Barry's Arts Blog and Update

I just wanted to write briefly to say that I agree with Barry's point about politics. I would propose that programs in the public sector get funds for one of three reasons; first they have broad popular support as measured by advocates’ response to funding threats. Second, the program makes good policy sense. Third and most important, the program is supported by wealthy contributors or a lot of contributors. The third is the only one circumstance of the three that may be sufficient and not just necessary.

I have spent almost as much time advocating other issues before the legislature and Governor's office as the arts, and my view is the arts suffer from two important disadvantages. The first disadvantage is in perception. For most people the arts are their "second choice" that is, people will say "the arts are good for society and important, etc. etc." but almost everyone I know including arts advocates will say, "the arts are important but they are not life and death." Consequently, the legislature understands that the arts will get a disproportionate amount of funding during boom years and take disproportionate hits during the lean years. We have never really penetrated into the circle of essential services. That is why people who advocate for the arts turn so much towards the "instrumental" value arguments, because that is the only way to elevate the arts to essential status. The "intrinsic" argument is undoubtedly true, every artist knows the arts have intrinsic value but decision makers cannot choose to fund an intrinsic value over an instrumental value such as education, aging programs or health care. That arts are transformative for a single person is not in itself sufficient. Even if that single person actually is among a majority of people. Personal gratification is not a public value. It does not require public funds.

So we start the debate in a disadvantageous place and have to argue twice as hard.

Secondly, we do not as a community seem capable of mounting large grass roots support. I think that is in part due to the fact that so few people recognize the contribution public funds make to a production or exhibition or school program. In our evaluations of programs we found that the program was attributed more to the place it was seen rather than who funded it. Schools get the credit for a good schools program, or a museum. Most patrons never connect the dots that their tax dollars played a significant role in bringing the program about.

Thirdly, as Jesse Unruh once intoned Money is the mother's milk of politics. That is especially true of state politics. Every winning state legislator in the last election cycle outspent his or her opponent. That is a fact. Until and unless the arts learn how to play the political support game we will never succeed in any meaningful way. This proposition annoys a lot of arts people but I am absolutely certain of its truth. If there is a penalty to be paid in cutting funds to schools and none to cutting funding to arts, the politicians will always take the path of least resistance. Why? Because he or she does not have to use precious resources to defend their position. They kill the arts through silence. In the past few years many politicians have resorted to making kindly pronouncements but voting no. This more than any other fact makes the arts seem elitist to legislators. There is scant popular support for the arts and there is no financial support. This combination is lethal no matter how fine an argument can be made in the arts defense

Barry's thoughts about arts funding: it's a little too Darwinian for my taste. The arts renaissance that I percieve around me in many different realms would all but dry up and blow away with the wind if there were no room for the smaller organizations, companies and groups adding to the mix. The idea/comment lacks insight and sensitivity to the vitality and complexity of the subtler connections and contributions that the smaller organizations make: to the arts "scene" and to the larger institutions --and the synergy created therein.

In response to Pat - I don't favor the demise of the coutless smaller arts organizations that feed the complex arts ecosystem, but rather am suggesting that the existent policies governing the allocation of funds may not be helping anyone to either survive or to grow. I wish that we had the funds we need and deserve to build and protect that ecosystem, but we don't. We may be facing the untenable situation of only being able to save a part of the whole, and having to make very hard decisions about how we go about that.

Barry,

I too was at the Business Arts Council's MetLife Forum event at which you spoke and I was inspired by your situation analysis of the arts business environment. As an arts management consultant I work every day with small and midsize organizations that are struggling to stabilize the business of their arts, much less envisioning sustainability.

Like the American Dream of a little house with a white picket fence, arts groups run towards 501(c)3 incorporation and then are unable to build the capacity to support the move. Others go even further by attempting to independently lease or purchase an arts venue while still building their artistic product.

I believe that a better model is to fund the development of Hub organizations, such as Intersection for the Arts and the quickly-evolving Oakland Metro which incubate and present small and midsize arts ventures. Ideally, acting as fiscal sponsors and presenting partners, these Hubs can offer collective management resources, co-marketing opportunities, provide ticketing services, and house rehearsal, performance and exhibition space.

Building sustainable Hub organizations requires funder investment in the development of arts and business partnerships. Arts leadership is sorely missing and is ideally a partnership between artists, arts managers, trained board members, funders, civic leaders and business arts advocates. Currently the artists are the managers, the marketers, the fundraisers, the board members and often the audience members too. The Hub model promotes the development of art and a powerful growth opportunity for arts leadership.

Regarding your comment the "making the case" for support for the arts is a "fool's paradise" - I completely agree with you! An wise and experienced political organizer told me years ago that most politician's operate under the guidance of the "Can You Help Me or Hurt Me?" rule. If you can do one or the other (or both) - you get paid attention to. If you can neither, you are ignored.
I'd say that nonprofit leaders generally and very definitely, arts leaders specifically have ignored dealing with issues of political power. Which is ironic since the arts and culture communities were mugged by the Far Right in the first round of Culture Wars and used us to raise millions and build their political muscles - including running people for local office all over the US. This is all well documented. The problem is the progressive Left - and I would argue most of the arts and culture organizations I value are part of America's progressive infrastructure - has not answered with anything remotely close in terms of organizational effectiveness. So, that's why I'm helping to organize the Creative America Project - http://www.creativeamerica.us - which is about inspiring and training artists (and other creative professionals to seek leadership positions in the civic sector- including running for office. Our agenda: Create. Act. Vote. Run.