Decentralization and localism vs. the nationalization of markets

I have been thinking about this a lot lately, in various sectors of the economy, about how technology and other economies (distribution, supply chain management, leveraging of management skill, legal engineering, etc.) continues to disconnect capital and services from place, in terms of culture and localization, but not delivery.

So XM and Sirius, and nationally syndicated talk shows and music programming de-place radio. You know what I think about national retail... But it is also happening with the presentation of live music. The dropping of consideration of a Birchmere expansion in Silver Spring, in favor of the national chain Live Nation (see "Birchmere Out In Talks About Silver Spring Music Venue," from the Post) is but one example.

So there is a need to rebuild and strengthen more sectors of the economy than we think.

Last Sunday's New York Times Business section had an article about a cooperative that promotes independent music in New Orleans. See "The Katrina Effect, Measured in Gigs," and there is a provocative blog entry, "Welcome, New Readers" in the blog Theatre Ideas, where he calls for a "new" theater based on:

1. Decentralization. We are a nation of 50 states and 300 million people, and it is disastrous to have a single city serve as the clearing house for a national theatre. Regional theatres should cast regional artists, hire regional directors and designers, and be run by regional producers. The shuttle to NY must stop.

2. Localization. Connected to number one above, regionally-based theatres should encourage the development of local aesthetics. Regional theatres should not be like malls -- the same no matter where you are in the country. The choice of plays, the artistic staff, and the experience itself should reflect the place where the theatre is based. The Era of McTheatre must end.

3. Solidification of the Relation to the Audience. If the theatre is decentralized, and if the aesthetic reflects a local aesthetic, then it follows that the relationship of the artist to the community must be a close one. Artists must be a part of the community in which they live, and fully participate in the life of the community. Arts ghettos, where artists huddle together and only speak to each other, but be opened up to let the voices of individual people into the conversation. The Romantic idea of the artist as outsider, as mysterious stranger, must be replaced by the much older idea of the artist as community voice and leader.

4. The Improvement of Society. The theatre must be committed to making the community in which it lives better. The artist must take responsibility for the effects of his or her art on the community, and strive to create art that makes that community stronger, more caring, more inclusive, and more hopeful. The stories we tell about ourselves create our reality. We are homo narrens. We should act like it. The purpose of art is to entertain and enlighten.

5. Revisioning of the Business Model. Theatre is currently made in the same way an assembly line makes automobiles. A small number of people are involved in the larger decisions, and the rest do their own little part of the process. Each production is created in a predetermined, short amount of time, and productions are run continuously until they are replaced by a newer model. It is time to examine other models, whether this be Daniel Quinn's tribes (see Beyond Civilization: Humanity's Next Great Adventure) or some other model.

I think it is possible to be bi-modal, to have very national offerings (Macy's) and extremely localized offerings (Fashion Warehouse), but the economies of scale are still an issue, especially when you have to compete for product in the national market (see this blog entry "Independents and chains in concert promotion," about the system of movie clearances and how it impacts the independent _for profit_ Senator Theater, vis a vis the independent, larger, _non profit_ Charles Theater).

Plus in the arts, there is tremendous increase in "product" because revitalizers want to harness the arts to improve neighborhoods and commercial districts. But the demand for "product" isn't necessarily increasing. So in DC we have new places opening and other places expanding, while others are failing and closing or on the brink of financial disaster.

Not to mention the issue of "high brow" and experimental vs. middle-brow culture.
--------
In another sense, this is merely about comparative advantage, network economies, and regional advantage, just within the scale of industries or sectors of the economy. For theater it's New York. For opera, it's the Met in New York, which is now broadcasting some of its programs digitally to theaters (alas, units of chain cinemas) across the country. See "Metropolitan Opera in HD: World's Great Singers in a Theater Near You."

The trick is to figure out how to make specialization ("the experience economy") work at the level of the possible "retail trade areas" locally and regionally.