Office for the Arts Welcomes New Director
Jack Megan’s Focus: Fostering Growth in the Arts
Jack Megan, Director of the Office for the Arts, began his tenure last July. Prior to joining the staff, he was Program Director of the Fidelity Foundation in Boston, and before that served as Associate Director, and eventually Executive Director, of the Longy School of Music in Cambridge. In November, Thomas Lee, Manager of the OFA’s Learning From Performers program, conducted an interview with Megan to talk about what brought him to the OFA, his impressions now that he’s here, and what he sees for the future of the arts at Harvard.
TL: What attracted you to the position at the OFA?
For openers, Harvard’s been a leader in so many fields and I’ve
been well aware of the university’s rich artistic legacy, with graduates
like Eugene O’Neill, Christopher Durang, Jack Lemmon, John Adams,
Yo Yo Ma, and the list goes on. It’s a diverse and intellectually
stimulating environment. It was hard not to feel excited by the possibilities.
I went to ARTS FIRST last spring and it just blew me away. Everything
about it impressed me: the color, the aliveness of it, the commitment
of the students, the fact that people were engaged and involved in the
creative process. Some of it was of extraordinarily high quality, and
all of it was delivered with 100% passion by students. The OFA helps to
foster this arts community and that is a mission to which I am deeply
committed.
I would also add that, as arts managers, you and I know that there isn’t a wall between the artistic process and the administrative process. I realized that this position would offer me a chance to do creative work by developing projects and programs that benefit young Harvard artists. I also took an immediate liking to the students who were inspired and determined to make things happen. In short, what’s not to like?
TL: Have your impressions of Harvard changed much since you’ve been
here?
Yes, I think it’s even more rich and there are even greater opportunities
than I could have possibly known about last spring when I was talking
with folks here about the job. Each day I become more excited. As I dig
deeper, I keep coming across new layers of Harvard cultural life. So,
yes, it has exceeded expectations. And I expect that a year down the line
it will do that even more so.
What advice or observations have you been offered since you took the position?
Well, Myra [Mayman, the OFA’s previous director] is a legend, and
many people said to me, "Boy, following someone who was so extraordinary
and did so many wonderful things, that must be a big challenge."
But that hasn’t felt like a burden at all. Instead of coming in and
having to fix problems, I’m joining something that’s already
working, that’s already humming. Indeed, I wrote Myra a note after
being here two weeks to say thank you for leaving me this wonderful staff
and program.
The other observation I heard repeatedly is that Harvard is a big bureaucracy,
which may prove to be frustrating. Thus far, however, I’ve found
people to be smart, warm, and accessible, and eager to make things work.
It’s actually a place where I find a strong sense of community, not
bureaucracy.
TL: What do you see as the biggest challenge that you face?
Well, obviously there’s the question of space. There’s so much
creative drive here, and where do you put it? We have a dramatic shortage
of performance, rehearsal, and storage space for the arts.
A second challenge has to do with creating learning opportunities. Harvard
students are very self-motivated and I want the OFA to do everything possible
to support that. I would like to see us provide the proper tools and professional
guidance to foster students’ growth in the arts. The Dance Program
is a classic example. It has responded to the needs of a burgeoning dance
community. I don’t know what the numbers were two years ago, but
right now there are well over three hundred students in the program. We
want to create opportunities for students to learn and grow in their craft,
and that’s what the Dance program has done under Liz Bergmann’s
leadership.
Another challenge is how to prepare students for a life in the arts after
Harvard. I remember my own experience of coming out of college and knowing
that I belonged in the arts but not knowing all the possible career paths
in the cultural sector. It is a great challenge and opportunity to find
ways to teach students about career options in the arts or even how to
continue to pursue artistic passions avocationally. I am extremely interested
in working on this. We have an obligation, in the same way that Harvard
prepares students to be lawyers or doctors, to put students in touch with
individuals who can really prepare them for a life in the arts. And also
to provide mentors for those who will not pursue the arts professionally
but who will always appreciate it and find ways to incorporate it into
their lives.
All of this presupposes my knowing enough about the arts at Harvard to
make a meaningful contribution. In that sense, an immediate challenge
for me this fall has been to learn by participating and observing. I attend
two or three performances or exhibits - sometimes more - each week. This
gives me a heightened awareness and appreciation for student work, and
a better sense of issues and opportunities where the OFA can be helpful.
TL: Along those lines, there are some people who feel that there is too
much arts-related activity going on here, that there are too many extracurricular
arts activities, and that it ultimately defeats the creative process.
Do you think that we should continue to be as supportive as possible and
involve as many students as possible?
I don’t think you can stifle creativity and I have no desire to do
so. Many Harvard students have the impulse to go out and create something
of their own, and I understand the argument that we place a drain on the
talent pool if there are ten a cappella groups instead of three, for instance.
At the same time, while I understand that argument, I think we would lose
the vibrancy of the arts environment if we tried to winnow down the number
of activities. The arts thrive in part because so many people here have
creative impulses, and I don’t want to stunt that.
Nonetheless, it’s important to create standards of excellence that
inspire all work. We need to constantly call students’ attention
to these examples and encourage all students involved in the arts to achieve
the highest quality.
As part of that, I believe in creating learning opportunities. I want
students to develop great product, but also to engage in a learning process
that fosters their understanding of craft.
TL: Some people feel that Harvard could do better in terms of arts training—that is, to build and foster a conservatory environment. Do you think the University should go in this direction?
I am not sure whether that’s what we need or not. I had an interesting
conversation with someone at the Yale School of Drama. I spoke to her
early on when I started here, and I asked her about theater at Harvard,
and she said it was wonderful, it was extraordinary, and it was one of
the most alive theater environments in the world. I went on to ask about
training and so forth, and she said, "Training is important, but
the best graduate students I get are not the ones who had incredible conservatory
training as undergraduates, but the ones who got a broad education, who
know something about the Renaissance or other subjects. If they have raw
talent, then someone at the Yale School of Drama or elsewhere can hone
that talent. If they don’t have that talent, then four years in a
conservatory as an undergraduate will help them, but ultimately the best
actors are those who step onstage with a breadth of knowledge that informs
what they do." One can argue that people who bring a point of view
to their craft – a point of view that is the product of a good liberal
arts education - may have the greatest potential. I don’t have a
black-and-white answer to the question. But I will say that I do have
a real bias toward providing training. I do think that we can do that.
Whether it’s done extracurricularly or not is another matter.
To sum up, how do you think Harvard, with its visibility and stature as
a world-class institution of higher learning, can contribute meaningfully
to the advancement of the arts?
By having as many students gain meaningful exposure to the arts as possible
as creators, producers, actors, dancers, visual artists and so on. As
much as possible, we need to engage them at the highest level with respect
to excellence. The more meaningful exposure we give them, the more they
continue to grow in the arts. And students who graduate with a
fully rounded educational experience, which embraces the arts, have another
way of expressing their emotions through some sort of artistic channel.
The experiences of both creating and beholding art help one think. You
can’t be engaged in a creative process without considering not only
the specific work but also the context in which it was created. And I
believe that we give students the ability to contextualize. We give them
greater life skills. Ultimately, many of these students will be leaders
in business, law, medicine, education, and government - and if they have
a personal appreciation of the arts as a result of their Harvard experience,
then the arts will benefit.
TL: Would you say that in general you are feeling optimistic about the future of the arts in education, not just at Harvard, but also in a broader sense?
Well, no, not necessarily. I think at Harvard things certainly look very
optimistic. There is so much opportunity here.
I am disheartened, however, by the absence of arts curricula in America’s
schools. During the past year, before I came here, I did some consulting
work to a very successful charter school in Boston. The challenges this
charter school faced were enormous. There were kids coming into high school
reading at a fourth-grade level, and the task of bringing those kids up
to speed so that they could pass standardized tests and have a productive
life, that was a huge challenge. So what did this particular school do?
It focused very hard on basic skills, a very understandable decision,
but I lament the absence of any kind of creative process in the lives
of students, and I don’t think it’s an easily solved issue.
I don’t think one can just stroll in and say, "Well, art’s
important and therefore we should do it" when there are other challenges
that people will face. How to balance all of these things is an ongoing
challenge. On the plus side about the general future of the arts, it is
striking to watch everything that happened in New York and Washington
on September 11th and to view the response of the artistic community to
these events. That has been very heartening. There have been many people
in music, theater, visual arts and dance giving creative voice to the
sense of loss, grief, and hope, and that’s clearly meaningful. So
I’m not entirely pessimistic about the future of the arts in society,
but I don’t think it’s entirely clear that we’re heading
in the right direction.
