Even at the introductory pages the author of “Management for culture” wonders about quality of management for culture in postindustrial society. While doing that, he uses his experience in that area in the United States of America. Since our country is a specific case of society in transition (from specific form of socialism towards a liberal society), therefore very far from the United States and West European social structure, we are wondering how we can use this book we are holding in our hands.

When Belgrade "Atelje 212" gave a guest performance in 1969 in New York Lincoln Center with a play “Razvojni put Bore Šnajdera” (“The Path of Development of Bora Šnajder”) by Aleksandar Popović, we wondered how that satirical play on the topic of social society, even with the simultaneous translation, can be apprehended by the public of the highly developed capitalism. One of the most respectable local critics wrote that, even that it can seem to someone that the problem of incompetent managers in a miserable company in the far Balkans in the full bloom of communistic building can seem to be strange to the American public, he claims that there isn’t an essential difference between that manager and incompetent managers in some American companies.

I remembered this critic, when I was reading this book by Adizes. When I started reading it, I wondered what a reader could learn when living in a society with difficulties of a transitional period from useful and very competent advice based on the experiences from capitalism. This time the case is quite opposite from my New York example. Problems of the management in culture in our society, which is difficult to define, are very similar to the problems of management in a developed postindustrial capitalistic society.

Even the one with a little experience in management in culture in our country, when reading the book by Adizes, will soon come to the similar knowledge.

Therefore to the question from the title “How to read the book by Isaak Adizes“, I recommend that every truly interested reader who wants to benefit practically and theoretically, should read it as I did – with a pencil in his/her hand to note his/her observations, associations and most useful advice. I admit that I had a light yellow text marker, and that I highlighted the best and most useful passages in the book. When this kind of book is concerned, it is not barbaric to highlight in your book what we consider to be most relevant and refreshing as an impulse for our practice.

So, note down everything you think can be directly applicable in our country, as well as everything that is applicable with minor modifications! Also note down the things you do not agree with at all and what you think is the right relation to some issue of the management in culture! Write down the examples from your practice in all three cases!

Now I will show you on my example something from my notes when I was reading the book you are holding in your hands.

Isaak Adizes thinks in a very nonassertive way. He wonders over every of his postulates if it is absolutely true, so that in the final part of the book, which is one big quest for an ideal manager, he explicitly says that there is no ideal art manager, but that does not mean that we should not gravitate towards an even better manager. And for him a true manager in culture is a person of great dedication to arts, with a refined sense and capability to appreciate the social role of art, with a high level of risk tolerance, high level of analytic intelligence, and finally with a readiness to endure anonymity in the egoistic world, as well as the inclination for practical act. All that, at the same time with finding pleasure in novelties and readiness to work in a team and enjoy rewards.

Observations in connection to administrative boards in art establishments are precious, although in capitalism administrative boards are, as he explicitly says, obliged to provide resources, everything else is applicable in our country. Issues that need to be cleared up before somebody is hired in an administrative board according to Adizes are really inspiring – if there is enough time on our hands, how many other boards he/she sits, if he/she has previously been a member of any other art establishment board and to what extent he/she contributed to that organization, if he/she is really conscientious and if he/she is going to work out of his/her personal dedication to art.
For a postindustrial and neo-liberal society, especially when the USA is concerned, it is incredibly important that in even those societies he emphasizes the need for a top and noncommercial culture. That is probably the most valuable advice he gives to that society, and lecturing on this topic at the most respectable universities in the USA and worldwide, he can achieve something as well in developing conscience that there isn’t development of a society which does not do everything to improve top art. That he is not a nonassertive person, is also acknowledged by the fact that every global and key premise he supplements with a thesis that neither a top or subsidized and assisted culture should not be protected from the influence of audience and in that way to provide for it financially in order to be in a position not to pay attention to the audience factor in the reception of art.

The author supports his opinion with the quotation (Adizes rarely quotes, but when he quotes someone then these are really inspiring thoughts): “Art should not be equalized with fun. Society gave art a significant goal – to help our citizens to keep in touch with the past, to define present and to think about the future.” (William Frohnmayer).

Quoting this thought I end my introduction in a precious book by Isaak Adizes.
And now reader, grab a pencil and start reading »Management in culture« and note your observations, remarks and asociations...