Barry's Arts Blog and Update

Barry...I could not accurately fill in the survey. Due to the loss of CAC funding, my board quit and I was forced to terminate my position. The salary at the time was the basic CAC required level with no benefits. This scenario is played out in most rural county arts councils. There is not enough of a population base nor large business community to support livable salaries.

Another problem is local government which does not see the economic benefit of supporting its local arts council, particularly if there are other arts organizations providing arts products. They do not see the intrinsic value of an arts council as providing the impetus for arts education and growing new arts groups. They are also blind to the many ways the arts positively impact the local government's income through sales and TOT revenues.

In my county 99% of the arts executive directors are over the age of 45, most over 50. With grown families, they can afford to take lower salaries, particularly lower than their urban counterparts.

However, it would appear from reading various job descriptions for positions in urban areas that most of the large arts organizations are paying relatively good salaries with benefits. They are not competitive with the private sector and I don't think that they ever will be since most salaries are the decisions of volunteer board members some of whom believe that anyone working for the arts organization is lucky to have the job . They do not look at what the job really entails and how it is comparable to the work of many corporate CEOs.

I hope that Mayor Bloomberg's attitude becomes infectious and spreads across the country.

Penel

This is the only the first or second time I have looked at yr blog, and I am beginning to think that I may not be your target audience.
I bailed on the survey, because the questions make so many assumptions about corporate structure in arts organizations. Who wouldn't answer 'yes' to 'shouldn't I get paid more?' ?? It is not a relevant question.
Jobs in the arts are not like other jobs. As a working-class artist, I am constantly asking myself why I continue struggling along at a near-poverty income. I have huge resentment toward administrators who want to be 'adequately compensated' when most of them do not extend the same level of concern for compensating the artists they serve.
Let us never forget, arts administrators SERVE artists and the art. Without us, you HAVE no position.
I am not arguing for poverty, but rather questioning where the line of reasoning implicit in your survey leads to. Its foregone conclusion is that administrators should be better compensated.
Another approach would be to ask, how much of the money slated for the arts SHOULD go to admin? Once you have come up with a reasonable answer, then see whether or not it is reflected the prevailing environment. And if not, lets strategize how to bring about that reasonable change (educate boards, etc).
Asking for a show of hands for who wants to get paid more is silly and self-serving, and not likely to help the arts you profess to advocate.

I looked at your survey and you fail to ask one open ended question that places the answers in a context. What is the job description? Your assumption is that all E.D.'s have the same roles and that is not true. The administrative and developments expenditure (payroll and operating) for my venture is only 10% with 90% spent on programs. The wage is less relevant than the services provided. More than half of my time is spent directly on programs, not admin.

This is a great topic, so I'm glad you're getting a discussion rolling.

As for the survey, it does make some assumptions that will limit the usefulness of the data. One assumption is that arts administrators work one primary job.

This is not true for me. I work two part-time jobs for two very different organizations. One job is through a university and provides excellent benefits. The other job is thorugh a small non-profit and provides no benefits. In addition to these jobs, I have a "side" business related to my own work as an artist, and I do a fairly substantial amount of volunteer event organizing within my community of artists.

Although I suppose I'd be considered a young professional who is just entering the field, the truth is that I've been actively engaged in arts organizing for well over a decade, but have only recently come to see it as my full-time profession. I'm comfortable piecing together 2 jobs (2.5 jobs?) because that's how I've always had to balance my financial and creative well being. Each of my jobs makes its own contributions to keeping a roof over my head, food on my table, and a thriving heart & mind in my body. I'm lucky that my university offers full benefits to part-timers, and I'm grateful that this set-up allows me to work for a smaller non-profit that can't offer as much.

And I'm sure I'm not the only one in this situation. I hope as this discussion unfolds we'll hear from others who are making a life and a living by juggling multiple jobs & avocations.

I'd like to respond to the last two comments:

First to Norman:

It's true that far too often the needs of the artist get lost in the mix. And it's also true that no one should forget that the 'art' (and, therefore, implicitly, the 'artist') is at the core of why people work in the field. But it isn't exactly true that the arts administrator's sole reason for being is the artist. We're talking about the nonprofit arts field, and as nonprofits, the real client is the public. One could argue, of course, that such a statement begs the question - by serving the artist, one is serving the public. But that isn't completely true either - for it assumes that support for the creation of art is the only priority, and, in fact there are others -- most notably the objective of increasing and facilitating the public's "access" to art (and not just new art), and then, there is arts education (in the schools and otherwise). And when we are talking about "public" funding of the arts (spending taxpayer money), the state (or whatever jurisdiction) has the reasonable right to insist that the activity it is funding accomplishes (or at least addresses) specific public benefit goals - including economic development, tourism, education etc. Like it or not, that's the system.

I have often thought that we might do better if we just dismantled the infrastructure and the bureaucracy and distributed the money directly to artists (but of course those that did not get money would doubtless complain about "fairness" and "equity" and so you would have to create some sort of mechanism to award funds to artists). But I think it is a legitimate topic for disucssion about how best to promote art, access to art, equity for all citizens to create, education for kids et. al. and I thank you for raising the issue. That's the purpose of this blog.

Second, to Andrew (and, in part, to Norman):
I know this survey is flawed. I said at the outset that it was simplistic and unscientific. All I was trying to do was to get a "snapshot" of arts administrators pay. My objective was, as always, to encourage dialogue on the subject. And Norman is probably right that people will, of course, think they are underpaid. But I was trying to get a sense of how much they feel they are underpaid, and whether or not the level of pay means they may not stay in the field. I believe we need to attract the best and brightest to the field - so that the public benefits are maximized. It will be interesting to see the results.

I don't get any salary and that's why were still here. I take 3-6% administrative costs on projects we sponsor and that barely pays the ink bills, but we are very small and promote traditional arts. I work for a living and am an artist for life.