 |
Vol. XXI No. 8 May 2006 |
 |
Theme and Variations A Conversation With the President It was a happy coincidence that I arrived at Juilliard in the same year as the publication of Joseph W. Polisi's book, The Artist as Citizen, and under an administration committed to a holistic education in the arts. Having studied history, science, and health policy, I have been burdened for some time with several "big questions": how art would remain a part of my life; how to define the boundaries between vocation and avocation; how to marry passion and career; and how—at the risk of being glib—to be happy amid it all. — Paul Kwak
JWP: We've put together an endowment for commissioning new works. So now, in perpetuity, we're going to have significant money on an annual basis to do that. And we have the resources to pull it off: the artists, the physical plant, everything that's involved. We'll also try to record many of these works, so that they can have lives of their own. PK: That's one way Juilliard contributes to the arts scene of the future, but let's talk about what we're teaching our students. How do you reconcile the intensive training that one undergoes here with the reality that it might not work out for an artist? JWP: I don't see this as a vocational education, but as an artistic and aesthetic one. Vocational education, to my mind, prepares someone to work on a specific task—let's say, fixing brake linings. We all want our brake linings to work; somebody needs to do it, and I hope they're paid well. But their job is to repair brake linings, not to design the brakes, and not to come up with new ideas about how to stop cars in general. That's what distinguishes an artistic education that we have here at Juilliard. We're talking about creativity, imagination, the human experience. Would you call a medical or law degree a vocational degree? PK: I think I would; wouldn't you? JWP: No. I suppose you can be a mediocre doctor and never attempt to explore remedies you didn't address in medical school, but that's not what anyone is aspiring to. That's my point. Juilliard's mission remains educating—not training—the very finest musicians, actors, and dancers who will go out and use their art to change the world for the better. I know the circumstances and the techniques and the art will change—but I hope not the mission. PK: The distinction between "educating" and "training" artists highlights a frequent misperception that our aim here is to put people into jobs. It might be simplistic to gauge the success of an institution by the success its graduates attain in the fields in which they were trained. But how do we respond to changes in the world that put increasing pressure on students to get jobs while it becomes increasingly difficult for them to do so?
PK: To play devil's advocate for a moment: We've worked very hard at changing our notion of what it means to educate, incorporating humanities and liberal arts and veering away from the notion of practicing eight hours a day—but doesn't "having to spend time" doing things other than practicing diminish the acuity that students seek in their playing? JWP: Absolutely not. I've seen many spectacular students over my 22 years here, and when you talk to these young artists about something other than how they finger a B-flat, they have an informed view of the world. To be quite honest, it's these students who are musically or artistically the most successful, because they have a much broader view of what it is to be an artist and to communicate. We've got to eliminate the notion that, if you go to Juilliard, you're an idealist or an unrealistic person who didn't want financial stability or a lucrative career, or that this was your only option in life. There's enormous value to what artists bring to society, and it's so undervalued in America. We should be celebrating these young people who are dedicating their lives to the artistic experience. PK: What contributes to the undervaluing of arts in America, and is it possible to be optimistic about their future?
PK: Are artists suffering from the biotechnological boom and the American cultural interest in it? JWP: I think it's more than that. It is an emphasis on the commercial over the non-commercial, the enormous power of pop culture throughout our world, the ease with which every possible electronic device now delivers content—but what is the quality of that content? This pervasive pop culture has deadened our sensibilities and has diminished the impact of the so-called classical arts in our society. You know, there was a day when you exercised in silence. PK: What do we do about that? It seems the trend has not only changed the culture, but the very wiring of our bodies. We have shorter attention spans now, so we can't bear four-hour operas or, for example, The Iceman Cometh. JWP: We don't give up on what we believe in. We say, "O.K., this is the way the world exists today. How can I shape the education at Juilliard to make current and future students more nimble, more flexible to use their art in ways that will be compelling and provocative for future generations?"
PK: You've observed that students of today are less political than when you started at Juilliard 20 years ago. Granted that students make art political just by doing it and being advocates for it, is there any sense to educating them more directly in politics? JWP: On the undergraduate level, I'd really like to expand liberal arts, as well as add economics and political science, so that we have a broader spectrum of experiences. On all levels, we have to talk about what new programs Juilliard needs. Is it greater specialization in "early music" or original instruments? What are we looking at in musical theater? What about technology? And there's the whole issue of the understanding of music theory and ear training in relation to performance and composition. Here at Juilliard, it's quite remarkable that every one of our jazz students composes. Classical musicians don't—and they should, to understand the process and the experience, and the expressiveness within oneself. Although technique is often what one is judged on, at least early on, at the end of the process it's all about communicative power. That's a hard thing to convey to first-time college students, who have to get the notes right. How do you teach a young person to really shape his or her day? PK: We focus very much—and rightfully so—on how we shape classroom time, practice time, and rehearsal time, but I wonder how much of the person I am has been shaped by leaving the building, by going out and living. Where is there time for all of that? And who is looking out for the physical and mental health of the students?
It's very difficult to convince 17-year-olds that their physical health is important because they naturally take their health for granted. We could legislate physical exercise at 8 a.m., but then I'd be accused of making Juilliard more like West Point than it is already! [Laughter] PK: How often do you find yourself asking these questions about the philosophy of what you do, as opposed to the ins and outs of everyday administration? JWP: Not often enough. PK: It also makes me wonder if you find yourself fighting a paradigm. How flexible do you find the faculty? Do you feel at liberty to make a drastic change? JWP: This place can turn on a dime, compared to any other educational institution I've seen. The faculty is very open-minded. They're so involved in their own artistic lives and have such high standards that if you come up with a compelling idea, everybody listens and thinks about it. I've been in other institutions where you study something for two years and then it dies. But sometimes I do get the complaint that I'm moving too fast on some issues! PK: I know that the management consulting firm McKinsey & Company came in and did some work with us about the "branding" of Juilliard, and how it might be marketed in the public sphere. How does marketing become a part of what we do, and what is its role in this institution? JWP: Any institution has to have a sense of its own marketing position—its own branding, its external image. What message do you want to get out to the public? If you don't think that through, you're being very foolish. Juilliard is a brand name in the very best sense of the word—one that exudes excellence, accomplishment, youthfulness, and the arts. What are the downsides of our brand? I've heard complaints that it's elite or exclusionary. How do you address both the positives and the negatives? A member of our board, Dr. Bernard T. Ferrari, is a director at McKinsey, and they provided some very powerful advice on a pro bono basis. We learned a lot about ourselves and what other people think of us—which is, for the most part, very good. People see our name closely linked with excellence, but they don't really know in detail what we do. One of the goals is figuring out how to use our brand to increase revenue, so we can provide more scholarship assistance. The McKinsey study was a very interesting experience for us because it allowed us to "think out of the box," so to speak, as to how we perceive the Juilliard "brand" and how those unfamiliar with the School might get to know us for the first time. For example, we discussed the creation of a Juilliard edition of musical manuscript facsimiles, which fits very neatly into our image of ourselves. But then McKinsey gently guided us to uncharted waters by asking what our comfort level was with a Juilliard entry in Nascar. At first we just laughed, but as a thought exercise I saw that such broad visibility for a section of the American population that knows little about Juilliard and perhaps the arts could be a real wake-up call for us and for new audiences. Obviously, we're not fielding an entry in Nascar, but the provocative idea did get us thinking in new directions; in other words, do we demean the excellence of Juilliard by having the School associated with such popular endeavors? I personally think not. PK: Some might wonder whether we demean our curriculum by considering something like musical theater. JWP: Musical theater wouldn't be demeaning at all; it's an American art form. I think nothing is demeaning as long as you do it with integrity and artistry. Often, what is presented as "provocative" isn't of high quality. It may be something that exploits. But if it's good work, I'm always willing to take a look at it. PK: But aren't we artificial arbiters of what it means to have integrity and to do good work? JWP: One of the exercises in the first two weeks of my fall class is to try to define art—and of course, we always fail, because people have different perceptions of things. Some people say that anything goes; others have a much tighter definition. But I turn the question around and say, "I'm not going to give you a definition of art; I'm just going to give you the tools to be discerning. It's up to you to decide what is art and what isn't," which is what we ask of every single student in this school. Eventually, our graduates have to come up with their own standards. Fundamentally, that's what schools do. But getting into the business of defining high art in America is a no-win situation. Better to ask, what have you done to prepare yourself to be a discerning individual? That's really what I think is the fundamental problem with the American public; they're not discerning enough. American Idol has "leveled the playing field" in a very disturbing way! PK: How does what we do here at Juilliard toward that end differ from what someone in, say, rural Kansas has to do? What challenges are unique to a conservatory in a place that's not a major city? JWP: That's a tough, good question. What drives Juilliard in a basic way are the standards of the profession. Every faculty member understands what those are. We're in New York City, in Lincoln Center, 150 yards from the Metropolitan Opera—there is a synergy that may not exist in another place. The mythology about Juilliard is that there was always a dog-eat-dog competition here. To some degree, competition is a natural part of our world, although we're usually competing with our inner selves to be better. But today's environment is healthier, more caring. Yet there's still an edge. If you don't have that—and it's difficult to create in certain institutions—you're always out of phase. But in institutions without that critical mass of absolutely dedicated and motivated students who are passionate about what they're doing, as we have at Juilliard, it is difficult to strive for the highest standards. Of course, many educational institutions around the country do have that critical mass, and some are not in large cities. PK: How are we doing, and how can we do better? JWP: My attitude is that we are always as good as our last performance—and that will be true until the day I stop being president of Juilliard. There are some really good things we're doing, there are some things in the middle, and there are some things I'm not happy with. PK: What are your priorities? JWP: My biggest concern is financial aid. I would desperately like to meet all the need of our students. We have other responsibilities, too: raising money for the building. And as far as quality of life in the institution, the priority is trying to make everybody as productive as possible and not as stressed out as we sometimes are. We're all in the quest for perfection. I recently walked into the elevator and said hi to some students, and one woman asked, "So, how are you doing today?" I said, "Eh, hanging in there," and she said, "I know—100 years of stressed-out students." | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
