The story is somewhat different, of course, for Goodrich, Thompson, Ransom and Lowry. He appears to have been a very able and conscientious executive whose main talent was management. Turner Catledge, who became Executive Editor of The New York Times was more concerned with efficient re-organization within the Times' operation. These proved so successful that CBS in time became the leader in its field and Stanton became president of the company. Not long after joining CBS he became head of research, which enabled him to develop new statistical methods to measure audience response to programming. One of the few men in the higher echelons of broadcasting to earn a Ph.D., Stanton was an expert on statistics. In the process these skills became technical skills- creativity was subsumed by technique.įrank Stanton of CBS is typical. Whatevercreative, artist- like skills these men possessed have been used in behalf of the growth and profitabilityof the respective corporations they have served. But judging from the evidence presented here, there was little in these undertakings that contributed perceptibly to higher cultural standards or to the furtherance of the arts in the U.S.A. More typical are executives like Stanton, Donovan, Jovanovich and Lieberson who used their talent for innovation to secure new markets for their companies. Still, Lowry's achievement is impressive, since he successfully resisted becoming simply one more cultural bureaucrat. Lowry, of course, had the great advantage over most of the others of not having to show a profit for his shareholders. He refused to give money for buildings and decried using the arts for social, economic or any other ulterior purpose. During his long tenure at Ford, Lowry put the emphasis on direct support of individual artists. The one individual who clearly succeeded in stamping his views on the institution, instead of subordinating his views to the institution, was McNeil Lowry of the Ford Foundation. They were obliged to satisfy their directors, stockholders or other constituents, and in most instances this obligation severely limited the range of their creative initiatives. Philanthropic and governmental activities it is not surprising that no common behavioral pattern emerges for the group.Īll of them are (or were) good company men (including Goodrich, Lowry, Ransom and Thompson, who did not work for companies as such).
0 kommentar(er)
