 |
Examining the Score
By JANE RUBINSKY
Twenty years ago this month, Joseph W. Polisi became The Juilliard School's sixth president—bringing to the position a unique combination of expertise in music, public policy and the arts, and academic administration. In his two decades of leadership, Dr. Polisi has done much to infuse a new vitality into the School as it prepares to head into its second century.
A native New Yorker whose father was principal bassoon with the New York Philharmonic and mother was a dancer, Dr. Polisi holds three graduate degrees in music from Yale and still performs as a bassoonist. Prior to his arrival at Juilliard, he served as a dean at the Manhattan School of Music and the University of Cincinnati's College-Conservatory of Music. But before music claimed him, he had earned degrees in political science and international relations—and his analytical abilities and mastery of diplomacy have served him well in a demanding job as president of one of the world's most renowned institutions.
It's one thing to read about a school's history, and another thing to step into that stream and become part of the continuum. Where do you start? What does it feel like? How do you gauge your progress? The Journal's senior editor, Jane Rubinsky, chatted with Dr. Polisi about the challenges he faced, and how his vision for Juilliard has honored its past while ensuring its future as standard-setter in performing arts education.
|
As president of Juilliard, Joseph W. Polisi wears many hats, including that of teacher. He is seen here in his popular graduate-level class titled "American Society and the Arts." (Photo by Henry Grossman)
|
|
|
|
Jane Rubinsky: A lot of the things that we take for granted now at Juilliard—the residence hall, the Student Affairs Office, computers, the plaza entrance, a full-fledged Liberal Arts Department—didn't exist when you arrived in 1984. Can you describe the Juilliard that existed then?Joseph W. Polisi: It's hard to remember all of the particulars, but for sure, it was a different place than it is now. I didn't sense the type of community that we currently have. Juilliard was an institution that had an extraordinary number of positive elements, but it was also a place that probably needed to think about a new direction, to look at and address its current and future needs—especially in terms of ancillary, quality-of-life activities. One of the first things I remember having to address was psychological services, which barely existed—I think there was a consulting psychiatrist. And there was a considerable level of suspicion as to why we needed "psych services" back then. But now we see what a tremendous need there is. Also, the Drama Division was very much segregated from the rest of the School, and I worked very hard with Michael Langham [director of the division from 1979-1992] at that time, and with each student group to get it closer to the overall institution.JR: While you were being considered for the position of president of Juilliard, you submitted some ideas for changes to the School. What were some of them, and did they change once you got here?JWP: One consistent idea I've always maintained is that artists have to be broader-based individuals in the 21st century than they perhaps were in the first 80 years of Juilliard's history. It no longer works to assume that an artist will be an effective communicator simply by getting the notes right, or the steps right, or the words right. That leitmotif—the broader view of the artist as citizen, as someone who has to make a difference in American and world society—has remained consistent throughout my 20 years here. The changes have been in small increments. You can't legislate this sort of thing, but you can develop courses, you can talk to people, and you really have to have them embrace the idea. And I think the institution has now moved in this direction, both through set programs and through an environment that generates serious efforts about community outreach. The student-based group ArtReach and what recent drama alumnus Nelsan Ellis has done with his work in prisons have been very gratifying for me. There was virtually no outreach when I arrived—[there were] some school groups that came in, and some collaborations with the Lincoln Center Institute in the '80s, but not to the extent that we have now. It started with what turned out to be the Gluck program, and then the Morse program. These are very important additions to what I call the environment of the School.
JR: Was this something in which Juilliard was catching up to other institutions, or were you aiming to have Juilliard lead the way in shaping this approach to education for young artists?
 |
|
"I was convinced that the young artists here could easily have the capability and the time to seriously explore intellectual endeavors. And that’s what is happening."
|
|
|
JWP: Juilliard was probably one of the leaders in that area. Eastman—under the leadership of Bob Freeman at the time, and later Jim Undercofler—also was addressing those issues, but there wasn't a lot out there. I felt that the environment for the arts in America was changing so drastically as audiences were aging and the arts were disappearing from America's schools. There was also an underestimation of the intellectual abilities of artists, dwelling more on technique and performance—which is absolutely necessary, and we stress it probably more than we did in '84. But I was convinced that the young artists here could easily have the capability and the time to seriously explore intellectual endeavors as well. And that's what is happening today with a significant number of students at Juilliard.JR: There was some resistance to that at the beginning; there was even one trustee who said that no student would ever be able to participate in a competition again, because they would all be stuck in the library, studying!JWP: That's right. There was very much a cultural divide when I came. Some people accused me of trying to make Juilliard too academic. The idea that a young artist can't have both intellectual and artistic ability is, of course, nonsense. But it's very difficult to change habits and perceptions, especially institution-wide.JR: Would you say that Juilliard students today are more connected with popular culture than students of the past?JWP: I think Juilliard students have always connected with popular culture. But I think they admit it more readily now, and we encourage that. In fact, we find venues through which they can have that experience of both sides, pop and "classical." When I go on tour with the Juilliard Orchestra, they perform traditional repertoire for an orchestra, but afterwards, when they get on the bus, they are all listening to popular music. So I don't think there's a dividing line, if there ever was.JR: How are Juilliard students today different from their predecessors?JWP: Well, I can only speak for the past 20 years. In some ways they're not different, in their focus on excellence in their specific artistic discipline. They seem to be even more focused than earlier in my tenure. We're asking more and more of them—doing a wider array of repertoire in all three divisions, for example—and they are reaching out and taking it on. In dance, there is a much greater emphasis on supporting future choreographers. With drama, the interest in playwriting and directing is fostered now; it didn't exist in '84. Neither did the whole issue of technology, which now touches every musician at Juilliard. And of course, there's the multidisciplinary work. I think we are asking Juilliard students to be artistically more entrepreneurial than they were in the '80s. … But also I must say, Juilliard students in 2004 are probably more apolitical than what I saw in the early '80s.JR: Really? That's interesting.JWP: I mean, there are students who are very political in 2004—but in '84, there was even more of a political presence. Now, by politics, I don't mean just national politics, but the whole view of authority, of who says what and how things are determined, which I think was more pressing in '84 than it is today.JR: Does that frustrate you?JWP: Obviously, I don't want anybody occupying my office as in the good old '60s, when I was a student! But I want our students to be part of the fabric of our society. And if they have no interest in who the next president of the United States is or in what's going on in Iraq, if they're too busy practicing to care about what's happening in the school systems in New York City or in their own communities, that frustrates me. Because if they don't have the interest now—it's unlikely they'll have an epiphany in their 40s.
JR: You had a 2-year-old and a 7-year-old when you came to Juilliard, and now you've had the whole experience of shepherding three children through their choice of colleges and careers. How has that shaped how you view your work at Juilliard?JWP: It's been a significant influence—probably the greatest influence in terms of how I look at young people. First of all, after three children, one gets to be a rather experienced parent. My wife is an extraordinary parent and an extraordinary mother, and I've learned everything from her about raising children. I think what comes out of it is that I'm much more patient with the students here. Elizabeth always says, "Don't worry about it; it's a stage." And she's right. It's age-specific for certain things. Earlier in my career, I would see things as being against Juilliard, or against me or against the faculty—and it's not that at all; it's really about growing up. So I've learned a tremendous amount by being a parent to a daughter and two sons, and seeing the difference between how my daughter approaches life as opposed to one son or the other. Each is an individual.
|
|
"Any student, whether they come from Europe or Asia or the rural U.S., should take advantage of being in New York. … We’re in one of the great cities of the world, and if you close yourself off into small groups or never leave the residence hall, that doesn’t make sense."
|
|
|
For years, I was a Little League coach, dealing with boys and girls and getting them into a sport I love, and also talking about teamwork and discipline and good behavior, being a good loser as well as a good winner. If you count my umpiring for three years, which was really "combat pay," I must have done that for about 12 years.JR: Is it true that your father did not want you originally to go into music, that he tried to steer you into a more practical career?JWP: It's not that he didn't want me to be a musician. He was a very caring, very loving man. And also, in some ways, a very practical one. He really didn't set any agendas for me. He was, of course, one of the great bassoonists of the 20th century, and had played for all the giant conductors of the time—Toscanini, Monteux, Mitropoulos, Bernstein, Bruno Walter, Fritz Reiner, you name it. So he was tremendously experienced. I never had a moment's problem studying with him. I was a good bassoonist, but when I was a senior in high school, I asked my dad, "Well, should I go to Juilliard or Curtis (where he went to school)," and he asked me, "Is being a bassoonist the only thing in the world you want to do right now?" I said, "Gee, I don't know," and he said, "Well, I don't know if Juilliard or Curtis is the right place for you now." And it was very good advice. So I went off and studied political science at the University of Connecticut, though I always played bassoon. In my early 20s, after graduate school in international relations, I desperately missed being a musician, and that's when I decided to go back and get my graduate degrees at Yale. And the irony of the whole story is that the experience and the learning I had in political science and international relations, involving strategic thinking and analytical writing, I now use heavily as president of Juilliard.JR: What were some of the other specific challenges that you faced?JWP: There were many curriculum issues that Ifelt we had to address.We had to strengthen the Liberal Artsprogram significantly, and make itan important part of the curriculum—not somethingthat you just occasionally showed up for.We had to address the issue of attendance at classes and orchestral rehearsals—which seems mundane, butclasses seemed to be at such a low prioritythat students were simply not showing up. There were alsoissues regarding leaves of absence. Prior to my arrival, many students had become used to taking offfor three-week tours and gigs on cruises whenever they wanted. That had to stop.I also worked very hard to make the Dance and Drama Divisions feel that they were an integrated and important part of the Juilliard community. It continually annoys me when someone I meet will say that he or she didn't even know that Juilliard has dance and drama students. But we'll continue to fight that battle with increased advertising and more performance and touring opportunities for dance and drama. I was amused, and somewhat gratified, when I received a letter from a Juilliard music graduate complaining that the recent PBS documentary on the School emphasized dance and drama too much. After 20 years, I realize I can't win them all!Financial aid was very important; we needed to increase scholarship offerings significantly. Another big issue was getting the faculty more involved in the governance of the institution. Also, I felt that Juilliard was too big when I arrived, and so we decreased enrollment over the next 10 or 12 years to our current level. All of these things sound obvious and perhaps simple—but to implement them gracefully was very time-consuming. There were quite a few bumps in the road. Then, of course, there was the residence hall—a big decision, and one of which the board was very supportive. But there were people who said we lived without a residence hall for 80 years, why do we need one now?JR: There hadn't been much touring, either.JWP: Not as much as we do now. There was also the whole issue of who conducted the Juilliard Orchestra. When I arrived, there were resident conductors, and just a few guests. I thought, let's try to replicate the way these young musicians will experience the profession when they get out. You'll see different conductors fairly often—and that's what we've done. We began bringing in well-known conductors who had not yet come to Juilliard; we compressed the time for the rehearsals, and then we started playing in Fisher Hall on a regular basis. Suddenly there was an intensive new quality in the orchestral program, and people who had been very casual about their participation in the orchestra began to take note. International touring also excited the students. 1987 was the first tour to Japan, China, and Hong Kong; we became the first American conservatory orchestra to go to China. And now, of course, we tour quite frequently.JR: Wasn't there also supposed to be a U.S.-Soviet conservatory exchange?JWP: Ah, yes—that's right. I traveled to Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Tblisi in the late '80s … but soon thereafter, communism ended and the whole project fell apart, because the conservatories no longer had the resources to continue the project. They were state-supported and they lost funding, and it was structurally chaotic. We also had a very interesting program with the People's Republic of China. We were going to have an exchange with Chinese singers who were here at Juilliard in the mid '80s—extraordinary talents, including Jian Yi Zhang, who now has a big career. I met with the minister of culture for China, and we planned a Traviata that would be done in New York and Beijing and Shanghai with the same cast, including Chinese principal singers. That would have been wonderful—but then, Tiananmen Square happened and cut all that off. That illustrates my earlier point: We no longer live in an isolated environment, and one has to be cognizant of what's going on in the world.JR: Years ago, teaching was viewed as something to fall back on for musicians, a method of last resort for making a living. Now students are very eager to incorporate it into their career, right from the start. What do you think accounts for that change?JWP: I think there are so many well-known artists out there who teach now. Itzhak Perlman is a wonderful example; he's a dedicated, successful teacher. So whatever stigma there was back in the '50s and '60s—that if you admitted you taught, your career would disappear (which was, of course, absurd)—is long gone. I also think that young artists today have a better sense of themselves and of the field, and see how gratifying it is to teach. One sees many people who combine teaching with performance, not only solo but chamber music. That was another big change, you know: if you played chamber music, it was considered slightly déclassé for those who aspired to be soloists. Heifetz, Piatigorsky, and Rubinstein changed that. Now chamber music is part and parcel of what it is to be a musical artist.JR: What are some of the challenges that still loom for you at Juilliard?JWP: Ah. Well, I've always hoped to be able to increase scholarship assistance, so that we could meet all need. We were going in that direction, and then we had the economic downturn of the early 21st century. As long as I'm president, I am going to work very diligently on developing that. Our endowment has grown to over $530 million, from the $96 million it was when I started. That's a wonderful jump, but you still need much more to generate substantive scholarship assistance. So that's an ongoing project that I don't know if I'll ever be able to complete. We do have a D.M.A. program that's now full-scholarship, and our master's program is much more heavily funded than before, as well as the bachelor's degree programs. But we've got to do better. And there's an ongoing effort to bring up faculty compensation, which also involves endowment. We've made considerable progress, but it's got to continue. And of course, I'm looking forward to the centennial, which should be a very exciting and busy year, and then to the reconstruction of the building.JR: Is it true that up until 1945, Juilliard admitted relatively few foreign students?JWP: Yes, because Juilliard's original mission was to provide conservatory training for American musicians so they didn't have to go to Europe to study. When Bill Schuman became president in 1945, the student profile began to change—and now, of course, we have a very multinational institution.JR: Schuman had remarked that he considered himself something of a chauvinist, in the sense of pride he felt in Juilliard's role in promoting American musicians—that Juilliard played a major part in turning this country into one that actually exported artists, rather than just importing them from abroad.JWP: I was very close to Bill. He was really my mentor, and I respected him enormously, not only as a composer but as an administrator and a thinker. I'm writing his biography as we speak. Bill had great pride in America. He saw the energy and the unique qualities of American music that perhaps were not appreciated in Europe. But these days, we are a global community. And in my mind, there's no difference between a student from France or the Czech Republic or Ohio. Sometimes people say, "Well, you're giving scholarship assistance to students who aren't even American citizens, and the donations that you get are tax deductible. Shouldn't just American citizens benefit from this?" That's not the way Juilliard works, because we base assistance on merit and need. We're not going to get into the business of looking at nationalities for financial aid eligibility.JR: What were some of the challenges in incorporating international students?JWP: First of all, language. There was an assumption that you didn't really have to speak English to come to Juilliard, because you "spoke" the international language of music. That doesn't work—because, if you can't understand the instruction in your lesson or in your orchestra rehearsal or other classes, you're not going to get the full experience. So now we have an E.S.L. [English as a Second Language] program and language standards for admission. When we implemented them, everybody said, "Oh, nobody will come"—but, of course, that was not the case.The second thing was that Juilliard is in New York City, and I think any student, whether they come from Europe or Asia or other parts of America, should take advantage of being in New York. That means embracing the culture of New York to some degree. We're in one of the great cities of the world, and if you close yourself off into small groups or never leave the residence hall, that doesn't make sense.One of the funniest things in terms of international students waswhen the city of New York passed an ordinance prohibiting smoking in public buildings, including schools. It was our Eastern European students, who had just broken away from communism, who were absolutelyirate that they couldn't smoke. They said it felt like their libertyhad beentaken away. So we experienced a cultural clash. We're a community, and we have to be sensitive in all areas. When 9/11 happened, as everybody who experienced it in New York will remember, American flags wentup all over the city. I found out, inmeeting with colleagues and talking with international students, that international students weren't used to seeing so many Americanflags. There was so much fear in the air, and they saw the presentation of the flag as threatening to anyone who wasn't American.And I respected that view. So we didn't flyjust American flags—we put up flags of every nation, all around the lobby.JR: Going back to Bill Schuman, how do you see yourself as drawing from his legacy?JWP: Bill was a great public speaker, and I learned a great deal from listening to him. Also, Bill was certainly a visionary—I think more than Iwill ever be. Butthe idea of always looking forward is extremely important. Mark Schubart, who was dean for most of the Schuman years and later headed the Lincoln Center Institute, made the joke that Bill was so active that one day, he expected him to suggest that Juilliard start a medical school! Sometimes I get accused of that kind of thing, too. But I think any leader of an educational institution has tolook to the future. I alwaysfeel that I'm not doing my job unless I'm at least three years ahead of the place. Bill was that way, too.JR: Did you imagine that you'd be here for 20 years?JWP: No,no—when I was appointed, I was desperate toget through the first month. I was so frightened that I would do something wrong!JR:Do you think that you'll always be at Juilliard?JWP: No. I'm at the helm now, but nothing is forever. It's very importantto get new leadership, and to moveforward with that like everythingelse. Juilliard is my responsibility right now, and it'll be somebody else's in thefuture—and that's the way it should be. But Juilliard will always be inside of me. The privilege of helping to lead this place has been life-altering.
|
