A question of survival. (Kickoff).

WE FIND OURSELVES TODAY THINKING ALONG LINES THAT MOST OF US IN DANCE--OR ANYWHERE ELSE, FOR THAT MATTER--COULD NOT HAVE IMAGINED POSSIBLE BEFORE SEPTEMBER 11. A WIDE NETWORK OF SYMPATHETIC, SENSITIVE, and usually cooperative people that makes up what we loosely call "the dance world" has responded with heroic and meaningful actions that have, if nothing else, brought us closer together. Shared outrage can have that effect. But still, if we feel threatened, the threat is real enough and our concern is justified.

At the October opening on Broadway of the London-import musical Mamma Mia!, the audience was not only swaying, snapping, and tapping in their seats, but dancing in the aisles as well. I had seen such revels a few times before (I am thinking of Hair and Hair's cousin, The Rocky Horror Show), but it was a great feeling to sense that unmistakable energy of a Broadway blockbuster that at this moment is needed by the intertwined fortunes of New York City and its theater culture.

And then--that sign of these days and how we've been changed--the dark potential of terrorism flashed up in my mind like flames of sulfur in the midst of Broadway's glittering success. A single determined terrorist's mad act could bring New York theater to a sickening halt, perhaps taking the rest of American theater--and all that this means for dance--along with it. No amount of determined talk about courage and continuing as normal would be able to stave off disaster. The arts in New York City are a primary source of vital revenue, among other things. Theater in New York is an industry, institution, and a magnet for essential tourism. Without that tourism, the future of the city and all its associated art forms would be thrown into disarray. How many other people around me at Mamma Mia! were thinking those same corrosive thoughts?

The correct response, of course, is to keep performing, to keep going, to keep supporting, to keep working. And that's what we've been doing. But Broadway is almost empty at midnight, shows are closing, and dance seasons have been cancelled. And we are told by our government this could go on for years.

WORRYING ABOUT THE FUTURE, of course, is nothing new for those of us in the dance world. But before September 11, our concerns centered on financial management strategies for dance companies, discovering and cultivating new audiences, developing new talent, shifting from reliance on federal support to state and community support, and raising the level of respect for dance outside the circle of our own rather small world.

Over the years, some of us have hidden our heads in the sand; others have turned away in discouragement because there were no solutions that didn't require expensive time and resources that were not available. What to do? We'd think about it tomorrow.

But last summer two organizations addressed these issues head-on in publications of studies they had sponsored in order to define the extent of the problems in the arts world and to suggest some solutions. The initial results of the first portion of the Pew Charitable Trusts's study were published in The Performing Arts in a New Era. The Wallace-Reader's Digest Funds financed A New Framework for Building Participation in the Arts. These studies addressed similar issues and reached somewhat similar conclusions (although Pew is chary of offering solutions yet). Not surprisingly, both hired the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit think tank whose business it is to crunch numbers, analyze data, and suggest solutions to specific problems.

The Wallace-Reader's Digest study was based on phone surveys, analysis of surveys conducted by other organizations, and visits to thirteen arts institutions. The Pew study was based on available sources as varied as the U.S. Census Bureau, the National Endowment for the Arts, the Foundation Center, the National Association of State Arts Agencies, Dance/USA, and Americans for the Arts, among others. Although the sources are not new, looking at them collectively--which has never been done before--resulted in some memorable confirmations and conclusions. Pew, it should be noted, is also funding another study (due out this fall) conducted in ten American cities in an effort to better understand our cultural organizations at the grassroots level.

I spoke late last summer with Kevin McCarthy, the man from RAND who conducted and co-wrote both studies. McCarthy's comments are applicable to both. Dance, he said, "is one of the most vulnerable areas" in the arts today. This is because "dance is less institutionalized" than art museums, for example, and this makes dance companies more susceptible to financial fluctuations. When the market is bad, the big givers may not reach down so deeply into their pockets; endowments, which few dance companies have, make for stability. Similar warnings were sounded by a Dance/USA study packaged with Dance Magazine in April 2001.

The RAND studies suggest that there is trouble down the pike, especially for mid-level professional dance companies because they do not have the low costs and dependence on volunteer help that characterize the much smaller companies. Nor, on the other hand, do the mid-level companies have the financial security of the top-tier dance companies.

WHEN I DISCUSSED THIS MATTER with the artistic director of one of those mid-level companies, he said that company officials had known of these dangers for years and that they "were working on it." Exactly how did not seem to be a top priority. Knowing the existence of these studies may help to bring about some focus. You can read both studies yourself. (To order RAND publications, call 877/584-8642 or email [e-mail].)

It seems as if we may have some fascinating and useful answers to our questions. I was taught by a wise person years ago not to ask any question to which I didn't already have the answer. But we don't seem to have the answers we need these days. Questions are always good; answers, in these times, are even better.

Richard Philp has written a column called Kickoff for thirteen years. He is a former editor in chief of Dance Magazine, known for his strong support of the arts.