, and for the most part can see their way out of the jungle.

I met Richard Solomon the Artists Representative a few years back at his former office, flat-files stocked to the gills with images, his team deeply quiet in their work, Richard with the phone at his ear. A lot has changed since then, but Richard’s firm belief in “art” has guided his shop to continue to offer the best work available from the best artists working today. This interview with Richard was conducted earlier this Fall, just as the economics of our time hit their low point.

Wise Elephant (WE): What has been the greatest change in your role as an Artists Representative since the beginning of your career?

Richard Solomon (RS): Some years ago (I would guess about 2001-2002) I noticed what I called a gathering of “the perfect storm,” the confluence of the digital revolution coming into full force, linked to the stock revolution, and- for want of a better term, the “dumb revolution.” To explain: many creatives now are not knowledgeable about the history of illustration, and have a hard time making a differentiation, qualitatively, between great, good, and mediocre art. And in my opinion is because of they are exposed to so much visual crap over this past decade, and the lowering of artistic standards.

These three factors have impacted my business greatly. Bottom line there are fewer calls, which impacts the number of jobs.  For this reason I created a new parallel business, Art On A Grand Scale (AOGS), which has necessitated a different approach and philosophy to our marketing.

WE: What has had the most influence on commercial illustration over the past 10 years, past five, this past year?

RS: The demise of the portfolio and to a lesser extent, the need for printed samples. Business is now done almost entirely through the Internet and electronically, digitally, with the phone, and to a very small extent fax, taking a backseat.

Here’s an example: the last two big jobs I’ve worked on have been for international clients, big budget with multiple illustrations, for advertising. And I’ve never once spoken to the art buyer or art director, and never needed to.

WE: What about being an Artist Rep would be the most surprising to someone who knows little about the field?

RS: Most people think that you sell original art, and you own a gallery or galleries. It takes a bit of time to make clear that we sell intellectual property, and with few exceptions not the original art. People don’t comprehend that usage is the most important factor in negotiations, and this is where a reps earn their stripes. Most artists are lost. As an example: we have recently completed a mural in three sites, and now we are negotiating for it to appear over the next several years in multiple sites. It is possible that the 2ndary rights fees will equal or surpass the initial fee. For some reason this is a hard concept for people to grasp. Also when I say I represent 20 illustrators (or in AOGS’ case, 37 artists), they are shocked. When in reality I have a boutique compared to most of my colleagues.

WE: What makes a gig a good gig?

RS: The best possible scenario is: great money, a challenging job that the artist can get his teeth into, a reasonable amount of time, and as much creative freedom as possible. If this can be combined with a prestigious and high profile client, and usage, everybody comes out ahead. As the saying goes “too many cooks spoil the broth.”  A sympathetic and knowledgeably art director/art buyer helps immensely, and also the fact that they know well enough to let the artist do their thing.

WE: What other career could you imagine yourself doing?

RS: I’ve always wanted to be an automotive designer. I was a screenwriter, for a time, and thought I might be a marine scientist in high school. Anything to do with astronomy/cosmology would have intrigued me.

WE: What element separates you from your Rep peers? How are you different?

RS: I have a passion for art, all kinds of art. My business is linked to my avocation for all forms of art. Having been raised in a family where my father was a collector and had a part interest in a gallery… I believe this changes my perspective, and certainly informs my judgment when picking talent and talking with my artists about their work and art in general. Not to be disparaging about my colleagues, but in conversations I’ve had with them over the years, that does not seem to be a prerequisite for them. And if I mention a particular show I’ve seen, gallery I’ve gone to etc., they draw a blank.

Also I pride myself on being a very tough negotiator in a positive sense, and am a very strong advocate for my artists.

WE: What does Illustration need to do? Where should it go, if anywhere?

RS: I can’t really answer this question. I can only supply the needed talent and signature style art, but I have no control over what is chosen. My whole value structure is based on the idea that the cream comes to the top, and I do the best I can to facilitate that.

—-

You can learn more about Richard Solomon and his businesses at:

Richard Solomon Artists Representative: http://richardsolomon.com

Art on  Grand Scale: http://www.artonagrandscale.com

(Richard Solomon portrait photo credit: Mark Wiener)

When interviewing our latest guru, Lewis Van Arnam, the Artists Representative (photography), I was struck by one of many key points: “The moral of the story is that we help ourselves by helping others.” Though this is also the mantra of several Social Media superstars, you don’t find this quality pronounced too often in the very competitive marketplace of creative professionals.

Most folks are wary of divulging too much, fearful that their wisdom will be used against them, giving fuel to the competition. And although this is the basis of any artist representative, a career founded to support both their clients and their artists, its still music to my ears to hear someone say it out loud. I feel the wave of “old-school” sensibilities rising, like a big “duh, that makes sense, always has, always will.” Sometimes the truth hurts, but it’s also the spark to keep the engine churning.

Wise Elephant (WE): What has been the greatest change in your role as an Artists Representative since the beginning of your career?

Lewis Van Arnam (LVA): I’ve been in this business for a long time, so I’ve seen lots and lots of change. The greatest, in a word, is volume.  I started out with one photographer at a time when agents could actually connect with art directors and creative directors to advocate for their artist.

Over the years the growth rate of photographers, and agents has become overwhelming for clients.  Enter the art buyer. For the record, I love art buyers, but they too have become overwhelmed by an exploding industry. Enter voice mail…(for the record I despise voice mail, but I digress) then e-mail, e-marketing, LinkedIn, Twitter,…..what’s next?

Prospective clients seem to get further and further away and selling has become very impersonal. Photo-agencies are getting bigger and multi-tiered and the agent – artist relationship has changed dramatically.  Today’s photographers are forced to be more aware of their product. Whereas the agent of the past was the artist’s primary voice to the industry, today the photographer’s presentation, both portfolio and website, must speak as the door-opening selling tool. Half our efforts, as an agency, are directed at branding ourselves as a credible, desirable, creative destination. If we’re on the map in these categories, everyone will benefit.

WE:  You mention that you love art buyers. Do you mean all art buyers or the ones who give you work?

LVA:  Hahahaha. tricky question. I’ve made a lot of friends in this business over the years. I’m a people-person and I have great relationships with art buyers and art directors who don’t necessarily give me work (yet). I think what I mean is that I love the concept of, or the existence of, art buying. I would explain it this way.  I have a thing about symmetry. I love it and I’m always compelled to establish it in my life and work. It probably explains why I have so many long relationships. I look at art buyers as the mirror image of myself. Respectively we function as the yin and yang in the business of creative execution. Supply and demand yes, but on a practical level we establish the DNA of communication that takes a concept and fleshes it out to reality. Together we craft the details and build the tools to get that particular job into the hands of the creative team with complete viability. Art Buyers are the voice of their art & creative directors, and we, in turn, advocate for our photographer. It’s a very symmetrical process and I love being part of it.

WE: And voice mail? What’s the deal?

LVA: It’s an insidious concept. Well, maybe it has some merit but I find it frustrating and confusing.  In one instant I plunge from the momentum of pro-active ecstasy to the depths of passive uncertainty, by leaving a message. OK what now? Wait for a return call that may never come? Should I call again? How long should I wait?  Are there rules I don’t know about? This is torture.

WE: What has had the most influence on commercial photography over the past 10 years, past 5? Past year?

LVA: You use the word commercial, so here’s a business answer, usage fees. Believe it or not in my early days as an agent (more than ten years ago BTW), photographers where paid an agreed shoot rate and there was little, or no discussion about how, or how long, the images would be used. Licensing was not part of the vocabulary. So the advent of usage fees and copyright awareness has had tremendous impact on photographers’ businesses. And I think clients have a better appreciation for buying good photography and getting the best bang for their buck.

I would also mention saturation. There’s too much of everything (except clients, of course). The growth rate has been astronomical and I don’t see it slowing down any time soon.  The resulting level of competition has tremendous impact on every (almost) photographer’s survival.

Then there’s the obvious:  first the Internet, followed closely by digital technology. Both elements contribute profoundly to the over-saturation in our business today.

WE: What about being an Artist Rep would be the most surprising to someone who knows little about the field?

The existence of Photo Agents at all.  I think generally the public understanding of an agent’s role is very superficial. Most people know about sports agents and celebrity agents and the perception is this greedy presence that, more or less, amounts to a necessary evil.  We fight this stigma every minute of every day. Outside the industry no one knows that photographers have reps and it’s always a huge surprise when I explain what I do.

In reality, I believe our role is crucial to both the photographers and the clients. We provide an important service that fills a gap in the process. It’s mostly about communication and trouble-shooting. Photographers tend to be overly emotional, and often too busy, to be objective and attentive to a pending project. Our presence takes pressure off both sides.

WE: What makes a gig a good gig?

LVA: The next gig, from the same client. Then you know that all components of a job were in harmony, from A to Z.

Also, sufficient budgets.  Too often clients want it all but can’t afford it. The resulting “cut corners” usually compromises the end product…. and guess who gets blamed….?

WE: What other career could you imagine yourself doing?

LVA: Well, let’s see…..there’s:
Psycho-analyst, Shepard, Litigator, Magician, Super Nanny, Fuller Brush Salesman, Mystic, Tax Collector, Travel Agent, CEO, Janitor, Philanthropist or Greeter at Wal-Mart.

Oh, wait, you said other……hmmmm.

I’m probably not qualified for any other career.

WE: How did you fall into being a rep?

LVA: Fall is a good way to put it. And, you know, that’s something that I love about this side of the business. Most people fall into it.  In here you can be whatever you want to be, as long as you deliver.  You’re accepted on your merits and there’s something very pure about that process (hyperbole denoted, of course).

I attended art school, Pratt Institute, and fell in love with photography and the creative process. I aspired to be a photographer and was drawn to fashion.

I was fortunate to be introduced to a photographer and I started assisting. Through connections I met photographer Mike Reinhardt and we became immediate friends. I assisted Mike for two years and managed his studio, including everything from accounting and handling bookings, to on-set camera assisting. Mike had (or has, I should say, but retired now) an unbelievably sharp business mind and from him I learned everything, from top to bottom (or was it bottom to top….I worked my ass off for $150 a week). Anyway, it was Mike’s recognition of my growing business acumen that spawned the idea becoming his rep. Thanks Mike.  We made a great team and had 15 very successful years together.

The moral of the story is that we help ourselves by helping others. I never forget the genesis of my career and whenever possible I pass whatever advice I can to the next generation. That’s how it works.

WE: What element separates you from your Rep peers? How are you different?

LVA: Amazingly, I don’t really know how my peers operate. I often make the statement that we work in a vacuum, that is to say, that the competitive nature of the business suppresses a sharing atmosphere.

My business model has always been very hands-on. The attitude is that it is easier to keep a client than to get a new one. Of course we strive to do both. I hear a lot of horror stories about clients being abused by both agents and photographers. That would never happen here. I pride my agency on solving problems before they become problems. The benefit of this way of thinking is universal.

Again, I can’t speak for other agents, but for myself I can say that I truly care about the people I represent. I’m dedicated to the relationships I establish and I think anyone who knows me would agree.

WE: What does photography need to do? Where should it go, if anywhere?

Business-wise? Eliminate editorial contracts. Need I say more?  Remember, my perspective is from the fashion world. Editorial exposure makes photography careers not the other way around. There are some very talented young artists that could really benefit from presence in the magazines. And, I believe the magazines would benefit, as well. There’s no rules, of course, this is purely an evolutionary process.

Creatively? Good luck. What hasn’t been done? The industry is starving for the next new idea but from my observations, “new” is more likely a tweak of something that’s already been done.  So keep tweaking, I guess. Maybe new technology will bring some radical creative thinking.  Some may argue that it’s already happening. They may be right and that actually worries me.

There’s a race to keep up with and embrace technology. Ironically, it’s the same technology that may become a destructive force to many and change the business, as we know it.   When you consider the effects of digital technology, photoshop, high definition video… you realize that photography has to develop a fail-safe mentality.  I read somewhere that on the list of the greatest threats to the continued existence of life on earth is artificial intelligence. We must protect our industry from ourselves. It’s not going to be easy.

WE: Does technique become the leader in photo innovation then? Or style, either, neither, both?

LVA: It’s important to identify the spectrum of applications and approaches to commercial photography. Remember that photographers tend to think of themselves as artists, creating art, but truthfully there is a balance, in assigned photography, between expression and recording. Between being an artist or a craftsman (both challenging, don’t get me wrong). The swing between complete creative expression and simply compiling information is largely determined the client’s needs and it’s their trust and money that restricts or unleashes the creative forces of the photographer (not to mention the rest of the team). Many sets have become battlegrounds over issues of creative control.

In the days of film (let’s call them the “old days”) photographers held all the cards. They alone knew, or could anticipate, the end results from a day of shooting.  They applied their special techniques and developed their own unique style.  Experience ruled.  Calculated risks, creative decisions made in the camera….these were the  elements that made photographers special… made their  careers. There’s a term “happy mistakes” that comes to mind. If you don’t experiment, you don’t grow. Today the stylistic decisions of what to place in front of the camera, and how to light, direct, manage the set, etc. are still there, but I believe the presence of the digital monitor undermines a photographer’s opportunity to be creative. My concern is that it may eventually alter the perception of their worth.

WE: Do photographers have to reinvent the medium entirely, like moving pictures did to film in the last century. Are we at a point where all has to radically change OR is it that we need to step back and build upon the fundamentals?

LVA: I’m in favor of building on the fundamentals.  Digital technology, as wonderful as it is, has come at us too fast and I believe we’ve made some mistakes.  We’re playing catch-up to adjust for the long-term effects.

Traditionally speaking, half of photo execution is the subject, or what you choose to put in front of the camera and half is how the camera reacts, based on decisions about what lens to use, what type of film, depth of field, shutter speed, light, etc.  Recently we’ve added another half called postproduction and it may become the biggest half (this is Yogi Berra territory) of all.  Images used to be finished in the camera, but today an image is not finished until it’s been digitally manipulated. The word ‘Post” has crept into our photo-speak and photographers must be careful not to lose control of their images.
Digital technology is here to stay, there’s no doubt about it. Let’s use it to enhance our industry, not rule it.  I believe we must maintain integrity for the creator of images and the laws designed to protect intellectual property.

WE: You speak of your industry being hungry for new ideas and then you use the phrase “experience rule.”. Are these conditions reconcilable?

LVA: Excellent question. Even though I (we, really, I’m surrounded by a first rate staff) have oodles of experience (let me know if I’m getting too technical for you), I’m proud to say that I learn something new every day. Our signature is to work smart for our clients. Having a reservoir of experiences and knowledge is only half the picture. Drawing on that knowledge base, with an open mind and understanding of the nuances you’re faced with, completes the process. It’s refreshing and it should be. I love innovation and thinking “outside the box”.  Thinking this way, however, only has value when we are aware that there IS a box (sometimes people can get a little carried away). So, think of the ease that comes from experience and add inspiration….oh yeah, and coffee. We have a lot to offer.

WE:  Do you have a message for your photographers or photographers in general, who are, in your words, battling the unprecedented levels of competition for their survival?

LVA: Forward motion. Find it. Keep it. As in most professions, what you get out is directly proportional to what you put in. Use your tools to advance yourself and take responsibility for your direction. Own your career. I constantly emphasize that photography is a full time job and not restricted to time behind the camera.

WE: Tools?

LVA: Well, yes, I’m not talking about hardware. I mean the resources you develop as you grow. First is talent….creative vision, of course, but creative business as well. Your agent is also a tool. Make sure they have your best ammunition and keep it coming.

Then it’s a matter of maximizing all the opportunities that come your way. Work the connections, do your homework, arm yourself with information. Build your profile however you can. Construct it with great visible work, a strong presentation, relationships and momentum.

I’m discovering that the new generation of digital based photographers understand this quite well. It surprises me. I expected something else, I guess, because it’s so easy to pick up a digital camera and call yourself a photographer. Not so fast. My associate, Stan Brooks, is handling some young photographers who display amazing focus on their careers, and dedication to their creative point of view. Very impressive.

WE:  When you speak of arming yourself and needing ammunition, you sound like you’re in a war.

LVA: I guess you’re right. Is there such a thing as a happy war?  I have so much fun….I love what I do. It’s serious, though, too. Free enterprise is no joke.

——

To learn more about Lewis Van Arnam Represents please visit http://lvarepresents.com and http://lavplus.com

I’ve known Susan Egan for over a dozen years. Ever since graduating art school she’s been balancing her two loves, horses and photography, spending half the year to be closer to the horses and half in NYC, where she’s trudging along nicely.

Her work has always gravitated towards the body, with an open freshness that appears exhibitionist, but is really the path towards self-fearlessness. Call it your birthday suit, in Egan’s work there is a confidence, a notion that clothes are to keep away the cold, a place to hold things, merely a veil for the beauty that your body is. Sexy for sure, that’s what it’s all about isn’t it?

Here’s a brief interview with Susan we’re presenting in tandem to the photo series we’ve posted, which contains work currently on exhibit at Gnarly Vines in Brooklyn.

Wise Elephant (WE): Why Polaroid?
Susan Egan (SE): You can’t beat the Polaroid’s character. The soft colors, the painterly quality, especially when scanned and enlarged. But it’s more than that, the Polaroids immediacy is seductive, and allows the model to collaborate more effectively. The time spent waiting for processing, creates a space to develop rapport, spend some hang time. I like to think my shoots are fun, and relaxed, and my models are usually friends, or friends of friends, so it’s social as well as problem solving. The Polaroid quality itself is very flattering, and models are usually thrilled with how they look, which builds more confidence. I think a confident woman is sexy. I also enjoy the fact that most of the models from the body of work are in their thirties, or older, and not a twenty-something professional model, but smoking hot none the less!

WE: Why so few faces?
SE: I didn’t want the photos to become portraits, and tried to avoid faces, which also makes the figures more accessible to the viewer, more fetishistic.

I shoot a lot of portraiture, and I’ve photographed people in the nude, and included their faces, but I found that even though my subjects were nude, the images were more like portraits than figure studies. Avoiding identity through eliminating the faces helps to transform these ladies into “every woman” in her underwear. It also allows the viewer to objectify or fetishize the female form when they’re not confronted by a face, or eye contact from the subject.

WE: How do you define a successful picture?
SE: Shooting with a range finder like my 180 Polaroid Landcamera (used for this body of work), can sometimes be a challenge compositionally, especially when shooting close. My camera tends to be top heavy, what I see through the view finder shows less of the top of the image than what actually comes out on the film. I’ve learned to guesstimate what the composition will be. When I find an appealing situation, I usually shoot a few versions, tweaking it slightly until I come up with something I can live with. That “something” usually includes a balance of composition, range of appropriate values, and freshness/mysteriousness of pose.

WE: Next?
SE: Not sure. I have a few things cooking. Started shooting topless yet accessorized environmental portraits Always looking for new models…I was thinking about shooting some of those twenty-something professional models again, it’s been a while.

——

See more of Susan’s work at her website: http://susaneganphoto.com

End

What can you say about the Architect Rick Kintigh? You could say that he has many books and he performs all his own stunts. This is true, but there is more. You’ll never meet anyone just like Rick. Rick is a complex individual with a brilliant mind and a never-ending pursuit for innovation. He’s a successful and busy architect with three jobs, yet he remains grounded, and is surprisingly modest about his accomplishments. His passion and drive are infectious and being around him makes you want to go out and design something, or just have a giggle at his wit. Rick is a creative inspiration and anyone that knows him will say the same.

Wise Elephant (WE): You are a full time architect at the architecture firm Fitzgerald Earles Architects, you teach part time at The Illinois Institute of Technology and you are part owner of the collaborative firm sand_box…when do you sleep?

Rick Kintigh (RK): I do tend to keep a lot of irons in the fire, but it is a product more of playfulness and passion than some workaholic drive. When distilled down it starts with sand_box. This is where my passion manifests; all other interests tend to become absorbed into or subservient to sand_box. It is still a young firm with 5 equal partners which makes it difficult to put in motion. My day job certainly provides stability during the process, but it isn’t just a paycheck. In it’s own way it provides opportunities for interesting interventions. Teaching for the most part is simply there because they let me. It is fun, challenging and inspiring.

WE: What motivates you every day? Most people can barely handle one job, how do you tackle three?

RK: Some days are definitely easier than others, but it is a perpetual motion machine fueled by creation. The process is engaging on every level, it requires both hemispheres of the brain and incorporates all the senses from front to back. It’s a 4 dimensional puzzle with infinite solutions, but only one “right” solution at that moment. I am getting a bit giddy talking (typing) about it.

WE: When did you first know that you wanted to be an Architect?

RK: Pretty early on. I can’t remember ever really considering anything else. My father had a book of heavy timber homes of the American Northwest; that seemed to catch my imagination. The idea probably started or at least gained traction there, and I never fought it. Architecture just seemed to fit.

WE: What is it about architecture that drives you to dedicate your world to it?

RK: Architecture is the most public and permanent of all forms of art. The practice of architecture requires mixing sociology, anthropology, art, and engineering. We are around it, in it, and interact with it every day.

WE: I know that you have a passion for fine art as well, do ever see yourself leaving architecture and doing more fine art? Or do you see them as one?

RK: I don’t think you have to leave the discipline of architecture to participate in the discussion. Although sand_box is a design firm with clients and budgets and all the typical trappings of business, we are equally dedicated to our own self-initiated projects. These tend to manifest as interactive sculptures and installations. We have shown in galleries around Chicago and New York and look at this work as a laboratory for our ideas. Together these two sides of sand_box create a symbiotic loop of funding and innovation that keeps us evolving and growing.

WE: I know that sand_box has been featured in Wallpaper* Magazine, congratulations! And you say that sand_box is your passion, how and when did sand_box happen?

RK: Thank you, yeah, Wallpaper* was a nice honor and a great time. Our photo shoot was on top of the then unfinished New York Times building. You can’t tell from the photo they selected, but there was an amazing view of Manhattan, and it was a little precarious at times. As for sand_box, the five of us (Bruce Engel, Damen Hamilton, Thomas Kearns, Samuel Keller and myself) had worked together on a few competition and installations. We formalized our association in 2002 with the founding of sand_box.

WE: Half the business in Chicago and half in New York, does the split distance cause any strain?

RK: There definitely are compromises, but we have always been distributed amongst multiple cities, so we learned to manage it early on. We utilize Skype for conference calls, our FTP site for active file sharing, email and SMS. Technology has allowed us to communicate with relative ease. We are always looking for new ways to communicate. We are currently designing a new website concept that should make for a more collaborative process, which is very exciting.

WE: What has been your favorite project that you’ve worked on?

RK: Wow, tough. They each pretty much have there moments, but two in particular were the Oral History Project at the Hellenic Museum in Chicago, and the Defibrillator installation in Brooklyn. Hellenic was great because it is this incredibly dense, sophisticated, sculpture that we were able to design and build. There are hundreds of unique pieces that had to be fabricated and interconnected to create it, along with custom software, circuit boards, sensors and graphics, each designed and implemented “in house”. It was a true labor of love. As for Defibrillator, it shares many of the same components as far as “in house” fabrication and technology, but it was particularly special because all five of us got to hang out together throughout the construction. We work hard to minimize the communication gap between the cities, but there is nothing like being able to work and hang out together.

WE: How do you guys come up with design concepts between five people? Is there any head butting having five different minds involved?

RK: The head butting is the best part! We have worked together for years so our process has developed a nice rhythm. We each have our individual interests and motivations, but we also have a great deal of respect for each other. It is important that everyone’s voice is heard in argument or agreement. There is no ego (at least amongst each other), so we all know when we have heard or seen a better solution, and can move to the next debate. Every project gets the best of each of us, and we and our projects are better for it.

WE: When it comes to architecture and how to approach design some people are more pragmatic and others more conceptual? Where do you fall?

RK: It changes with the environment and the project. In my day job I am more along the conceptual side of practice, but with sand_box I often fill a more pragmatic roll.

WE: Where do you see yourself in five years?

RK: I try not to paint too firm a picture to be honest. I hope for security without complacency. I want sand_box’s resources and audience to continue to expand and provide new and exciting challenges. We also have a few tricks up our sleeve I hope we can pull off and learn from. I would expect to be down to one or two jobs, but I am not promising that I will get any more sleep when that happens.

*To find out more about Rick and the sand_box crew visit LINK

I’ve never met Brian Smale in person. We’ve corresponded on and off over the last few years via email and on the phone, speaking mostly about the organization he’s affiliated with Editorial Photographers. He’s always been frank about the state of the image-market, and seemingly always on the road to a new gig. His answers within our interview reflect his no-nonsense approach and/or his lack of free time. We appreciated his attention, and think you will too.

Wise Elephant (WE): Why portraits (or people)? how did this become your “line”?

Brian Smale (BS): When I first started assisting, I worked for 2 different food/still life photographers. Both were really good photographers, and were very generous with sharing their knowledge. I learned a lot about lighting, but mostly learned that I didn’t want to shoot still-life.

One guy would fuss over a sprig of parsley for HOURS (while chain-smoking). His lighting was absolutely classic 80’s product: overhead softbox/ fill cards/ black plexiglass tabletop. My eyes would glaze over after about 15 minutes.

The other guy had a very unusual approach: Light it hard, and shoot it fast, while the food still looks good. Everything was shot with a 90mm on an 8×10 camera; practically a fisheye. Rarely more than 6 sheets of film got shot. Eat the props, and get to the pub by 6pm, was usual order of business. Beautiful, fun work, but still not really my cup of tea.

I did eat well though.

The next photographer I worked for, Nigel Dickson, was the one that really opened my eyes. I worked for him for a couple of years, and what I saw & experienced really appealed to me. Nigel shot a wide variety of subject matter (including the occasional still-life shoot), but it was his editorial portraiture that really grabbed me. There was always someone new and interesting to meet.

That pretty much sealed it for me.

WE: Are portraits about 1. the natural face of a person 2. what they do and/or 3. how they should look (stylistically)? All, part or none of the above?

BS: I don’t think that an ‘editorial’ portrait always has to include a person’s face, although if usually helps if that subject’s face is already well known. Generally, an editorial portrait is commissioned because that person has done something of significance. Including something in the picture that matters to the subject is usually good. Occasionally that ‘thing’ can be the most important part of the portrait. What that ’something’ is can vary widely of course, and often there really isn’t any thing or place to work with, and still make a decent picture (so a simple ‘face’ picture is can be the most appropriate). Did that make sense to anyone but me?

There was a great example of a ‘faceless’ portrait in a recent issue of Portfolio magazine. I’m embarrassed to say that I’ve forgotten the photographer’s name: The subject was a computer hacker, who most likely didn’t want his face shown. So the photographer wrapped most of his face in an ethernet cable. It was a really good solution.

WE: Does an artist still have to live in NYC, or does it matter anymore where an artist lives?

BS: Ahhh… the ‘regional’ thing. That’s a little hard for me to answer definitively. The photo market is changing so rapidly it’s hard to know for sure what works and why. There are plenty of excellent photographers who don’t live in NYC, and are doing great work for major clients. However, …. if you can afford the rent, I think living in NYC for a while can be really beneficial to most photographers. Or Paris, or London, or Milan, Berlin, Tokyo….

WE: Which of your new works or series is your favorite?

BS: I just shot Howard Schultz at Starbucks, and am quite happy with it. Oh, and I also recently shot Santa Claus. In the off season he runs a pull-tab shop in Alaska. Lovely guy.

WE: How do you define the role of a pro photographer in today’s realm of stock and crowd-sourcing?

BS: What rhymes with desperate?

WE: Who do you know that still shoots film?

BS: Just the second food photographer I worked for. You’ll have to pry his “10-8″ camera from his cold dead fingers.

WE: Will print magazines all migrate/meld into online properties? Is print dead?

BS: I don’t think that print is dead, but it will have to co-exist with electronic versions of itself. Existing print magazines can’t really exist without some sort of an online version. Some online magazines can easily exist without print though, Slate, and Salon for example. I’m sure that there are plenty of others.

Personally, I don’t recall seeing an online version that I prefer to a current print version, but I’m sure that will change as design improves with the technology to display it.

I like to take a newspaper or magazine with me when I walk the dog. I can read it, and then use it to clean up after the mutt. Kind of hard to do that with a computer.

WE: What do you see as the next break-through in photography and/or image-making?

BS: I am under an NDA on this one. Very hush-hush. It’s gonna blow your mind.

WE: How would you define current image/art/commercial culture?

BS: I don’t think I would.

WE: What would you like to see more of in the industry?

BS: Money.

——

end

Learn more about Brian Smale at his website

A joyful and playfulness abounds in Kelly Shea’s work, a forward thinking modernism beyond any rigid coolness. Having been both a professor and a career freelancer, her honesty about her experiences and goals is refreshing. A truly stand-up person, a true rock in the industry, her practical wisdom might seem familiar. Still, it’s good to be reminded that in our competitive arena of creative professionals bright points on the map like Kelly are welcome stars.

Wise Elephant (WE): Why did you choose Design as a career?

Kelly Shea (KS): It just seemed like the right/logical thing. I really enjoy organizing ideas, solving problems and making things visually appealing. I loved to draw when I was young(er) and actually chose a high school based on its art department. They had an Advertising class and I just thought that was the coolest thing ever. I’m sure I still have that portfolio around somewhere. But when it came to college, I thought lawyer or accountant was the way to go. After all, that is how you make a living (plus, I really did enjoy my business law and accounting classes). After one semester, I had a complete change of heart and it was design all the way (with a minor in psychology). My friend and I used to sit in our drawing class and wonder why anyone would ever chose a different major.

WE: How much control have you had over your professional career as a designer vs. it taking you with it?

KS: I would say 65% control and 35% going with flow. I’m just guessing at the percentages, but they way I see it is you have control in that you make specific decisions about what jobs you take, who you will and won’t work for, what type of design you do etc… but once you make those decisions other opportunities arise based on those previous decisions and all of a sudden you can find yourself working somewhere that you weren’t expecting or had planned. One job leads to another. You meet someone who knows someone and you end up working in a company that was never on your radar. That leads to something else. It goes on and on. I started teaching at Pratt because a friend knew someone who taught there and recommended me. From that I became the Assistant Chair and met a whole slew of great people and learned a lot of interesting things. Those people recommended me for a promotion… etc… etc…

WE: If “feel/gut” is on the left and “intellect/reason” on the right, where in the scope of things (generally) could you put yourself when defining what you like?

KS: I never thought I’d say these words: I’m on the right. I usually have a logical reason for why I like something and why I don’t. There are, of course, exceptions to every rule, but right now I can’t even think of one. It could be as simple as; I like that shirt because of the color combinations and the pattern’s symmetry. I don’t like that SUV because it’s too big and is a plague on the environment. Simple reasons, but always explainable.

WE: Was there a gig/job you turned down you wish you didn’t?

KS: No, but there are a few that I’ve taken that I wish I didn’t.

WE: What made a gig a “bad’ gig.

KS: I had one client send me a check for a fraction of my bill because it’s what they thought they should pay. Long story short, I was young and didn’t have a written contract. They kept making changes and when I told them that they were approaching the estimate I gave them, they said ok and continued to make changes. I sent them a bill. They sent me a check for approximately my original estimate. It was a long drawn out ordeal and not fun for anyone involved. I eventually received more of a payment, but not all.

WE: Has much has your career been influenced by internet (if not entirely)?

KS: Influenced more than words can say. When I first graduated college, things were a lot different. The internet was there, but it was poorly designed and had major usability issues. It wasn’t something that you immediately ran to when a question arose. We had libraries back then.

I was working in print and if I needed to talk to someone, I picked up the phone or knocked on a door. I had email, but it wasn’t as pervasive as it is today. I used it mostly to talk to friends. Then the dot.com era exploded and I knew I needed to know more. I went back to school and got my MFA in Computer Art (Telecommunications and Multi-Media). Then there was the crash and I was grateful for my print knowledge.

Today, Everything I do on a daily basis involves the internet. Communication, design, research, printing, ordering supplies, buying stock photos, finding new work, etc… all done online. I’m writing this using Google Documents and I will send it via email.

WE: Would you give the advice that meeting new people leads to more work vs. hard work equals more work?

KS: Meeting new people does get you work, but if you don’t work hard for those people they won’t give you more work. My advice would be to go out and meet people. You never know who is sitting next to you at the bar. Be friendly and always have a business card on you… and always work really hard.

Graphic design is an interesting field that people don’t seem to understand or feel that they should actually pay for. Going on the computer, setting some copy and grabbing an image off the internet should take all of 5 minutes. Changes take time and time is valuable. I can’t image going to my mechanic and only paying him for how long I thought it should take him to repair my car and yet people do that to designers all the time.

WE: Do you find you get more sustainable work from meeting with people face to face than over email and phone?

KS: Face to face. People are less likely to forget you if they’ve met you. If it’s not possible to meet the person, I’d definitely give them a call.

WE: What else (if anything) do you want to be doing?

KS: Riding my bike.

WE: How do you think the bicycle should be integrated into daily life (should it be the main mode for all transportation?) What is it you enjoy about biking and what is it that implores you to ride?

KS: The bicycle is the ideal mode of transportation. Cycling is the best commute you could ever ask for. It’s quicker than a car through the city streets. It’s often quicker than public transportation; it’s certainly less frustrating than being herded like cattle on the NYC subway system. A commute by bicycle is less expensive than a tank gas or a monthly metrocard. It’s fun and it’s good for the environment. If more people rode to work, the streets would be safer for cyclists, our air would be cleaner, and we’d be healthier and happier.

I ride because I enjoy it. I aways get off my bike feeling better than I did when I got on. As a kid, you don’t ride because of the environmental benefits or the calories burned, you ride because it fun and gives you a sense of freedom.

—-

end

Learn more about Kelly Shea at her website http://kellyshea.com

Tim Steele is not a fiery manager, nor is he steely, he’s “ready.” I think of kung-fu fighters who pay little attention to the flare, but once called upon, they can kick-it where it needs to go. Tim is no fighter, but there’s no getting past him, the problem will be solved, now, if not sooner.

Coming from the frenetic worlds of marketing, media and the creative arts, meeting and becoming familiar with Tim is a bit of a salve. It’s hard to do the right thing most of the time. When I’m near someone who appears to have that gist, who plays the notes clearly, who understates their position but you end up convinced by the natural truth of it all, I’m left flat impressed and seeking a good deep breath, a soft drink, and enough quiet time to count my lucky stars.

Wise Elephant (WE): In brief, how did you come to the position you have now?

Tim Steele (TS) : On the one hand, I’ve worked hard over the years and I like to believe a strong work ethic is the main reason I’m where I am in my career. But, to be completely honest, there’s always a measure of being in the right place at the right time and finding great bosses who have supported my career ambitions.

I arrived at the COO level by proving myself as a capable project manager, demonstrating the willingness to take on more responsibility, taking the initiative to learn new skills on my own time and often at my own expense, and by listening constantly reminding myself that my job is really to make sure that every team member under my supervision succeeds in their jobs.

WE: How much control have you had over your career vs. it taking you with it?

TS: While I believe there’s always the possibility of a surprise that’s out of your control, I have a strong sense of responsibility and control over my life and my career.

WE: Was being a COO an early goal, or was it “learned” as you advanced in your career?

TS: It was “learned” as I went along and gained more and more responsibility.

WE: If “feel/gut” is on the left and “intellect/reason” on the right, where in the scope of things (generally) could you put yourself when making your business decisions?

TS: Having completed a number of those types of measurements, I can safely say that I’m right in the middle. Most recently, I completed the Herrmann Brain Dominance Index (HBDI) and found that I’m almost exactly balanced between their four quadrants. While this seemed to surprise the appraiser a great deal, I think it’s almost the perfect profile for a Chief Operating Officer who’s responsible for a great deal of detail and process, but also tasked with grasping and bringing to life the vision of the CEO. The COO needs to be able to see every problem and opportunity from every angle, rally the troops when necessary, help teams of diverse employees work well together, and manage the enthusiasm and ego of driven entrepreneurs.

WE: Was there a job you turned down you wish you didn’t?

Nope. I have few regrets in my career. Are there jobs I could have taken that would have turned out well or differently? I’m sure there probably are. But I’m very happy with every major job pursuit I’ve undertaken.

My most recent job change (accepting the position I’m in now) meant a significant pay cut, an expensive move (largely at my own expense), and the expense and inconvenience of living apart from my partner with each of us traveling back and forth from coast to coast.

I had another job offer that I turned down that would have netted me about the same amount of money (or more) and would have been less stressful on me personally and on my relationship with my partner. But I wouldn’t have experienced all that I have in the last eight months by living in Manhattan and working in Brooklyn. I also have the satisfaction of really making a positive impact on a company that needed my skills and seeing that company moving back to financial health after a very trying period. And every new job provides additional experience and learning that may no longer be possible in a job that you’ve “mastered.”

WE: How much does your environment influence you and your work (your office,staff, available food)?

TS: It’s incredibly important (though I admit I wouldn’t have thought of food in that list). While I was recently whining about the crowds, weather physicality, and cost of living/working in New York I suddenly realized, “that’s MY LIFE” and if I’m not happy with it, I should give those things serious consideration.

Of the things you listed, I’m least worried about my office. I’ve worked in open spaces with no privacy or “prestige” and corner offices with the best views. It’s human nature to have some ego, but I believe it needs to be kept in check.

Staff? That one is incredibly important. These are the people I have to spend time with every day. I read several years ago (in Entrepreneur magazine I think) that every manager should go to work tomorrow morning and fire every person who doesn’t make them smile every day. Sure, that’s ridiculously over-simplified but the longer I work in my position, the more I believe there’s truth to that approach. People make me smile when they’re pleasant to be around, trustworthy, and competent. Take away any one of those and I smile less – and I believe there’s legitimate reason to wonder why I continue to employee them.

WE: How significantly has your career been influenced by the internet?

TS: Quite a lot – and I didn’t expect that to be true. In my last position, one of our biggest clients was Cisco Systems (I was in Silicon Valley prior to New York). One of our clients said, “if your services aren’t available to your end users via the internet, your company will be in serious jeopardy in the next five years.” We didn’t even have a company website at that point!

Being a boutique professional services consulting firm, we were all about high-touch personal one-on-one sort of work. I scoffed at the guy behind his back. But he was right on target – if anything, he was conservative. A few years later half of our work was being delivered online and we all had to educate ourselves about what that meant and how to do it.

WE: What else (if anything) do you want to be doing?

TS: I took all of 2006 off and loved every minute of it. I traveled, recorded music (I’ve played piano for years, but who knew I could play drums and violin and trumpet with the magic of the right software?), tended to the 42 palm trees in my California backyard, took classes, and spent more time with family and friends.

I’d like to be doing more of all those things in 2008 than I did in 2007. Settling into a new job and living a bi-coastal life has prevented me from doing as many of those things as I’d like while at the same time presenting me with other great opportunities.

The one thing that I’ve made as an absolute commitment for 2008 is living in the same state/city/house with my partner. We’ve both agreed that this is the highest priority for us next year – above careers or money or other interests.

From a career perspective, I’m doing what I want to do – I believe I’ve found my niche. I’m a great “second banana” for an entrepreneur who’s a visionary and sales engine. I can free up the owner of the company to pursue new ideas and new clients without worrying with the myriad of details that need attention “behind the scenes” in HR, Finance, Legal, IT, Facilities, etc.

WE: Is there a key lesson(s) for managers to learn in order to have their team succeed?

TS: Hire good people and listen to them. A good leader will set vision/goals, provide resources, and clear obstacles.

I also believe that every single employee comes with their own “price” that’s above and beyond their compensation plan. Whether it’s the need for praise, the desire for a weekly on-on-one with their supervisor, or the need to be left alone, everyone’s got something. The manager needs to figure out what that is for everyone (since it’s different for everyone) and then to determine if they’re willing and able to meet that “price” or if it’s too”expensive.”

WE: Does enthusiasm and ego = ambition?

TS: Hmmm. I hadn’t thought of it that way. Is that really how I see it? In our society we often attach value judgements to words. Enthusiasm seems to be good. Ego is often construed as a negative term (though “confidence” might be practically the same thing at times and that’s usually considered good). Ambition? Is that good or bad these days? Whether accurate or not, “ambition” sounds like the desire to “get ahead” (which I see as the need to look good) instead of the drive to succeed and accomplish things (which I’d say is motivated by the need to feel good). Pretty subtle difference perhaps, but important I think.

I might say that enthusiasm and ego = drive.

I think it’s thrilling to see someone with drive. But it needs to be directed (by them ideally, by their manager if not). Questions like, “how do you measure success” and “what’s your ideal job and how can I help you get there” can help a manager and employee determine whether or not the employee’s drive is directed and in line with the company’s direction.

WE: Is ambition acquired or inherent?

TS: I’ve had this conversation a number of times with successful people (and who coincidentally have usually been parents) – discussing whether or not we believed we could instill things like ambition in our children. I’ve never reached a solid conclusion.

From my perspective, I certainly had great role models – parents who believed and communicated that there was nothing one person couldn’t do (and do well) if they worked hard enough. So, did I “acquire” it from their example or did I “inherit” it in my DNA? Not sure.

Whether it’s nature or nurture, I believe it can be helped along or squelched by role models – whether or not their influence was intentional on their part. A careless word to a child who is role playing about being “silly” might be harmful to that child’s creativity. On the other hand, a manager who supports a person during failure might encourage beneficial risk taking that’s helpful to ambition.

WE: With so many personal hurdles what was it about your current job that made you take the leap? The experience? The challenge? (you touch on this briefly but I’d like to expand if we can).

TS:Several things intrigued me about the job.

1) It gave me a chance to “save the whales” and make money. Okay, so we do fundraising for the performing arts and that has nothing to do with whales actually. But in the past, I always worked for for-profit companies and, most recently, my job was really to help other for-profit companies make more money. I’m certainly a capitalist and see nothing wrong in making a profit. But it didn’t meet other needs I’ve got to contribute to society at large. So, I did volunteer work to strike that balance.

In this position, I can feel that I’m contributing to the arts AND make enough money to further my personal goals at the same time (though, admittedly, not as much as I could make in some other markets).

2) New York. I had just hired a recruiter before finding out about this job through my network of friends and associates. I’d told the recruiter that I wanted to stay in Northern California or move to Europe for the adventure. When I heard New York, I immediately said, “no thanks.” I obviously reconsidered (heck, New York is as “foreign” to me as Paris and I don’t have to learn French).

3) But most important to me – I felt that my experience and skills could really contribute to this company. Feeling I’m making a difference is a real driving force for me.

WE: It feels like, in this very competitive business market/culture that on a scale, with corruption and greed/money on the left and sacrifice and altruism on the right, it takes some corruption to bring in the big bucks. What advice can you give managers who fear they need to steer a bit towards corruption to keep pace?

TS: Are there greedy rich people? Of course there are. But I’d say there are greedy poor people too. And altruistic examples of each too.

Putting sacrifice/altruism on one side against corruption/greed makes sense to me – so that’s the question I’ll answer.

I believe that people often believe they can circumvent hard work with shortcuts to profit. But I’m old fashioned and believe that shortcuts almost always come back to haunt you. Despite this, I certainly look for ways to work smart instead of hard when possible. And, yes, I’m frequently tempted to do something unethical – c’mon, admit it, you are too. But temptation isn’t the same as doing of course.

So, why don’t I yield to the temptation? Well, there’s the answer I’d give to my employees to inspire, and I’ve often told this story. Before he was killed in a back-country skiing helicopter crash at the age of 62, Frank Wells was the President and COO of the Walt Disney Company. He once wrote in Disney’s annual report that he wanted to be remembered for his character and not his accomplishments. And yes, I admit I’ve paused to think about that during a moment of temptation and realized that I wasn’t willing to risk my reputation for the specific concern at hand. So, yes, I’m sincere when I say I want the same thing that Frank Wells wanted.

But if I’m 100% honest, I guess I’d say that the real thing that keeps me on the straight and narrow is that I believe it works better for the long term than all the other options. During their heyday, executives at Enron would certainly have disagreed. But they might be inclined to agree now. Of course the cynic in me suspects that they’re sitting in their various prison cells right now (the very few who actually went to prison vs. the many who should have) and they’re simply thinking of how to cheat the system (and their employees) better next time so they won’t get caught. So, can I say that I stay honest for good reasons? Or could you argue that I’m actually motivated by greed?

And I’d respond, “does it matter?”

WE: Do you feel/think that your business culture is leaning towards a holistic approach, where the outside life is an important balance?

TS: Yes, I do believe that. I believe it probably always has. And, while this won’t make me popular with my co-workers, I believe perhaps a little too much. I’m surrounded by artists of various sorts. Some of them took jobs with us for flexibility – so they could go on auditions and such. And I want to support that.

But, just as I fought against a culture of 80+ hour work weeks in Silicon Valley, I think it’s my obligation to fight against 35 hour work weeks here. I don’t have any problem with people working “flexible” hours – but that seems to evolved into “fewer” hours for many here right now. I want to be careful not to appear that I’m measuring productivity strictly by hours worked. But I think it’s a valid measure sometimes and I don’t always feel like the company gets its money’s worth.

I don’t believe people need to work their minimum 40 hours all at the office

- I’ve been pushing for us to consider not only flexible work hours but flexible work places – and I believe that can go a long way toward providing work/life balance.

WE: Internet, good or bad?

TS: Well, I’m not sure that a medium qualifies for that sort of question in general. The IMPACT of the medium can be judged so, I’m going to answer that question instead.

This is an age-old question. People have complained for years about the quality of television programming. Some complain there’s too much violence or sex. There is some evidence that television has a played a role in childhood obesity. And I think there’s no denying that Paris Hilton and her peers owe a lot of their “fame” to television (though certainly to the internet and the National Enquirer too).

On the other hand, television showed the first steps on the moon, the ugly truth about war, the resignation of a disgraced American president, Germans tearing down the wall that had separated them from their friends and family for decades, and numerous other significant moments in world history.

I think we could create a similar list of pros and cons and attempt to determine the overall impact of the internet on the world.

Shopping is easier. Credit card fraud has grown. Information is more readily available to all of us. Including lots of inaccurate information that people believe (and porn that 13 year olds would have had to work harder to get in the past)

The list goes on and on and on.

Chainsaws can be used to cut people out of the rubble of a fallen building or can be used to destroy old-growth forests or, according to a certain genre of movies, provide the gruesome end of life for unsuspecting camp counselors.

The variety of uses for every tool are limited only by the creativity of people. Fortunately, there’s no shortage of that.

——

end

Tim Steele is COO of DCM