Barry's Arts Blog and Update

« September 2009 | Main | November 2009 »

October 26, 2009

THREE QUICK LINKS

Hello everyone.

"And the beat goes on..........."

Whew! The six week NEA Forum is done. A lot of things happened during that time that I might have otherwise commented on in this blog, including any number of links to things that might have been of interest to you.

Here are three links to three things you might check out:

1. Emerging Leaders Salon - while the NEA Forum blog was going on, over at Americans for the Arts they were conducting a "emerging leaders" blog: 20 at 30 http://blog.artsusa.org/category/emerging-leaders/

2. Ian David Moss was blogging last week from the Grantmakers in the Arts Conference in Brooklyn: GIA Blog http://gia2009.wordpress.com/

3. My friend Tim Wolfred at Compasspoint in San Francisco had an interesting article in the October 6th online nonprofit magazine Blue Avocado on how to know when it's time to leave your organization: Burn out: Blue Avocado – http://www.blueavocado.org/content/six-ways-know-if-its-time-leave

Have a great week.

Don't Quit!

Barry

Posted by msaunders at 09:44 AM | Comments (0)

October 22, 2009

CONCLUSION OF NEA FORUM - PANEL 6

Scroll down to the previous blog entry for the first parts of the Panel Six discussion. You can access previous panel discussions in this NEA Forum series by scrolling down and accessing each in the Recent Entries section on the right hand side.

Thursday, October 21st

BARRY: As a working artist do you see yourself more closely aligned with the nonprofit arts sector or with the ‘for profit’ arts field? Why?

HOMER: I work with both whenever I can. My greater interest is in making passive capital. [Work once, get paid multiple times.] That is more or less impossible in the non-profit sector. I also find that my 20 years experience in the non-profit arts sector benefits others far more than it benefits me. And my desires and dreams of reaching out beyond the non-profit realm are not always welcomed or understood. However, lately, I have been invited in to explore just those kinds of ideas.

LILY YEH: As a working artist I am much more closely aligned with the nonprofit arts sector as this sector best supports my interest in making the arts broadly accessible. As the founder and former executive director of the Village of Arts and Humanities and now founder and Artistic Director of Barefoot Artists I see no other way to carry out my vision for creating peaceful, compassionate, living social sculptures to transform broken and traumatized communities into hope. This kind of work creates the opportunity to also support social and economic development for the world’s neediest people. I can only do this through the non-profit organizational structure with a combination of public and private funds. Through these non-profit organizations, I have sought to create mission-based for-profit enterprises to ensure sustainability.

CLAIRE: Always with the nonprofit sector, since that is where I've been working as an arts administrator and contractor, and that is where I form my community. I am a writer, and my involvement with the nonprofit sector increases as the publishing industry continues to falter, and take fewer risks, and publish fewer authors overall and fewer first-time and "literary" writers. Nonprofit and academic publishers become increasingly the only game in town, and self-publishing looks more and more feasible and necessary. The funding communities are behind the times with the publishing situation, not recognizing self-published books or setting up any quality control or gate-keeping functions with self-published work. But I trust that at least local entities will catch up soon, since reputable, published writers are increasingly turning to self-publication as publishers close their imprints. And writers will continue to be able to find some support in grants both for writing and for self-promotion. I've seen a few grants for self-promotion, publicity, and all-around DIY presentation efforts go past. Seems to be a trend that fits in with the recent mania for "artist entrepreneurialism."

Of course, I'll be publishing a chapbook this winter with an independent for-profit publisher ... but I'll make very little money from it, except indirectly, as publication makes me more eligible for grant money and residencies. And I'll continue, cockroach-style, to seek out the best funding and publication opportunities available to me. As there seems to be little money in presenting written work anymore, especially written work not easily fitted into publishing categories, I'll need to spend most of my "business" time pursuing the money to be had supporting the writing of the work in the first place.

DIEM: I seek profitability and choose to present my work in the commercial field of multi-media productions including music, performance poetry and filmaking.

RALPH: Even though I’m incorporated, my thinking is more aligned with the nonprofit mentality. Income is never a primary focus. As a public sculptor my practice can be seen as analogous to that of an architect whose interests are a.) esthetic excellence, b.) site specificity, and c.) “function” (social, not physical).

LILY KHARRAZI: There are so many entrepreneurial skills involved with being an artist those skill sets seem transferable to profit. We see this most explicitly in the tech and new media realm. Traditional artists are very much thinking in this way as well. Websites for commerce are more frequent; the interaction between diaspora communities and home countries abound in ways that were not available except by aerogram not too long ago. It is a rapid change and one being embraced fully by traditional artists.

PAUL: I have to maintain relationships with both to survive as an artist. Neither completely satisfies artistic priorities. “For profit” entities of necessity prioritize cash flow, and NPs prioritize programming to mission and fundraising. Corporations dominate the arts field today. They align with each other. I have chosen to align with art, artists, democracy and community, roughly in that order. Except to engage in civilities at openings or other social functions peculiar to the art business, or to introduce within the exhibit context the requisite representational/dimensional auto-content, I have chosen to leave my personal life/alignments out of the picture. As to the why: Reciprocation is the guiding principle in every case.

BARRY: What role(s) do you think working artists can play in arts education and how might the Endowment (if at all) help facilitate that involvement?

JAMES: I’m going to merge this answer with what would be my answer to question 3. I like the ArtCorp idea immensely. I’d also be in favor of restructuring the education system in a more holistic, culturally aware manner. In a way that puts the emphasis on equality among the arts and sciences. No more arts as an elective kind of thing.

DIEM: Working artists, interested in Arts Education, should seek the appropriate training to become qualified (and in the case of Los Angeles) certified to teach their craft to youth in and after school. The Endowment can support professional development activities and programs which provide such training.

RALPH: Guest lectures in schools (K-12) would go a long way. Most kids have never met a practicing artist and such exposure would be invaluable. When asked, I’ve readily agreed.

LILY YEH: Working artists bring quality, inventiveness, commitment and passion to arts education programming. It is important that the field of arts education remain open to a wide range of artists with varying levels of artistic training and accomplishment. Self-made and outside artists have as much to contribute to the field as artists with academic and professional education. The NEA can support the role of working artists in art education by providing support to establishing standards and training for artists of all levels. Additionally, NEA support of effective arts education programs can provide ongoing employment opportunities for working artists.

Artists can also contribute not only to art education but to education in general by bringing creative thinking, methodology, and implementation strategies into the learning process in general and to social skill building.

HOMER: Artists can do many things to support arts education, but naively stepping into a multi-billion dollar world with its own multi layered issues like the world of public education is not very wise. These kinds of efforts have already exhausted and frustrated thousands of artists and organizations across the country. I really believe if the world of arts education wants and needs us, they can and will reach out. If it is a need that they truly value, they will come prepared to negotiate as well. However, I must add that when others tend to reach out to us, it usually comes with a price.... to us. In fact, earlier this year, even as President Obama was signing Economic Stimulus legislation in the hundreds of billions, he talked about expanding the arts, but combined it with volunteerism.

LILY KHARRAZI: If CETA type money were available to locales to hire artists, I believe there would a flurry of activity to hire artists again in a host of education and social service sectors.

PAUL: Artist education has been a major component of my artist activities. I have taught technical skills in private, museum and school settings (up to and including collegiate level), instructed all age groups from toddlers through elders, in a diversity of communities and cultural demographics, and lectured. I have also engaged in art studies through the terminal MFA, and my art education has been supplemented by: many kinds of work/study jobs, including some at the field’s best support shops; and attendance at many lectures; pursuit of independent research projects; participation in residencies with education components, etc.

By far the best art education method is mentor/master-apprentice transmission. The worst is critique, which - for the decades it has reigned as standard practice - has proved itself an abject failure on many levels, not least being the degeneration of craft competence throughout the artist domain. On another point, artists are wrong to not advocate forcefully for unionized teachers and the other NEA (the National Education Association). The National Endowment for the Arts should expand its material support for visual art apprentice/master programs, but that only makes sense if the Endowment is willing to again define and standardize recognition of American art and reward achievement by individual US artists. NEA apparently can do so for other disciplines, and should do so for visual arts.

The most devastating consequence of NEA’s failure to identify individual excellence and achievement for visual artists - aside from the cost to artist’s lives and livings- is inflicted on arts education. Beuys and Warhol win out: Everyone is an artist, and everything an artist makes is art. This cheerful-sounding mythology constitutes cultural fraud, and disenfranchises hundreds of years of craft tradition and the American artists who cleave to those traditions.

A final comment on college art programs (undergrad and post-grad): Art academies that offer critique-based, careerist (corp/art-org-centric) “practices” as curricula are really Ponzi schemes designed to generate institutional/financial sector revenues. The Ponzi-value is illustrated by schools like Yale’s, which effectively promote exclusive professional networks as feeder systems for the Super Class-oriented art market. With respect to art education and artist advocacy, NEA must confront the gutting of America’s artist “middle-management” – the so-called mid-career artist/educator. The standard corporate anti-labor practice (pushing out expensive but proven workers for cheap, young and underequipped replacements) over the past several decades has not only impoverished the nation’s middle class, it also has adversely impacted the American art ecosystem, to our collective detriment. A cursory review of college art programs reveals the trend’s damage: tenure positions disappearing, education quality down, etc.

EUGENIA: Artists would be valuable as artists-in-residence at K-12 schools and universities not only teaching their craft, but working with teachers and students across disciplines to use the artist’s particular specialty to explore the subject matter being taught. The artist as educational consultant, so to speak, as well as educator. The NEA can fund these residencies; work with the Dept of Education to identify schools in great need of this kind of collaboration; find private sector funding partners for this kind of venture.

BARRY: Much, if not all, of the NEA’s funding and initiatives seems to be directed in favor of the arts organization ecosystem and infrastructure, though some would argue that most of the funding ultimately enables the creation of art. What services is that ecosystem providing that you as a working artist find valuable and would like to see extended? What services are not being provided that you would like to see?

CLAIRE: As I wrote above, this "ecosystem" or culture is created to provide creative communities with ALL their needs as a creative community, but perhaps I have a broader definition of the ecosystem than you are employing here. Of course, it's the small, community-based arts nonprofits that tend to focus on fulfilling artist needs more specifically; often, larger institutions focus more on audience needs and opportunities than artist needs and opportunities. But they're all part of the same ecosystem. I -- and I suspect most artists -- go to different orgs for different needs: to Kaya Press (kaya.com) for publication opportunities; to Kearny Street Workshop (kearnystreet.org) to get public readings, teaching gigs, and to stay in touch with artists of all disciplines; to Hyphen magazine (hyphenmagazine.com) for opportunities to share my ideas and create public discussion; to Intersection for the Arts (theintersection.org) for literary awards that fit my circumstances; to the local arts commissions and foundations for funding for my own work or projects I administer; etc. I also contribute money, time, and skills back to all of these orgs.

All this is by way of saying that if there's a service I see lacking, I go looking for it elsewhere, ask for it directly, or create it myself. It's essential to this ecosystem and its success, that the working parts can operate independently (and mix metaphors at will.) I see the NEA as an organization at one end of this particular culture or ecosystem, so I find it strange that the question is formulated to sound like the NEA stands outside the ecosystem. Each ecosystem contains a chain of providers and consumers: the grantors are providers of funds which the orgs consume; the orgs provide opportunities which the artists consume; the artists provide arts which the audiences consume; and the audiences feed funding back to the grantors and orgs. As usual, the only real problem with this system is mismanagement of the existing system, obsolescence of particular parts, ways and means, and -- the big one -- not enough hard resources to go around.

I see in a number of these questions a desire to find ways to increase resources by making lateral connections between discrete ecosystems or funding cultures: nonprofit to for-profit. Nice idea, but moving the existing resources from one area to another doesn't increase resources overall. I think the only way to increase resources is to increase the value of the arts in general in this country; to bring more money overall into all areas and ecosystems of the arts. I've said it before above and I'll repeat it one more time: the NEA needs to be marketing the arts effectively, so as to increase overall personal and financial participation in the arts ... in other words, to create a creative-participatory culture out of the coldly consumerist mainstream of the US.

HOMER: I disagree that "most of the funding ultimately enables the creation of art." I would venture to suggest that the cost of keeping the HEPA/HVAC systems at optimum temperature in museums and theaters throughout the country, totals more than the sum of all funds distributed to individual artists. I believe in competition. I believe in open calls. I believe that my work can stand or fall on its own and that revolving panels of my peers are able to determine that. My work did well in those public kinds of forums. Whenever, my work is reviewed in a closed system, whenever it's about nominations, recommendations and personal relationships, I lose. And I lose, usually by simple omission.

LILY KHARRAZI: Encourage the folk and traditional arts sector in every state. There are people who are both practitioners and academics who can assist the state and local agencies with this endeavor. There is a strong cadre of leaders who can provide the expertise needed for sub-granting opportunities to these communities. Micro loans have revolutionized the social justice field. Micro-granting does this for the arts sector as well.

RALPH: Health care is an issue common to all citizens. Artists will benefit from sane improvements at least as much as other sectors of society.

EUGENIA: I’m fortunate in that as a playwright I’m working with two different organizations in San Francisco. One, the Playwrights Foundation, a new play development center, and the second, Cutting Ball Theater. The Playwrights Foundation provide guidance, advice, support, even marketing help. Cutting Ball’s many-hatted founders and tiny staff do everything from commissioning, publicity, development. Together we’ve raised funds and written grants. My concern is for the artist who is unconnected to an organization or experts that can offer guidance and help, or the time in an artist’s life when one finds herself self-producing. Perhaps NEA can provide funding or training initiatives that teach administrative, marketing skills – or enable networks to form an organization.

BARRY: How might the nonprofit arts sector better go about organizing the working artists of America into a cohesive public voice as advocates for more public support and other outcomes of benefit to artists, or is that not possible?

HOMER: I'm not sure about that. On the most part, institutions do not serve artists in those kinds of capacities. They only present art, be it visual, theatrical, movement-based, media, literary or auditory. Or they primarily fund institutions. The answers to that question will most definitely different according to where one lives and works. I see it as a regional or even community based issue. In some places, many artists don't trust the institutions to do anything but sustain themselves. Other artists trust them to a fault and are willing to attend meeting after meeting when nothing eventually gets done. Still others have wonderful relationships with institutions that support them and they in turn support the institutions. But, in my experience, I don't think that institutions can or should speak for us at all.

LILY YEH: The NEA could partner with large national foundations who are already gathering artists for shared learning and leadership development. Examples include the Ford Foundation’s Leadership for a Changing World, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Wallace Foundation, and the Pew Trusts. The Village of Arts and Humanities benefitted from programs like these. If the NEA were to serve as convener of several of these large entities the potential to advocate for increased support and benefits for artists as one cohesive voice is great.

CLAIRE: How to better organize the working artists of American into a cohesive public voice? By organizing the working artists of America into a cohesive public voice at all! The question assumes that anyone is trying to do this. But no one is trying to do this. No nonprofit arts presenting org takes its artists aside and says, "Hey, let's talk about a message we can all agree on to advocate for the arts in America! And then lets take five minutes out of every presentation to make this point!" If the NEA required all of its fundees to do this, there might be the start of a cohesive public voice of artist/advocates for public arts support. As it is, everyone expects/allows artists to be concerned solely with being the best self-servers that they can be.

And I'm not talking about the usual "give us money" speech that all nonprofits give. That's self-serving too: the "self" being the individual org you're supposed to give money to. Arts audiences love to hear interesting arguments about the arts. And I've heard a lot of really interesting, compelling arguments about the arts in this blog discussion alone. Where I haven't heard them is before, during, or after arts presentations. And when I do hear some watered down version of advocacy, it's always delivered in a "serious" monotone, with a lack of humor and interest in it. Even professional emcees turn off the charisma to deliver PSAs. It's like there's a rule against charming people into caring about the arts, as if charm and delight had nothing to do with art. As if using charm and delight would not be playing fair.

How about this? Every NEA-descended grant for every project, would come with a small side-package of money for one artist, who was not involved in the funded project, to come and do a live, 30-second NEA advertisement. Instead of the logo on the program and the monotone "thank you" to a restless and captive audience, the NEA ad would be a creative commercial spot produced independently by an artist. So someone could get up on stage before the opera and do a 30-second tap dance in leather chaps while singing "This was brought to you by the N... E ... AAAAAA!" A Butoh strip-o-gram could arrive at the exhibition opening, and draw "Brought to you by the NEA" in ashes on ground with his feet. Whatever. What if the NEA was actually fun? What if people started realizing viscerally that the letters "NEA" represented living culture rather than school field trips and PBS specials? What if people started connecting the NEA to their pleasures and not their fears?

How about this? Every NEA-funded presentation would require fundees to hand out slips of blank paper to audiences at the beginning of the program with the exhortation to "write down one way in which the arts have saved your life," or "what would your neighborhood look like if arts were wiped from the face of the earth?" or something similar. A different question for each program, actually, so that audiences would get used to being asked a challenging question about their own relationship with art before each presentation. Even if they didn't write, even if they didn't think, the questions would be posed to them directly. How often are those questions posed to arts audiences? The NEA could fund a program to put those questions on a frame in movie theaters during the pre-movie show, while people are bored and talking to each other. It could do radio PSAs posing such questions, with long silences, no answers. Put it on MTV. Put it on YouTube. Have a retweeting campaign on Twitter and Facebook. There are a million ways the NEA can challenge audiences directly, simply, connecting their arts consumption with questions about the value of art, and connecting their questioning of the value of art with the NEA.

To reiterate: if you want artists to start forming a cohesive voice to advocate for the arts, you have to *task them with it.* The NEA is in a unique position to hand out such tasks on a national scale. Why not use it?

JAMES: What happened to NAAO? There was something that seemed to work for awhile but no one wanted to pick it up and keep it going. I thought that was a valuable asset for artists to have someone at the table. I absolutely believe that either a similar org should be resurrected, or a new one needs to emerge that can speak for the needs of artists and the valued role we can continue to play.

[BARRY ASIDE: I sat on the Board of a resurrected NAAO in 2007-08, as a small group of people tried to re-start the effort. Alas, it proved too Herculean a task and there were no funds available.]

BARRY: Part of the mission of the NEA is to increase public access to all of the arts – both as audiences and as participants in the creative process. In your estimation how successful have they been in achieving this goal, and have their efforts in this regard been beneficial to artists?

LILY KHARRAZI: As a national body, the NEA has had to respond to the administration in office. We have not seen an embrace of culturally specific arts to the degree that would reflect our national profile. The NEA has been the sacrificial lamb of political whims as we saw in the infamous culture wars somehow fulfilling a symbolic role befitting of something so crucial to our psyche that it is the first to be skewered and lanced by attack. I would like to see a strong leader at the helm that will not be distracted by these maneuvers. Advocate for the full spectrum of artistic spectrum.

HOMER: I think that the NEA has done that work well. The NEA has given hundreds of millions of dollars to provide exhibitions, performances, free and discounted tickets, promotions, workshops, and training, all over the country for years. That's actually easy. The hard part is to become something that truly represents our democracy, something fluid, and living and fertile.

EUGENIA: In the SF Bay area where I live and work, it seems that private and local public agencies have provided the bulk of the funding ,The city, county, state and private funders support public access and engagement programs, be they poetry slams, books-in-common, performances in the schools, free nights of theatre, free days at the museum, public concerts, etc. However, I know that the NEA provides the Jazz Masters, Big Read, and Poetry Out Loud programs, and there are two new NEA programs that directly benefit artists and the companies they work with, the Distinguished New Play Development Initiative and Distinguished New Play Award. Those are substantial funds that a playwright working with an organization can apply to, which are much appreciated.

Wrap-up. Friday, October 23rd

The Artists Panel noted some consensus among the participants, notably that:

• There really isn’t an oversupply of artists nor of patrons, the current economic crisis notwithstanding.

• They align themselves with the nonprofit sector more than the ‘for profit’ field.

• Artists are, by and large, not seated at the decision making tables.

• Health care is a major area of need for artists and the Endowment might look into this area as a place to help working artists.

• They would like to see the Endowment exercise creativity in leadership and support for artist involvement in arts education.

The majority are in favor of re-establishment of some kind of direct funding to artists, but some would like to see the Endowment allow local agencies to re-grant funds, arguing that would allow needs and priorities to be addressed locally.

There were some interesting, and I thought, excellent specific suggestions by some individual panelists.

I would again like to thank all six of the panels for participating in this online NEA Forum experiment, and to all of you for following along.

This then concludes the 2009 National Forum on the NEA

Posted by msaunders at 08:48 AM | Comments (0)

October 20, 2009

NEA FORUM - PANEL 6 - WORKING ARTISTS

Hello everybody.

“And the beat goes on.............”

Scroll down and click on the 'Continuation' for the Wednesday, October 21st entry.

Before we conclude the online Forum on the NEA with the last panel – Panel 6 – Working Artists, I would like to again convey my deepest appreciation to all of the participants in all the panels. This was, by any standard, an impressive gathering of some of our sector’s most prominent leaders and best thinkers, in what turned out to be both an ambitious undertaking to discuss a whole range of policy issues that we face as a field, and a very successful outcome to that undertaking. As I looked back this weekend on the previous panels I am impressed with the breadth, depth and range of ideas, thoughts and opinions offered here. While I don’t agree with all the ideas expressed in this Forum (agreement would be an impossibility given that some thoughts are diametrical to others), there is considerable food for thought in the discussion of the last six weeks. Once the Forum concludes at the end of this week, I will begin to undertake a summary and synthesis of the six panels for future publication. That won’t be for awhile, as this has been a somewhat exhausting enterprise for me as a staff of one.

PANEL SIX - WORKING ARTISTS

Note: One member of this panel is not definitionally a “working artist”. James Bewley is, rather, the program officer at the Warhol Foundation. But he works closely with artists, and I wanted some voice on this panel that could relate to both the needs of artists and the challenges they face, and the nonprofit infrastructure that purports to serve them. Along these same lines, Diem Jones is both a working artist and working arts administrator. All the other esteemed participants are working artists in America today.

Some of the entries are a little long, but I am reluctant to edit anyone's comments. The readers are free to do that for themselves.

PARTICIPANTS:

Lily Yeh
Claire Light
Lily Kharrazi
Homer Jackson
Eugenie Chan
Diem Jones
Ralph Helmick
James Bewley
Paul McLean

BARRY: Many of the participants in this forum have commented on whether or not the NEA should attempt to reinstate direct grants to artists. Some feel the agency is vulnerable to partisan political attacks and that funding artists directly might open up a Pandora’s Box of problems. Others believe that funding for individual artists should be at the very core of the Endowment’s mission. What do you think the NEA should do on this issue?

EUGENIA: Fundamentally, the NEA should fund individual artists. Cut out the middleman. Let the creative be the CEO of her grant. John Killacky, in speaking about Trisha Brown, makes a good case for how an individual artist can leverage an NEA grant, because of its size and imprimatur of national legitimacy and excellence, beyond the scope of the grant itself. It will enable the artist to find and create pathways to other productions, collaborations, funding opportunities and new audiences.

Ideally, individual artist grants should cover a spectrum of artists -- be they long-standing practitioners, the creation of specific projects, the cultivation of so called “emerging” artists (admittedly an ambiguous category) or innovators. This of course necessitates a robust NEA budget. If the budget for individual grants is small, then I would advocate funding innovative emerging artists, people for whom a grant would make a huge difference – the difference, say, between realizing a work at a gallery or performance space, or not. While serving on a grants panel after we had finished adjudicating applications, we artists and administrators were talking about funding in general. San San Wong, the director of Cultural Equity Grants at the San Francisco Art Commission, reflected aloud, “Sometimes I ask myself, if we (funders) are funding enough failure?” This she believed was a way to move the arts forward, to nurture the discipline. Now that’s out of the box thinking. A funder willing to risk. I like that. I think the NEA needs to be willing to fund a risk, a potential “failure”; otherwise, individual artist grants will always go to the tried and true as a way to deflect the furor and hysteria of those who would use the NEA to promote a particular partisan agenda.

Remembering what happened to the NEA after the witch-hunt of the NEA Four in the early 90s, I do understand the fear of making the agency vulnerable. Here is where I believe creating a vibrant, meaningful mission for the NEA is critical. We need the NEA to reclaim a narrative for the arts in America; and I mean everyday fabric-of-life America where artists and public alike -- the Average Jane, students, seniors, newcomers, people-of-color, the employed, the underemployed –everyone, is engaged and/or has access to the arts and the creative process. Artists and citizens need to be a part of creating that narrative. And the NEA has the job of sounding the clarion call o’er the land so that we (including Congress) get and benefit from the arts and the creative process – the enrichment, the intellect, the questioning, the community, the collaboration, the innovation that creativity, well, creates.

To deal with the perceived insularity of an individual artist grant, perhaps there might be a “sharing” or dare I say, educational component of an individual artist grant where the artists shares/teaches her process or something about what is being created. As an artist I’d love to learn from others in the field. In the long term, this is a way for an artist to also pass down her legacy from one generation to another, as is done in traditional cultures.

LILY YEH: The NEA should support the best individual artists as selected by peer panel s. Art holds a mirror to our society and sometimes it reveals areas we don’t like or are not aware of. Art reveals what is true and valuable, not just what makes us feel good. Art pushes the bounds of our comfort. The NEA needs to support individual artists who are visionaries and foreseers, so that they can lead our nation in creativity. An artists’ right to freedom of expression should not prevent them from receiving financial support when they have a body of work representing artistic excellence to share. Fear of political tension should not prevent the NEA from remaining committed to its mission. Supporting individual artists is an important strategy to realizing that mission.

CLAIRE: I'm less concerned about the partisan political attacks in this issue. Politics shouldn't be determining the NEA's programs; it's rather the NEA's marketing and outreach strategies that should be affected by politics. As many, or most, of the panelists on this blog have said (and said better than I), the NEA needs to shape a message about the value of the arts that speaks to the citizens of a consumer-driven society, without buying into consumer values or language, like I just did in this sentence.

But, I don't think the NEA should be funding individual artists directly, no, and for completely different reasons. The limited funding and national scope of an NEA individual artist program would necessarily bolster elitism and a certain amount of aesthetic homogeneity. Only artists who already have reputation and reach on a national scale would be likely to get such grants, and artists living in large art world centers would tend to get preference. These would also be the very artists that benefit indirectly from NEA grants to national institutions. If the concern is to develop a national arts culture by creating de facto artist laureates, I'd rather see disciplinary institutions (museums, theaters, etc.) do that job.

I'd prefer that funds for individual artists be regranted by state and local commissions, where funders can work more closely with artists to recruit and educate applicants, where panels can be formed from the artists' actual colleagues and community members, and where priorities can be set according to local/regional concerns and working conditions for artists. In such a program, I'd like to see loose quotas (guidelines maybe?) for artists living/working in urban vs. exurban and rural areas, and for artists working in diverse (and less nationally favored) disciplines and genres.

DIEM: I think the Endowment should consider replicating a version of the Literature Fellowships to other artistic disciplines and phase them in, by discipline over several years.

JAMES: I want to preface my answers by saying that a) I’m expecting a baby at any minute, so my attention to these questions has been hampered by that distracting near-event and b) while I’m honored to be identified as a working artist, the truth is that most of my time is devoted to my day job as a Program Officer at the Andy Warhol Foundation. The Foundation supports organizations, but as an artist’s foundation, we consider the needs and benefits of artists first and foremost in our decision making process. As a funder, we often work parallel to the efforts of the NEA, but as an artist I feel pretty disconnected from its activities. I’m optimistic that they can still play a significant role in the cultural life of this country, and glad this discussion is happening with so many good ideas already put forth.

As to this question, of course I think the direct artist grants should be reinstated. My fear would be not political backlash, but that the artists receiving these grants truly be those most in need. So often awards at this level, and certainly one with this much lightning rod potential, tend to go to safe choices, or artists for whom yet another award is fantastic and meaningful, but maybe slightly less so than for those who have not been recognized at all. I’d love to see the initiation of an artist grant program that is tailored to emerging or mid-career artists based on artistic merit and relative need. These grants would not have to be large, and given that most of these artists have had little exposure, there’s less fodder for political attack. Or perhaps pairing artists under a mentor model, wherein established artists select an emerging artist to work with and they both get grants to pursue their independent work as well any collaborative projects that come from their pairing.
Should they not get back into this, or have the resources to do so, I’d just point out that in this wilderness time since the NEA stopped direct artist grants, a few daring organizations have grown up to take its place and are smartly supporting artists directly. Creative Capital has one of the most acclaimed programs in the country, set up specifically to support artists, their process, and professional development. From traditional to the experimental vanguard they are helping to develop truly great work that would have difficulty finding support elsewhere. Thinking about how extensive and deeply Creative Capital engages with artists (and has done so for 10 years) I’d suggest that the NEA should be thinking again about the Regranting model that was so successful in the past. Identifying organizations that have been doing the work that a fully funded, fearless NEA would do if it could.

HOMER: First, I have to admit that everything I say is just conjecture. I have some information and some personal experiences, but I am no journalist or scholar. I am just sharing my thoughts, feelings and hunches. They usually steer me to the truth or at least in that neighborhood. And in these kinds of situations where the muck and mire are deep, it is really tough to clear your head to present something meaningful to the process and not just more vitriol. So bear with me. With that said, I think we all, including the NEA should stop with the myths and get to the truth. The NEA actually does give funds directly to artists. On the NEA's website at the head of the grants page, it states.... “.... In most areas, funding is limited to organizations. (Direct awards to individuals are made only through Literature Fellowships, NEA Jazz Masters Fellowships, NEA Opera Honors, and NEA National Heritage Fellowships in the Folk & Traditional Arts.) " Since the days of the so-called Culture Wars, I guess we all ran for cover and many of us never looked back to see what was left in the rubble. Well, obviously deals were made and what we get is that the only groups of artists who receive fellowships are those who are represented by the powerful Publishing & Music industries. [Except for the National Heritage Fellowships in the Folk & Traditional Arts] What's important here is that visual artists were excluded. Most of the drama behind the so-called Culture Wars was in response to the work of visual artists, particularly gay artists and artists of color. Although specific works were discussed, what was really being attacked was the movement toward a practice of multiculturalism. And this was also quietly being attacked by some institutions as well. For all of its issues this period of multiculturalism, did a few interesting things....

. Placed specific target goals on audience participation, audience development and attendance.
. Presented the notion that minorities were actually majorities in some communities and should be served in ways that met that reality.
. Dispersed funds and developed initiatives that supported Alternative Spaces, which tended to present and support many of these artists.
. Supported regionalism, decentralized & dispersed funds geographically throughout the country.
. Pushed the boundaries of quality just a little bit beyond the established tradition.

After the smoke cleared from the so-called Culture Wars, things went pretty much back to "normal." This "normal" didn't include the many, extremely fertile re-grant programs that supported artist projects and institutions. This "normal" didn't include the new wellspring of gay artists and artists of color, or other artists working in disciplines that were newly experimental or audience driven. This "normal" didn't include the alternative spaces that supported these artists and these forms of expression. Most important, this "normal" didn't include the audiences of color or the other audiences that these artists speak to, representing millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue. Here we are 10 or so years later and within all of this change, the "no artist grants" myth has managed to be a very public "secret." So, although I feel that the NEA should not pursue direct funding to artists in the way it was done in the past, my instincts and perhaps my jealousy urge me to challenge the notion that some artists and art forms are more deserving than others. In addition, these grants have been quietly given to hundreds of artists for maybe the last 10 years. Yet, beyond supporting these deserving folks and their work, have the grants fertilized the environment that these artists work in or invigorated their community of artists? I think not and that is ultimately what the challenge is. Yes. The NEA should directly fund artists, but not with it's present or even its past's methods.

LILY KHARRAZI: In my work as a program manager at the Alliance for California Traditional Arts (ACTA), the role of the individual artist is crucial but within the context of community. Innovation and excellence by an individual is created within cultural parameters and there is an amazing amount of innovation within tradition. The recognition of these individuals brings into sharp focus the cultural communities they belong to, highlighting communities’ values, aesthetics and histories. By the sweat and persistence of leaders in the folk and traditional arts field, namely Bess Lomax Hawes and under the able directorship of Barry Bergey, the NEA has an established a Folk & Traditional Arts category. The National Heritage Fellows, an award equivalent to the national treasures of other countries is one of the strongest statements of support that the field has for the traditional artist and validation for the contributions that hyphenated Americans bring to our national artistic palette.

If only the trickle down effect were more evident in statewide, regional and local funding streams.

The idea of awarding an individual is a culturally bound value. We in the United States prize the individual spirit—it’s the hallmark of the American character and this refrain is echoed in every aspect of our tax-paying lives. However, our work deals with a different emphasis which at its core supports the innate value of each cultural community and the individuals in it. Simply put, the idea of folk and traditional arts because of its emphasis on collective wisdom rather than a unique personal aesthetic challenges the ideas of INDIVIDUAL artist as prized. It may be a slightly different world view that deemphasizes the “celebrity” power that this country tends to produce and worship with such gusto because this lens solidly places the artist as an inextricable part of life. If the artist is seen as a part of our community we welcome them as we indispensable to our lives as the one who might heal us when we are sick, the one who grows food to sustain us, and the ones that we turn to for birth or burial.

Because the words “traditional” and “folk” evoke certain images, it may be useful for this discussion to understand that our funding spectrum here at ACTA is reflective of the demographic reality of New America. Included in this roster are Native Californians whose unique challenges may be limited access to the source materials needed for ceremonial objects, Cambodian-Americans whose refugee status in the U. S. has led to an extraordinary effort to revive the traditional dance and music both here and in Phenom Penh, to the shared cultural community of Queer America where the Los Angeles based house and ball community share many of the attributes of the communities mentioned previously.

Ideally, I would like to see an American arts policy that understands that art-making is both an individual drive as well as a one that can be rooted within a community without the undertow that drags this conversation into minority politics, racial divide and seeing hyphenated Americans only in terms of underserved communities. Sometimes these vectors can intersect but this is not always the case and a great disservice is done by perpetuating the myth that culturally specific work must be “code” for what will be politically charged conversations too complex to unpack.

RALPH: The NEA should not reinstate direct grants to artists. Our current art world is so fractured and multivalent that the prospect of using taxpayer money—with its political implications—for such a purpose isn’t worth the battle. This isn’t a First Amendment issue. Really, it’s not. Anyone receiving tax dollars should be accountable. (Public artists are de facto accountable to their commissioning agencies.) Most independent artists in our culture don’t need or want accountability

PAUL: The conservative Christian anarchist Right started its long and destructive campaign to dominate American affairs with the attack on NEA in the 1980s. [The quote is from Peter Drucker (a self-analysis), but I would add “The corporatist” Right’s (and, lesser by degree, the Left’s) intimidation of public discourse may have started on the subject of art, but it now permeates American society. We can all look around us to gauge the effects.

The Delays, Armeys, Limbaughs, etc., have laid waste to the country. They also managed to alienate the great majority of Americans along the way. In the intervening 25 years (which span my generation’s cultural emergence) since the NEA “ and the American people“ capitulated to the bullying of the Right on the issue of direct artist grants, the Endowment has never had a better opportunity than it has now to reclaim its vital cultural leadership role.

Let the restoration of civility and respect for free speech in America’s public forum, especially for dissenting or divergent voices and visions, come full circle. And let the NEA lead the way. In short, yes, the NEA must once again administer the awarding of individual artist grants. The compelling reasons are several.

• America has lost its post-War competitive edge in the contemporary arts arena; a glance at programming at the major exhibiting institutions should suffice to verify this statement. MoMA will not be producing a major solo show for an American artist (I don’t count filmmaker Tim Burton) through 2011, which is a travesty. The artists of Western Europe and elsewhere have enjoyed significant government patronage, and their work demonstrates the value of such direct support.

• The near-total privatization of art in America has not produced great, or even reasonably good outcomes for the field, by nearly any measure, unless one considers enriching a very few people to be the goal of an art ecosystem.

• By not establishing a standard for American artistic excellence and achievement through an individual artist award grant, NEA legitimizes pervasive anti-artist prejudices and industry practices. The undermining effects on the public discourse with respect to individual expressive freedom, and the collateral damage to artist lives and livings, cannot be overestimated. NEA should define itself as a ‘first responder’ when free speech is threatened in America, not as battered victim of oppression. With its former enemies weakened or otherwise disgraced/diminished, the Endowment must not miss this great opportunity to reassert itself in the broader cultural arena.

Then, the question is: How to implement an NEA direct artist award. I would suggest the Endowment combine several models that have proven sustainable in the private and quasi-governmental sectors. In essence, NEA must create a ‘public option’, a strong counterpoint to corporate entertainment industry-produced competitions that, to an unfortunate extent, currently define America’s artistic identity (e.g., America’s Top Model, American Idol, Project Runway or America’s Got Talent). We as a nation can and should do better than this.

Briefly, the NEA could sponsor a program to determine grant recipients that would include three (or more) voting components

• An academy award: this panel (spanning all arts fields) would serve as a fine sample academy basing grants awards to individual artists on merit, arising from a transparent standards set; a relevant model to consider is the Turner Prize (1-2 year cycles)

• A competition in the vein of America’s Got Talent, driven by an open/popular voting system (2-4 year cycles)*

• A Chairman’s Award for outstanding achievement for a single American artist from a list of broad categories (the other components could have more specific categories) during a selection cycle of one or two years

*This component is especially important by virtue of its capacity to emphasize the democratization of the awards system and for its capacity to generate substantial support (and trust) from the American people.

BARRY: A growing number of artists work outside of the public and foundation grant systems. By doing so, they have detached themselves from the gatekeeper financing systems of the past and are engaging in new ways of supporting themselves through their art. How can the National Endowment for the Arts and other public art funders support rather than interfere with this approach to making a career in the arts?

DIEM: There is a movement to create more resources for individual artists, by several funders around the country, such as the pending resource tool being developed by CCI in the San Francisco Bay area. The development of online databases should continue and possibly be centralized by discipline on a national basis.

LILY YEH: First, the NEA should not hinder their efforts to work outside of the traditional funding streams. The NEA and other public art funders should recognize that these artists are expanding the role of art and learn from them. It is just wonderful that some artists are able to do this successfully and public funders should support them and publicly recognize their artistic accomplishments whenever possible.

CLAIRE: Artists need: 1) the ability to make work (time, space, skills, equipment, projects), 2) the opportunity to show that work, 3) status and reputation, 4) creative community. To get these, artists must be willing to shape their creative projects to suit the culture of whatever funding community they best fit in with. That is to say, artists will always behave like cockroaches: survive even a nuclear holocaust, and show up in droves where the food is.

The funding cultures (various arts and entertainment markets, national funding and institutions, and regional/local niche and community-based cultures), on the other hand, are more rigid. Trying to simultaneously satisfy opposing funding cultures is a nightmare; most artists tend -- per project, phase, or even per career -- to hover around one and only pick up crumbs from the others. On the upside, each culture has its ways of fulfilling all artist needs: funding, presenting or publishing opportunities, awards systems, and ways of promoting community. On the downside, when one funding culture fails, artists tend to find it difficult to jump to another, because these are not just different institutions and cultures, they are different communities, networks, and different sectors of the economy.

The question above seems to imply that the NEA would like to reach out to artists in all funding cultures, and I have to ask: why? The NEA is NOT the leading arts institution in the country. It is rather the leading institution in a particular funding culture. Why does the NEA want to support artists supported by another funding culture, unless it is to feel as if the NEA were in touch with all of the streams of artistic endeavor in the US? While I understand the implied anguish in the question (Why do we have to silo the different artistic fields and economic sectors? Why can't we all just get along?), to benefit artists working in a different funding culture the NEA would have to dismantle the creative economy from the ground up.

I think the NEA's attention is better directed at creating a mainstream national understanding of the value of art. Money put to an effective marketing strategy would be well spent. Bring in the tide, raise all boats.

JAMES: Those that developed alternative systems may be in for a rough time, as some of these things grew in tandem with an expanding commercial market. So unless that comes back full force, and that seems unlikely, they’re going to have to go back to the drawing board. But as far as the foundation or NEA side of it, the Warhol Foundation has been slowly building its own Regional Regranting program. We make a decent sized grant to an organization, or group of organizations, that we support and trust in a specific region. We choose the cities based on how much artistic activity is happening, specifically the kind of alternative initiatives hinted at in the question above: living room galleries, artist collectives, individual artist projects, etc – non incorporated entities which are ineligible for direct foundation support. The partner organizations develop the program in conversation with the Foundation, and then administers grants ranging from $1000-$4000 for various projects. It allows the Foundation to have a greater reach than we could by supporting only 501c3s in an area, it allows the partner orgs to become more deeply engaged with its constituents, and it most importantly gets money into the hands of those who need it to make good work, sustaining a vital grass-roots component of the arts ecology. After pilot programs in San Francisco and Houston, we’re now entering into two new cities, Chicago and Kansas City, Missouri.
I think the NEA could easily replicate this strategy, working with its own NEA stimulus supported organizations, and build a ton of goodwill in the process. It would be amazing to see NEA logos on tiny projects happening in living rooms and storefront galleries around the country. Still trying to get a handle on the NEA’s role, I certainly see the organization currently as a top-down kind of organization, whereas I think it could only gain from more bottom-up strategy.

HOMER: If the Arts are a business, then the artist must be considered a businessperson. Stop speaking for us unless you are our legal representative. And since most artists have neither agent, nor manager, publicist nor attorney, more of us need to learn to speak for ourselves. In terms of discussing artists, our lives and work, the words "Fertility" and "Urgency" haunt me. "Fertility" speaks to the amazing activity that dances around the work when it is happening and when it is seen, heard, touched, tasted or smelled by others. The work inspires new ideas and new works within the artists themselves and within others as well. "Urgency" is the force that propels this fertile activity. The time is always now. The present moment is critical. The meter is forever moving. And the hunger forever present. Many see these principals as potentially disruptive, disorganized and unprofessional. Ironically, fertility and urgency are key aspects of Capitalism. Although these terms are not directly used, they represent critical aspects of any business's survival instincts. This speaks to many struggles within the Art World. Let's face it; our world in the arts is a third party/middle man culture, where the best interests of the artist and the community are represented by another. It is a business in which the businessman or woman are not expected to represent themselves or their product. As part of the middle man culture, the "organization" of artists and what artists do is essential. In many cases, this impacts on both the fertility and urgency of the work and the community and in most cases, it is detrimental. As an example, in my state of Pennsylvania some years ago in the mid 1990s, the current Executive Director decided that artist projects using other non-profit organizations as fiscal conduits should be phased out. In a casual dinner conversation with him, I asked what would replace that support if it was removed and he mentioned that organizations would take up the slack. That's what they do: Curate. Unfortunately, that has not proven to be the case. As a recipient of these funds in the past, I not only developed, curated, produced, and created my own work, but I also collaborated with over 60 other artists in my various projects. However, after this kind of support was removed, I found it very tough to get work and even tougher to get funding support. Needless to say that since that period of the mid to late 1990s, not only have we seen decreases in arts funding and arts presentation/exhibition opportunities, but there has also been an amazing decrease in the number of open call/public opportunities in the arts. We are in world dominated by referrals, nominations and recommendations. This lack of accessibility eventually kills the vitality of an arts community. Yes. Work is still being created. But, folks know when "nothing is happening." Folks know when the environment is stale. Another example: Philadelphia has about 8 or 9 Grammy award winners in popular music in the last 15 years or so. Some of those folks include, Boyz II Men, Will Smith aka Fresh Prince & DJ Jazzy Jeff, The Roots, Jill Scott and so on. As a result of this, Philadelphia became a hotbed of the international Neo-Soul and Progressive HipHop movements and a destination for dozens of aspiring young artists. As a cross-fertilization and expanded marketing possibility, I am amazed that none of these popular and financially successful artists have written large scale musical theater/opera works in conjunction with the prominent institutions in the city. There are obviously reasons for this. However, these reasons probably have little to do with getting people into the seats of those auditoriums or bridging gaps between audiences or art forms. Ultimately, these kinds of issues are what I mean when I talk about the lack of fertility and urgency in the arts.

LILY KHARRAZI: One of the main arguments we hear in the folk and traditional arts field is a “hands off” attitude as if to say that those arts that are intrinsic to the lives of people would be disturbed if given more resources! This “leave- it- alone; it-will-grow-anyway approach” is just another way to avoid encountering the multiplicity of expression that live at the core of our cultural communities. Yes, it is messy work to encounter what you do not feel comfortable with and to run back to the safety net of primarily funding those arts that reflect the mirror of mainstream America. Artists are resourceful, but to a point.

Traditional artists are dealing with issues like the inability to access source material like native plants needed for basket making, or reviving the language of one’s people which is the repository for shared history. One example that is particularly illustrative of this point is the Garifuna community residing in Los Angeles and what they have been able to do with a small amount of money to create sea change. UNESCO has recognized the Garifuna culture as one of humanity’s endangered treasures of humanity. This is worth 10 minutes of your time: www.actaonline.org/content/apprenticeship-garifuna-wanaragua) With the language endangered, so goes the storytelling, the singing, and the drumming traditions of this African- based people who were brought to Central America as slaves. The Garifuna American Heritage Foundation United hold language and culture classes on Saturday mornings with one computer, the assistance of a web based radio station in New York, a hand-held microphone that moves around the classroom and a simple power-point presentation. They garnered over 30,000 listeners tuning in just a few weeks time. With additional leveraged resources, they are now broadcasting with live images not only language class, but drumming and dance class. Tune in www.gahfu.org on a Saturday when they are in session to see first hand the work of cultural creation and continuity. This is extraordinary given that we lose more than 6,000 languages yearly according to UNESCO. Our cultural ecosystem is fragile and we see over and over again that this “micro” grant making has impact.

EUGENIA: Don’t interfere. Learn from what these artists are doing. Disseminate their lessons and new models of support, perhaps through the web, or by providing the means by which local organizations can convene these meetings (time, space, money, expertise). Creative Capital is a terrific example of one way artists are teaching other artists how to support their work within and outside traditional grant systems.

PAUL: Before measures are taken to address the needs of artists, a clear acknowledgment from the arts field must verify that the need for reform exists, so that appropriate action can commence. We must decide to take care of our own, or it simply will not happen.

At present there is no American social, political or economic mechanism for nurturing artists and supporting our work throughout our lives. It should be noted this is true for nearly all Americans, except those of inherited wealth. I would specifically reference a section in The Handbook of the Economics of Art and Culture, ["Artists' Careers and Their Labor Markets" (Alper and Wassall)], entitled "US artists' careers: 1979-1998," as a supporting document. That analysis serves as a good preface for the attached letter.

A friend (herself an artist, a former collaborator and a patron of my work) sent the following note to me a few weeks ago. She was unaware of this panel at the time, and gave me permission to share it within the context of the forum. I think this letter, and the American artist experience it communicates, a tragic one, clearly demonstrates that the impetus for change is real.

The problem is bigger than art. I would suggest that the social Darwinism that inflicts wanton, wasteful damage - on the dreams of American artists like my friend and many others like her - is prevalent in every sector of our society. Artists may not be special in this regard, but we do possess special skills for advocating for societal improvement. I believe we must endeavor to apply artistic skills tactically and strategically for the welfare of the communities we inhabit, small to large, and not just in our own interests. Good examples of Americans who are doing so are Michael Moore and the Yes Men.

The disdain of the artist for a structurally neglectful or hurtful society is well represented in my friend’s letter. The converse (the pervasive social prejudice against the artist) while more complex and dimensional, is in part due to our collective failure as artists to align with the commonwealth, instead of the wealthy and their interests; conflated by the destructive ambition for stardom and its fleeting promise.

Dear Paul:

Here's my annual income, 1974 - 1993

1974 - $2400 working in the office of WT Grants in highschool
1975 - $2100 working in the office of WT Grants in highschool
1976 - $1251 singing in bars. Yes this is ANNUAL.
1977 - $2496 singing in bars
1978 - $0, must have bought equipment and so got to write income off
1979 - $4119 as a waitress at pizza hut and singing some, this is my biggest year yet
1980 - $2219 musician singing in bars
1981 - $2336 musician singing in bars
1982 - $0 musician, must have bought some gear
1983 - $3651 musician in band that was getting popular regionally
1984 - $6165 musician, our band was really popular
1985 - $470 the band broke up
1986 - $1039 playing covers in a terrible band and about to get divorced
1987 - $8290 receptionist by day at a printing company while sneaking into a recording studio at night - this was my biggest income, and I'm 30 this year.
1988 - $8871 lookout, I'm working at an advertising agency, another big year
1989 - $640 this is the year I got a record deal with Elektra, look how that sneaking into the recording studio paid off
1990 - $0 - this is the year I and my band made a record for Elektra (our manager gave us money to live on, and when it fell apart, the manager filed for bankruptcy and lost his house)
1991 - $9,612 - my share of the $130,000+ publishing advance, after the lawyer presented a $100,000+ bill... lost the record deal this year
1992 - $662 - now I am a former major label artist
1993 - $17,023 - I got a job as an assistant in the music business and never looked back... I was 36 and just sick of starving and hurting...

I'm thinking of turning those numbers into some kind of artwork or song or maybe both. When I look at those numbers, it breaks my heart. When I look back on my life's path, I sometimes weep for the young woman I was. Oh man, I was born so fabulously talented, nobody ever knew what to do with me, I didn't know what to do with myself for years and years, and all of that confusion and pain fueled the alcoholism...and did nothing to advance or develop my talents...
These days I drive past mall parking lots and think, look at all the cattle. They're inside grazing, fattening themselves up for the kill, literally. And that on which they "feed" has no meaning, no value, it goes through their system and comes out the other end as the shit it was to begin with, gets flushed away into the sewers with everything else that stinks and that we put far, far away from us or it will make us sick... .... they waste the money they have on shit: just diversions, illusions...and judge others on what meaningless diversions and illusions they do or do not display... they divide themselves into smaller herds defined by an agreement to see and share a common illusion ... "do you see what I see" is the secret password

In 1999, when I was without a piano for the first time since I had started composing on it.... I was living in Minnesota where I had gone to get my master's degree, I would drive down the streets in expensive neighborhoods in St. Paul, and just KNOW that there were gorgeous baby grands and full grands inside them, that were being used for nothing more than table tops for family photos, and it would literally make me cry. My body ached. They had pianos in their houses, and didn't know what to do with them, I knew what to do with them, and couldn't get next to one....anytime I ran across a piano in a church or building somewhere, it was a magnet, I had to touch it even if I wasn't permitted to play it... the St. Paul Quakers were gracious enough to give me a key to their more-or-less unheated church, and I would go in there one day a week, wearing my winter coat and hat and gloves with the fingertips cut-off so I could feel the keys, and play the piano....I was desperate, I still am desperate. I wouldn't mind a little less desperation. Before, the desperation came from "Where will I get my food? How will I pay my electric? Do I have to stay with a man who doesn't love me just to have food and shelter?" and now it is "How will I find time and energy to make the art and the music?" because a fulltime job is exhausting and takes up alot of a person's day... but after 12 years in this field I finally have a 4-day a week job, so there is about to be time to make art and music, more and more of it now that I'm settling in and actually have a piano again... so I have started performing out again (2 times in the last two weeks, and the response has been excellent, I have gotten very good by singing at home alone) - next week I am beginning a course in discipline, and that is, I will be getting up at 5 AM to play music BEFORE I go to work, one must put one's priorities at the top of the day when energy is the issue...

By the way... the year I got the record deal with Elektra, I lived in a two-room "converted" garage, slept in a coat and hat under an electric blanket, and if I forgot and left any water in a glass or dish, it was frozen solid the next morning - I had a kerosene heater (the one I gave you for your artspace in Nashville, remember?) but of course I couldn't run it at night... the local convenience store was papered in bad checks, a dozen or so of them were mine... I was lucky to have $20 to my name, and people who are not artists think I'm joking when I say I lived on the 3Ps : pasta, potatoes and peanut butter.

It is a painful path, that of the artist, no matter where the survival money comes from. We feel more deeply.... I have done alot of reading of the research on gifted and talented persons, and when I share it with people who are gifted and talented, they sometimes cry... anyway, I made a vow never to be dependent on anyone for money ever again (including record companies and publishing companies), so that I could make my own art and my own music as I saw fit, not have to put up with ugliness or tantrums from husbands (I've had two, and am done with that manner of living)... this meant, and I knew it when I started down this path, that I would have to give up my art and music for a long time, and it's been more than a dozen years, really. I stopped thinking about it because it only made me angry, and I had made my choice.

Now it is changing. I've been through menopause, have been sleepless and nauseous and covered up in sweats day and night for about 6 years.... but have started sleeping again in the last 5 months so I feel art and music energy welling up, and I actually now have a place for them to come out and play. And now that I have my space and a job that doesn't kill me (as the others in this field have nearly done), I am letting the Beast back out of its cage. It has been resting well and long, taking in without comment, and has been doing pushups in its little cell.
Love
JetGirl"

RALPH: First, I don’t really understand how the NEA et al are interfering with independent artists charting their own courses. We should salute them and let them be. (Governments and foundations are gatekeepers in the sense that they have an obligation to set standards and be selective.)

BARRY: Arguably, this country has more artists than patrons and audiences to support them. Why should the public sector support and extend this oversupply?

LILY YEH: It is not possible for the public sector to support and extend the oversupply of artists. That is why the NEA must hold to a high selection standard and a commitment to supporting excellence. It is not the NEA’s purpose to support every artist - the NEA must target its resources to support the best of art across the nation. Art is like the soul of the country. The NEA should not support an artist for merely being an artist, the artist must demonstrate a level of accomplishment that is consistent with national standards for excellence. When a significant artists’ work does not have public appeal, the NEA must step in with support to ensure the continued development of that artists work. An example of where this would have been helpful is in the case of Vincent Van Goh.

JAMES: Where the NEA could be helpful is somehow retooling the message that art is a luxury, and that the arts exist for the elite. They can do this by getting involved on a local level, expanding its presence (online and physically), and by supporting work at the source. Through this effort, you’d begin to see a shift in how the NEA is perceived and how meaningful the arts could be to a community. For instance, if every museum in the country had FREE NEA THURSDAYS rather than FREE TARGET THURSDAYS the audience would probably have a better association with the NEA than it now currently has with Target. That is such a simple and ridiculously easy thing to do. It supports worthy organizations for all their activities while also making an impact locally and increasing access to the art of our times.

I do think audiences still outnumber artists, and that there is an ever-expanding group of potential patrons out there. I would think that the commonplace examples of people paying for premium interactions with culture (HDTV, iPhone App Store, HBO, Sony gaming stations, those Opera cinema broadcasts) hold some form of the key to this approach. We’ve grown familiar with compelling content devices, and are hungry for compelling content. If artists were producing that and using these familiar outlets, there’s an endless potential there. The Obama campaign model (which was the PBS model but with actual stakes) is also one which proved that value can be assigned and incrementally obtained from a willing engaged audience.

CLAIRE: I disagree that the US has more artists than patrons and audiences. Just look at the huge and complex production and consumption of video, television, film, pop music, comic books, popular fiction, anime, and the hip-hop multimedia world. I'm not interested in jumping on the old high vs. low, sublime vs. entertaining seesaw. But while we were worrying about whither the visual narrative?, TV drama got better than movies. While we were sweating the downfall of reading, a new golden age of Young Adult fiction was paving the streets. Teens and twenty somethings who can't read music, identify internal monologue, or recognize a plié if it happened on their faces, are talking way over all of our heads about an astonishing array of unfunded and DIY visual, musical, dance, and spoken performance styles that consistently draw enormous viewership. And no, it's not all online.

But these are arts that support themselves through youth culture and/or for-profit creative industries. So the real question isn't "Why should the public sector support and extend this oversupply of artists?" but rather "Why should the public sector support and extend artists making work that doesn't seem very popular?" There are two answers that aren't mutually exclusive. The first answer is that the profitable creative industries, and youth culture itself, are enabled, supported, and fed by the more sophisticated and rarified arts culture that exists in the so-called "high arts" (if you want to make art hierarchical.) This abundance of publicly-supported creative professionals provides delightful and challenging content for all of the public's senses, moods, and concerns, which fans out into the mainstream via more popular artists. All artists need community, conversation, a public dialogue to be a part of. Publicly-funded art makes popular art good, interesting, and possible.

The other answer is: it shouldn't. I don't believe "the market" should determine what is artistically valuable to us, but there does come a time when we have to acknowledge that relevance makes controversy, that art is discussion. Where there is no controversy, there is no more art. Where there are no patrons perhaps the NEA should bestow no money. Or, even better, where there are no patrons, perhaps the NEA should drum some up. Instead of using partisan politics as a compass directing the NEA away from a program, perhaps the NEA should be using it to home in on a program. If the message is that art is debate, the NEA could potentially revitalize mainstream national discussions spurred on by controversial arts ... but on its own terms. Take the initiative, pick the most outrageous art, and present it in a context in which the most hysterical right-wing partisans will share a stage with the artists afterwards ... and the whole succeeding debate will be broadcast on national TV. Or something. That would get an audience, and put to bed both the question of relevance, and this passivity in the face of partisan control.

DIEM: There will always be a wealth of artists who by their nature are seeking to further their professional engagements and as creators of cultural bridges, which become the fabric of our society, therefore their role in the pursuit of a healthy ecosystem is significant and needs support from the public sector.

HOMER: In 1997, I wrote a paper for the Pew Charitable Trusts entitled "Developing Technical Support For Individual Artists." In the paper I stated, " .... I would like to offer a recommendation to the field of educational institutions, educators, publishers, as well as manufacturers and retailers of arts related supplies, equipment, software, hardware and other materials. My suggestion is that these parties join together and discuss the development of national, regional and local arts scholarship programs for high school students. This effort must be joined with a vigorous national public relations campaign. These activities, should include TV, radio and Internet commercials and print advertising in all major media to challenge and combat the negative public image that artists and the career of art making have received during the last six years of political culture wars. This bad publicity is simply bad for business all the way around. The impact of these negative views of artists and our contribution to American culture will have, or already have made an impact in student enrollment, therefore potential sales of books, arts supplies and equipment."

During the current, international economic crisis, we have been taught something critical to our existence that was hidden from us: "any spending is good spending." There is no hierarchical order in terms of cash and its flow. There is no class. There is no race. There is no politics. Money is money. As artists, we buy supplies. We buy tickets. We buy equipment. We buy food. Although many of us struggle to buy these things, we do buy them. The greatest supporters of the arts are actually the artists themselves. Dancers fill the seats in auditoriums of recitals and performances. Writers buy the books, magazine and journals of their mentors, students and other writers.

Finally, I'm not sure most artists are even asking for support. Although, I think they wouldn't mind the support, I feel that it is the Arts World, the middle man culture that publicly seeks and needs the support most, not the artists.

RALPH: There are too many artists and not enough good artists. The public sector has no obligation to grow the pool.

EUGENIA: For me, this is really a question of access and exposure. I’d love to have a dialogue about how we as different communities of artists or presenters can make it easier for people to access the arts. In my case as a playwright, how do presenters make tickets affordable? And can we do things – or get help doing things, like providing childcare at performance spaces, so that people with families can see a show without breaking the bank? Can there be, as Steven J. Tepper has suggested, public vouchers for the arts? Do we need to change how or where we present work? I wrote an interview-based play, commissioned by the San Francisco Foundation, about the artistic desires of different generations of Chinese in the Bay Area (who are not artists), in response to the Wallace Foundation’s question of changing demographics. To get my interviewees’ feedback in a way that was culturally sensitive, so that I could create an approved draft that the SF Foundation could publish on its website, I presented a lunchtime reading of the play at the social service agency where many of the interviewees gathered and worked. Many of the attendees remarked about how satisfied they were to be able see a play with real actors speaking English and Cantonese, at a time and location that made it possible for them to do so, given their work and family commitments, and how far they lived from the city center. Access is especially critical for immigrant, of color, working class, young and senior communities, and more. Do we also need to change how we define art so that we can enlarge what the vision of art in America is? Yes, we do. As others have blogged about garage bands, DIY happenings, and knitting sessions, I’m thinking of communities where the arts are already integrated into everyday life, like the barrio dances of Pilipino communities, the Cantonese opera performances of Chinese benevolent societies, or ballroom dance gatherings in the new Chinatowns.

PAUL: I have reviewed the relevant data that superficially sustains this argument, an argument that arises from a corporatist/Rightist/free market anarchist-schema. I would suggest, by way of reframing the question’s perspective, that America should be proud of the numbers of citizens who have committed their futures to collective cultural and artistic improvement and excellence.

The premise for any utilitarian application of the referred-to talent pool for the benefit of the commonwealth requires a pervasive re-envisioning of American social identity, and the concurrent application of the nation’s political will to promote general quality of life over the wealth of a few individuals. This is the case in many facets (if not all) of the country’s current problem set.

In the comments section earlier in the forum panel I included a plan for a New Art in Action (NAIA) program for the country. I submit that a neo-New Deal approach could be tremendously beneficial to the US and the arts field. It should be remembered that the several public art programs instituted during the last great Depression had the direct result of catapulting America’s artists to the forefront of the art world in a remarkably short period of time. Arguably, these programs collectively constitute the greatest public arts movement in history, yielding hundreds of thousands of artworks, many of which remain among the United States’ undisputed cultural treasures.

Today’s NEA-administered NAIA program would have a very different focus, even if the impact would be the same: to visibly inspire, provide hope, for a nation rocked on its heals by economic devastation at the hands of the usual suspects. This time, the labor of artists could be focused on improving virtual/digital infrastructure, as well as actual architecture/infrastructure, throughout the nation. A generation of young artists, working with established masters, could devote themselves to a range of necessary public works projects, from upgrading municipal websites to installing public art in blighted neighborhoods. The NEA and arts orgs can contribute leadership and management towards implementation of a New Art in Action initiative.

The potential benefits are practically incalculable, not least among them the restoring of civic pride to many towns and cities struggling to survive the decimation that has enriched some of Wall St. and impoverished almost all of Main St. The program would also provide logistical experience, not to mention usefulness and fair wages, to legions of artists who will never, under the current system, experience their real value to the community otherwise.

Artists must not be the organ grinder’s monkeys for the rich any longer. We must re-integrate in the lives of our fellow Americans and align with them for a commonwealth, rather than continue our participation and therefore support of a destructive arts economy shaped like a hybrid of the NBA and a Las Vegas casino. Currently, except for a few stars, the “house”,the Super Class, always wins. This must change, and a New Art in Action program can change it.

The alternatives are: an even more extreme consolidation of cultural wealth over the next several decades to the detriment of the nation and democracy; a slow march for the US towards artistic and cultural irrelevance; and the wasting of tens of thousands artists’ dreams and visions. This last is probably the worst loss to a free society.

America will (absent real change at depth) continue its trend towards a cultural diet consisting of the artistic equivalent of ‘fast food’. I refer to the consumer portable art industry, in which multinational corporations distribute cultural ‘McNuggets’ for $1-20, for the majority poor. The rich, absent reformation, will continue to feast on weird luxury art that is best at mocking the lack of others. The few of aristocratic means will continue to horde the best of the best art for their own indulgences, only shared with the rest of us as noblesse oblige. This is not the America our Founders envisioned, nor the one Americans have fought to defend for centuries.

 

More of the Panel 6 discussion tomorrow.

Click below for the Wednesday, October 21st entry.

Wednesday, October 20th

BARRY: Do you feel that working artists are adequately represented at the decision making tables of the nonprofit arts sector, including the NEA?

DIEM: Most don’t have the time, interest, professional acumen or invitations to participate.

LILY KHARRAZI: As soon as we are able to move beyond the myopia of our current definitions of who makes artwork that counts and who are considered to be the power brokers, I would advocated for as many stakeholders as possible to be at the table in the spirit of listening. I think many of our funding resources are well intentioned but it is harder to work towards consensus when key players are missing. There may be a lot to learn about group consensus and task follow through from a Hawaiian halau (school) for example. For starters imagine this: How lovely to greet one’s elder with the designation of “aunty” or “uncle”—how immediately disarming to welcome a stranger with a designation of “family”.

HOMER: No.

LILY YEH: No. While working artists are invited to participate in peer review panels, the selection process for this participation is not always representative of the tremendous diversity of artistic genres and the arts community. I wonder if the selection process itself limits the participation of the full spectrum of artists as it is often a process of who you know or who knows of you. I cannot speak to the representation of working artists earlier in the process when the eligibility criteria and program guidelines for arts funding are developed. Participation in these key decision making process are as important as the roles artists play on the peer panels. Additionally, most working artists do not have the deep pockets needed to be invited to serve on boards of important cultural organizations. Thus, their views are not represented during policy making meetings.

CLAIRE: I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the NEA's practices and policies involving working artists in their decision-making processes. I also don't know any working artists who have been involved in NEA decisions. That may or may not answer the question.

EUGENIA: My experience in the Bay Area lends me to think that local arts agencies, as well as the NEA, do a good job of bringing diverse artists to the table when it comes to grant panels. However, artists need to be an integral part of the conversation when it comes to policy, implementation and vision, as well, especially a breadth of artists from different disciplines, generations, ethnicities, sexual orientations, and geographical regions. I think there especially needs to be representation from artists in smaller cities, towns, and rural areas.

RALPH: I don’t know.

JAMES: I doubt it. When I was at the Hammer Museum, they initiated an Artist’s Advisory Committee with the support of an Irvine Foundation grant. It was one of the most amazing things to sit in on, as the goal was to have a rotating group of artists, with a wide array of diverse experiences, fully engage with all aspects of the museum, understanding at a fundamental level how the museum functions. That first group of artists helped define a leading process-oriented artist residency program, and helped find ways in which all of the organizations activities to better serve artists. The Hammer did a pretty good job of serving artists prior to this committee, but it now does an extraordinary job. In turn those artists are ambassadors for the Museum. There is no real downside in involving those you serve in the decision making process. It’s essential.

PAUL: Representation and accountabilities are the central issues. Since NEA sets the standard, the question should be how does NEA represent the priorities of artists in its decision-making? Several people (not artists) asked me, “Why is the Chairman position an appointment, rather than an elected position? and Why are the President’s recent picks for White House art the end of a design process, as opposed to resulting from popular participation, at least in part?” If lack of trust at the leadership level is the problem, whether it is trust in the American people’s capacity for discernment or artist’s capacity for playing well with others at the administrative level, then the answer is not to minimize involvement, but to improve it. The system requires revising not only in the furtherance of artist’s issues, but also with regards the mission of providing people with quality programming that they care about.
The NP art sector is a big place, and many NPs do a fine job representing artists. Artists are frequently NP arts org founders. I don’t know of a compendium of stats that surveys the percentages/ratios of artists to other professions on Boards, in staff and admin positions at NPs, but that would be interesting to know. What experts and experienced NPs generally agree on is that maintaining an effective Board with good staff relations is a persistent and sometimes messy affair for all orgs – not just arts orgs. Artists are often not particularly well suited to Board work and are more functional at the staff level, or as advisors. What does this tell us about the mandates of the NP as an organizational model, and the NPs capacity to serve artist’s needs?
Until the field is democratized, though, the NEA and arts orgs will continue to disenfranchise individual artists and fail to garner the artist support they need to thrive. In many cases, setting aside good intentions, the NP culture, procedures, structure and motivations (and legal parameters) diverge so fundamentally from artist’s that there is little commonality of purpose ultimately. And I wouldn’t, as an artist, pine for some time in the future when NP institutions will start to recruit artists as industry practice corporatizing the NP will push artists further to the margins.

BARRY: What, if anything, would you like to see the Endowment do to help artists to achieve a ‘living wage’ (i.e., one that would allow them to pursue their artistic career full time without having to work a supplemental job)? Should the Endowment or the field pay more attention to bread & butter issues for artists, such as health care, training, business management etc.?

PAUL: I would suggest that NEA establish an American artist online network, using Charles Saatchi’s website as the model. The mission should be to offer a “public option” to the US arts marketplace, where NEA’s dedication to artistic excellence can be showcased. Although Etsy, Ebay and other for-profit alternatives have proven the demand and supply-side technology exists for the praxis – the economics are the driver, and not other concerns, such as legacy. The goal should be that NEA provide American artists the best website in the world. This is almost all upside. Such a site can serve as an aggregator, a comprehensive listing, a social network, a revenue generator (for artists and NEA), a driver of healthy competition (economically speaking and with respect to innovation), a platform for critical response and discourse, a subtle way to promote quality from the bottom-up and top-down, and a means by which the NEA can reclaim its rightful position in the field as a determinant, as a field leader and arts service simultaneously. The production costs would relatively minimal, the timeline/turnaround sufficiently brief. The necessary technology for implementation does not need to be invented – it exists. Workers could be hired as an arts stimulus plan, which the industry sorely needs. Plus, the NEA could peg standout US designers and web companies to compete for the privilege of designing, building and maintaining the site. A popular/voting/polling component could be included to democratize the project. The symbolic effect would be to redirect the field’s cultural focus to America’s artistic commonwealth and away from short-term gains, which has in large measure undermined the value of art for the American people.  The NEA individual artist grant awards could easily and effectively be integrated into the functions of this site. If public voting is a part of the awards procedure, Americans will support it.

As for the question’s second part, the issues raised apply to all Americans, not just artists. The NEA was recently attacked for promoting arts industry advocacy for political activism meant to improve general conditions for all on these very points. NEA must stand up to such attacks. Speaking for myself, I believe artists are uniquely capable of articulating the need for reckoning or change (‘Guernica’ comes to mind) and mobilizing, inspiring people to fight on their own behalf and for the common good. Where possible, NEA must come to the defense of artists who do so. For instance, what public position has NEA taken on Shepard Fairey versus AP versus the originating photographer. The field needs NEA to involve itself in messy problems like this one, if nothing else then as a concerned and reasonable third party, leaning always to the side of arts advocacy and excellence.

DIEM: There should be a clean broker of health care insurance for individual artists…the Endowment and other funders could investigate this and perhaps provide seed funding for the creation of this entity. Premium subsides might be offered to artists who make measurable contributions to their respective communities.

LILY YEH: I would like to see the NEA put priority on supporting the best artists in the way they need, not just supporting the production of art but their way of life in totality.

JAMES: Oh, but what would we artists be without the valuable and hilarious source material provided by full time jobs? I personally think the field has done a good job of setting up artist services. I recall an earlier post on this blog about the NEA being more locally active/present as it relates to local arts councils. I agree that participating in or establishing and supporting local arts councils in as many places as possible would be a great step forward. And then let those agencies respond/provide for the needs of that specific community. I guess I keep coming back to the idea of the NEA being a hub, with an extensive local network of arts councils and regranting organizations doing the field work. Annual in-person convenings could then be combined with a robust online network to get the word out and provide services and visibility for supported projects.

CLAIRE: Artists with preexisting conditions or disabilities cannot support themselves as artists because they can't get health insurance, period. Others can't afford private insurance, even if they can get approved for it, and must keep a day job not merely for income, but for health benefits. A number of the health reform options currently on the table still leave freelancers with preexisting conditions out, and still encourage people to get their health insurance through the workplace. If the NEA were to sponsor an affordable, nonprofit health insurance concern for artists, they would be doing far more to promote the arts in this country than possibly any other program. And yes, it should be open to anyone who makes any income at all from arts, not just elite artists selected by some juried process. This would free up artists to work freelance, a situation many artists prefer because they can work around their creative schedules, and select paying projects that might feed into their practice in terms of skills-building and contacts made. Yes, I realize this suggestion may be obsolete in a week. Let's hope so.
HOMER: I believe there must be many solutions to these layered problems. For instance, I would like to see regional entrepreneurial project incubators, particularly in light of the banking industry's historically poor relationship with artists. Although we are taxed like businesses, on the most part, we are not considered businesses. Similar to project grants, these incubators could leverage private/public funding to support projects that stand at the crossroads of business, art, social service, health, tourism and so on. Engaging and provocative artistic projects that are both challenging and profit making. Creative Capital does some of this now, but I'm thinking of a much larger model.

LILY KHARRAZI: The Endowment as a national body must work in close cohort with other federal agencies to advocate that artists are part of multiple constituencies. Affordable everything can only create a better safety net for creativity to flourish.

EUGENIA: Advocate. Lobby for affordable housing and loans. (Maybe health care too; I hope we’ll get a better national health care system soon.) Work with other public agencies to build the arts into everyday life: This means public education, health and human services; this means using culture as a way to understand this nation, this world. A greater involvement in the arts as audience, practitioner, whether amateur or professional, means a greater valuation of the profession.

RALPH: Health care for artists—and anyone else involved in independent practice--would be huge. As for the other issues, we should be able to negotiate general life issues as well as the general public. In general, artists are a pretty creative and energetic group.

BARRY: What would you like to see the Endowment accomplish? What policies should govern its actions? What should be its priorities? If you were to advise the new Chair of the NEA - Rocco Landesman - on what the agenda for the NEA should be --what would you tell him?

CLAIRE: I've tended to hover around local/regional funding cultures; I'm not terribly familiar with the ins and outs of the NEA's programs and procedures. So, although I know that much of the funding I've been involved with has been regranted from funds originally from the NEA, I feel somewhat distanced, alienated from that organization. That is not necessarily a bad thing, however, it does mean that I don't see the agency as part of my community, nor even as a thought leader.

So what I'd like to see most particularly is real leadership in thinking and discussion about the arts. I'd like to see the NEA take the arts community out of its comfort zone in discussion, and thrust into a more mainstream spotlight, forced to shape shorter and more accessible messages; forced to deal with the arts as they are in the mainstream, and not as the arts elites would have them.

LILY YEH: I would like the NEA to hold on to three important priorities: quality art, art for all Americans, and arts programming in the schools. Policies that keep this focus should govern its actions. The NEA should advocate for the importance of art with Congress to reinstate NEA funding to the level it once was. The NEA has a budget similar to public arts in Canada but serves a population that is ten times that of Canada.

DIEM: The acknowledgment of accomplishment and creation of appropriate granting vehicles, which may be via the Local Arts Agency program. I would ask Mr. Rocco to consider allowing LAA’s to apply for regranting to individual artists.

RALPH: Emphasize the arts in education. This will benefit the entire society. We recognize the value of mathematics and science, even though most of our students won’t be accountants or engineers. Creative thinking and expression are vital to our country’s future.
Also, we should also broadcast the economic benefits of Culture. Right now a large portion of the populace views high culture—particularly cutting-edge culture—as fraudulent. We can counter with solid arguments about the positive economic effects of both “high” and “low” culture on a community.

JAMES: Lose that weird person/hands emerging from a flower logo. Also – NEA iPhone app. What’s happening locally and nationally that I may interested in.

HOMER: The difficulty of this question is that I know the NEA was not created and sustained to suit my needs or interests. It appears as if the NEA has done a great job of doing that for which it was designed. However, if we are talking about what artists need and want, that is something quite different from the organization's general direction. First, I want the NEA and other institutions and individuals that consider themselves as in service to or as supporters of the arts, to be as creative as artists, as thrifty as artists, as risk-taking as artists, as forward-thinking as artists and as inventive as artists in terms of navigating the structural, financial and political storms. For this is indeed your role. We need leaders to lead, and to have vision. When the times get tough, we need tough people to lead. These current times with serious economic challenges, we need to look to our leaders to do what they are supposed to do. Lead. Be inventive. Think outside of the box. Even develop new boxes. With all of the costly and time consuming data that has been gathered, studied and processed on the arts and artists over the past 20 years, some of our solutions have been right in front of our faces for a long time. And mind you, artists rarely if ever have access to this data. So, I urge arts administrators and other arts professionals to use those kinds of external resources and the internal resources that make them special and unique and ultimately qualified to sit in the seat that they occupy. Otherwise, why are they in their positions? Why do they receive the income and resources that they receive? Finally, I think the NEA should continue to support the states, although they aren't necessarily the best at what they do either.

EUGENIA: -- Create and claim a robust and meaningful narrative for the role of the arts in America. Then PR it in a big way, so that we get it, Congress gets it! I’d like to see it as place that can report on the state of the arts in America, that can create a position for the arts in America, that can advocate for the arts (and, ahem, more funding).

-- Promote and fund arts education and access as an essential part of public education -- the inclusion of the arts in required curricula, and more. As a kid in the California public schools I went to the American Conservatory Theatre on a regular basis, a concrete reason why I write plays now. (I also experienced what happened when our property taxes were frozen and the arts were cut.) Arts education does not simply mean a dogged allegiance to what your drawing teaching [?] demands. It means the integration of the arts and creative processes across the curriculum. This means in Calculus class working with a teacher who shows you how to use algorithmic principles to draw, or the making of short documentary videos in history to research and explore the lives of farm workers in your area to teach content, skills, collaboration, and build community. This means working with educational agencies and schools. This means artists working in residence at schools.

-- Increase and investigate ways for people to access the arts. Learn from what artists and organizations are doing. Investigate how different communities keep the participatory arts alive, active, and growing. Disseminate that information.

-- Make sure the agency’s staff gets out of D.C. and visits the different regions of the country, small towns and rural communities as well as cities. Make sure the staff knows what’s going on in the grass roots, especially in smaller organizations, non-institutional sites, in diverse neighborhoods and communities by finding and listening to artists or attendees from these communities. Pay attention to participatory arts.

-- Fund individual artists, especially “emerging” (young or old) and under the radar, who may not be connected to larger organizations. Help partner individual artists with organizations.

-- Fund organizations with small budgets, not just the big guns.

-- Fund failure, here and there.

-- Supplement funding with technical or administrative support, guidance, or training (i.e. how to use Web 2.0 to build audience, marketing, etc.)

-- Allocate a greater percentage of funding to go to local arts agencies to re-grant. They will know more about what’s going on in the region than an office in D.C

LILY KHARRAZI: The NEA is the symbolic jewel in the crown of funding. Its moniker is an endorsement, a validation and a leveraging point for further funding. The idea of a national arts and culture policy is an important declaration for our country and for the world. I would like to see a statement much like what happens when non-profits go through their strategic plans that results in a statement of holding our creative capital as high on the national agenda as every other issue. Here is my list for Mr. Landesman.

1) Declaration of the value of our creative capital as the forefront of a national arts and culture policy.

2) A fall- in- love campaign to reignite the value of live performance and encounters with art in one’s communities. It is a radical idea to present performances to the public for free in these times but what an anecdote to hard times by opening up the doors of major venues, smaller venues, parks and small halls with free performances, all of this funded by private business (perhaps the banks that the voters have generously propped up?). I do not mean just a token day of this but a planned campaign to remind us of how much we do value our creative worlds. There are many unemployed people right now; many disaffected. This campaign of reigniting our national imagination towards creativity through the arts is a gift for all. Give us Shakespeare, Balinese shadow plays, Peal Jam and rhythm tap, mural making, Gullah storytelling, tango, you name it.

3) Encourage the folk and traditional arts sector in every state. There are people who are both practitioners and academics who can assist the state and local agencies with this endeavor. There is a strong cadre of leaders who can provide the expertise needed for sub-granting opportunities to these communities.

4) Work with the state department to bring the world to the citizens of this country and vice versa. Open door policies are artists’ answer to diplomacy.

5) Start each session of congress with a performance. For every dollar spent on defense, can we bargain for 1% of that dollar towards “creation” (art making)?

6) Convene, convene, and convene. We have mentors in this field who have wisdom and young people whose ability to think creatively and without boundaries due to technology who can shake up the paradigm.

PAUL: I will start at the last question and work backwards, because the mission, goals and values of NEA will determine the quality of the Endowment’s accomplishments. First, NEA should require all NEA grant beneficiaries to register voters as an integrated function during any NEA-facilitated event. NEA, rightly or wrongly, must re-establish the broad support and trust of the American people. This gesture would set the proper alignment for the Endowment in relation to the stakeholders and the governmental process that encompasses all. Representation and accountability are the key principles.
As for advising Mr. Landesman, I would suggest that NEA must embrace its leadership role. The Endowment must be willing to define artistic greatness and reward it. Some of the panelists have suggested that it is not appropriate for the NEA to adjudicate questions, such as “What is art?” and “Who is an artist?” I would argue on the contrary that there is no agency in the United States with a clearer mandate to offer value judgments on these questions, provided the agency propose to answer specifically:

• What is American art? And what is the best/great American art?

• Who is an American artist? And who are the best/great American artists?

The answers to these questions will serve to propel the agency to act with focus and effectiveness. The NEA does not have to answer these questions for the world. The Endowment only must answer these questions for the nation. Further, the Endowment does not have to invent the answers from the top-down. The Endowment can choose to trust the American people and integrate evaluation of America’s art from the bottom-up. I would argue this is the only way that NEA can rebuild the trust of the country and garner the people’s steadfast support.

The NEA must evaluate with discernment, in order to encourage individuals to do so for themselves. The evaluation of quality must be treated as the beginning of an exchange process, not as something to be avoided. Otherwise, the public forum is privatized and, as has been demonstrated, the field is relegated precipitously to those driven by profit-centric or other, non-representational motives.
NEA must embark on this mission as publically as possible. I would recommend that the Chairman should be pre-empting negative strikes against himself and the agency by actively engaging in activities that reinforce the Endowment’s leadership role and promote a strong public profile for the figurehead at the top.
To this end I would suggest four programs:
• A weekly radio broadcast on NPR, during which the Chairman discusses art with an accomplished American artist

• The establishment of an online/brick and mortar American arts/artist archive, built on a Hall of Fame model, which contains and promotes documentation of artist lives, words, portraits and studio practices – the National Archive for the Arts (or something similar); aside from strengthening the national cultural memory and establishing an important new arts destination/resource, this project would immediately provide stimulus for the field, including many arts jobs for emerging artists who could be commissioned to gather content

• A US/NEA-hosted international contemporary art fair (like the Venice Biennale), in which American arts are placed in the global context in a spirit of healthy competition. The US/NEA Art Fair would prove (or disprove) NEA’s success in incubating quality US artists and art. Ultimately, the work of US artists must be considered in a global context, not just a global market context, as verification. A ‘People’s Choice’component would democratize the fair, differentiating it from all others. The US/NEA art fair could in part function as a ‘public option’ to events such as Miami/Basel and the Armory Show, which are market-centric in focus, and do not necessarily reflect well on American artists or concerns.

• An Olympics for young (amateur) artists, hosted by NEA to begin with, though ultimately a better outcome would be the formation of an international committee to govern the event, which would take place every four years. This program would remind the world that the US/Democracy has contributed historic innovations in arts practice and continues to be committed to the export of object-based cultural goodwill (Think MoMA’s “50 Years of American Art” in 1955). To use marketing vernacular, a broad consensus suggests that America needs to improve its global brand, and the US/NEA art ‘Olympics’ presents a great opportunity to do so.

More of the Panel 6 discussion tomorrow.

Posted by msaunders at 08:53 AM | Comments (0)

October 12, 2009

NEA FORUM - PANEL 5 - PRIVATE SECTOR / ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY

Hello everybody.

“And the beat goes on.....................”

Scroll down for the Friday, October 16th Wrap UP and the Wednesday, October 14th and Thursday, October 15th entries. To review the previous panels' discussion scroll down and access each entry under the Recent Entries section on the right hand side.

PANEL 5 PARTICIPANTS:

Kristen Madsen - Senior Vice-President – The Grammy Foundation
Terri Clark - Executive Director, The Television Academy of Arts & Sciences Foundation
Cary Sherman - President RIAA (Record Industry Association of America)
Mary Luehrsen Director of Public Affairs & Government Relations, NAMM (The International Music Products Association)

BARRY: The nonprofit arts community has long sought to develop stronger links to, and collaborations with, the ‘for profit’ entertainment industry. Unfortunately, except in a few instances little has emerged from these efforts. Why do you think that is the case? What would motivate the film, music, television and other branches of the entertainment industries to sit down with the nonprofit arts sector and arrive at mutually beneficial goals and specific actionable strategies to achieve those goals?

TERRI: I think like so many things this comes down to a matter of process. And the natural human process is that we tend to operate in silos or have tunnel vision, so steeped in what is just in front of us that we can’t see how taking a step back and looking at it from the 10,000 foot view might actually get us to the goal in a more effective manner. And so we just keep plugging away at it, each in our silos. I happen to believe that the motivation to have the dialogue. Here at the Television Academy Foundation we’ve had success in reaching out to non-profit arts organizations and coming up with creative collaborations that help both of us find those mutually beneficial goals. One example is a partnership with Inside Out Community Arts that we developed and a pilot program, Kid Vid, that ensued from the initial conversation about how we might work together to achieve mutually beneficial goals. Kid Vid targets at-risk high school students and strives to teach them video production skills using the artistry of television as a backdrop but also provide students with life skills and exposure to career development paths.

I think the motivation is there to have the sit down and think that some of the organizations on this panel can be great facilitators of the process. But the key to any successful collaboration is finding the win/win scenario and to be very strategic and specific. And to have an understanding of what is in it for the entertainment industries. Perhaps focusing on one or two issues that are very important to them, such as diversity, which is such a critical issue for the industry at the moment and so any collaboration that might help bring possible solutions would be an incentive.

KRISTEN: The common ground between the nonprofit arts and all other industries (for profit or not) is the exploration and application of creativity in its many forms. The historical conversations about collaboration have generally focused on institutional partnerships. But perhaps the most fertile ground for discussion and learning is not between the staff of corporate and nonprofit companies. It is in the brains and actions of the creative people across those industries – composers, architects, technologists, choreographers, video game designers, writers, researchers, inventors and more.

Gather these individuals together and ask:

- What are the commonalities in the creative process across divergent genres and businesses?

- How are innovative ideas moved from concept to reality?

- What external and institutional influences support or stifle innovation?

- The results of the dialogue would surely yield lessons for the arts in terms of how we utilize our current strengths – individually and institutionally – and how we should prepare new practitioners for the future.

MARY: From NAMM’s experience in collaborating with non-profit music service organizations these past several years and through our work with the SupportMusic Coalition, I see progress in developing stronger links between non-profit organizations and the for-profit music industry. The opportunity that NAMM perceived as we developed strategic partnerships and grew the SupportMusic Coalition was finding, and defining, common ground. And I think this is true for many of our music products businesses that are part of NAMM. For us, common ground is grounded in the NAMM mission and our organization’s belief in the power and benefit of music and that all people, most especially children, must have access to opportunities to learn music. Finding common ground and defining achievable goals is part of the process of collaboration. Too often, non-profit organizations seek only financial support and the for-profit sector has limitations – now more than ever. Sincere desire to advance shared mission and common goals is vital – and good collaborations take time, and the talent for listening.

CARY: For starters, it’s probably not surprising that there is a disconnect and occasional tension between more commercial music and those genres that tend to be more associated with the nonprofit arts sector. Whether it’s jazz, folk music or classical, for example, they are all wonderful genres of music with a dedicated base of fans, and occasional crossover opportunities. But they are niche, and that can often pose a real challenge to music companies looking to develop and market music with some potential of widespread appeal. We wish that weren’t necessarily the case, but it is often the reality.

We know that music, among virtually all the art forms, has the greatest ease of entry and (especially so now because of digital models) capability for distribution. An author can write a compelling screenplay but getting it produced is expensive, and requires a multitude of other crafts and skills to bring that work to reality. Moviemaking requires a significant upfront investment to produce even a short film. Not so the case with music. Music can literally be produced by one individual, and now, disseminated virtually and instantaneously.

The nonprofit sector in other fields often serves as an adjunct to the commercial sector and enables new works, new authors, new forms of expression, to help develop and find an audience and financing. That’s a little less important in the music industry. So, it’s probably not surprising that most of the nonprofit work in the music field focuses on the more niche forms of music that need the financial support.

That said, there is certainly potential for the relationship between the music industry and nonprofit arts community to grow and strengthen. Music labels, for example, do have relationships with symphony orchestras and jazz schools, because the latter are the breeding grounds for talent.

You will also find that music industry executives tend to be the biggest benefactors of music education programs. Lots of money is donated by music industry professionals. I, myself, am the chairman of the Board of the Levine School of Music, a truly excellent community music schools servicing the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Like many of my peers, I believe strongly in music education and offering opportunities for kids to make music part of their lives.

So many nonprofit arts programs like Levine do wonderful, essential work. And, understandably, it seems like a lot of the interaction between the commercial sector and the nonprofit arts community is where the latter is seeking funding assistance. That’s entirely appropriate and a logical source. The sad reality of today’s music business is there simply is less money to go around – for everyone. We have shrunk from a $14 billion business (at retail) in 1999 to $8 billion in 2008. Thousands of regular working class musicians have been let go. We’re fighting to survive, and unfortunately, there’s often precious few dollars to support worthy causes.

Despite the differences between the commercial and nonprofit music sectors, there are common interests and rights. Wherever any musician is on the spectrum of distributing music and what model to use, we all should be pro-choice. That is, respect the decision of fellow artists to determine how to market their music. If someone wants to give it away, and the creator makes that choice (not some third-party business or student in a dorm), more power to them. Similarly, if an artist feels strongly about protecting his or her music and holding accountable those who steal it, that choice deserves to be respected too.

Despite issues and occasional differences in perspective, this exercise is a very useful illustration. We have so much more in common than we have differences. At the heart is a love of music, its power and ability to move people. That’s an amazing, extraordinary thing and it can help illuminate more ways to work together.

BARRY: The National Endowment for the Arts theoretically represents ALL the arts – both the nonprofit fine arts as well as the ‘for profit’ popular art forms. But most of its activities, grant making and initiatives center around the nonprofit arts. How might the Endowment better reach out, support and engage the ‘for profit’ arts sector for the benefit of the overall creative economy?

CARY: The NEA could expand its mission beyond the relatively limited scope set forth in its guidelines for the types of music it supports. But so long as it primarily confines itself to narrow niches without significant markets, which is understandable, there won’t be much of a role for the NEA in popular art forms. Given the limits on its budget, that is unlikely to happen.

MARY: I think a shift will occur in that the new NEA leadership comes from the for profit theater production sector – so stay tuned. There seems to be some angst from the traditional non-profit arts sector who rightfully so needs assurances that their service model is understood. One need only compare the price of a for profit theater production with a non-profit arts presenter to understand the difference – two very different business models are represented. I think both sectors would benefit through a new and expanded dialogue and, here I go again, finding common ground for the ways both delivery systems reach and serve audiences needs to be articulated and respected; some technical assistance to grow and sustain arts presenting and service entities could be included by the NEA, including convening and programs about creating, developing and sustaining arts presenting organizations for both profit and public service, non-profit outcomes.

TERRI: First of all, just being invited to participate in a dialogue like this, I think is a big step. I also think that the NEA could support and engage the ‘for profit’ arts sector by focusing on issues that transcend both sectors, like diversity. This is an extremely critical area for the television industry and although there are a number of diversity initiatives within industry companies, it continues to be a chronic problem. A number of the programs we’ve developed at the TV Academy Foundation, whether its our diversity fellowship program, Kid Vid or our student internship program, are trying to help guide and shape the next generation of diverse artists coming into the television industry.

Also as this question points out, the perception is that the NEA focuses on the nonprofit fine arts. It might be very helpful for the NEA to begin a targeted message campaign that communicates that it does represent ALL the arts and is open to supporting and engaging the popular art forms.

KRISTEN: The most relevant strategic adjustment would be to recognize and leverage the arts role in the recent, revolutionary democratization of creativity. The music industry – which has survived ten years of whiplash between the promises and crises forced by technological innovation – is uniquely illustrative of this democratization.

The technologies that have given musicians the ability to record in their home studio, distribute their music without a middleman, and facilitated one-on-one relationships with their fan base has certainly turned the industry’s traditional economic model on its ear. As these technologies have evolved, they have also allowed for an emergence of a musical “middle class,” and encouraged people of all ages, education, and experience level to create, perform, and distribute music.

An exploration of this remarkable participation in creativity will certainly lead to new programs, products and services for both the nonprofit and for profit segments of society. For example, just a few minutes on MySpace graphically demonstrates the need to reframe the discussion on the lack of music education in our schools. Students are finding their way to create and play music, regardless of what’s offered in their classroom. Certainly there are mutually beneficial goals for the arts, entertainment and tech sectors to explore together in that environment.

A second point for exploration is this: the boundaries between for profit and nonprofit organizations in areas outside the arts are being blurred. Social causes that have traditionally been advocated by nonprofit organizations have gained power either by virtue of consumer popularity (AIDS in Africa via the Red campaign) or profitability in their own right (all things “green”). As this has occurred, many for profit corporations have stepped into the domain of nonprofits – sometimes with tremendous success. It isn’t inconceivable, for example, that for profit “green” companies could put the NRDC out of business in 20 years. (For additional evidence of the for profit encroachment into traditionally nonprofit domains, check out the article on For-Profit Development Work in the fall issue of Good magazine.)

BARRY: A major goal of the nonprofit arts sector has been to establish (or re-establish) sequential, curriculum based, Kindergarten through 12th Grade, arts education in the nation’s schools. The ‘for profit’ entertainment sector seems to support that goal. How might the nonprofit and ‘for profit’ arts work more closely together in pursuit of that goal, and what role might the NEA play in brokering cooperation and collaboration in this area?

KRISTEN: It’s perhaps an understatement to say that the American education system is facing overwhelming challenges. We rank 7th of the 20th richest nations in high school completion rates; 13th in college completion rates. On top of that, our high school students’ scores were below average of the 57 countries participating in the Program for International Student Assessment tests. Place those facts against the backdrop of the global development of a knowledge-based economy that highly values creativity and innovation. And then ask yourself if continuing to advocate for the sequential, K-12 arts curriculum, while a critical and worthy goal, by itself seems almost anachronistic.

If the nonprofit arts were to champion their broader role in the discussion of fostering innovation and creativity in our students and our school systems – imagine a Chief Innovation Officer in every school – we could demand a bigger seat at the table than if we limit our discussion to sequential arts curriculum. Isn’t it time for the arts to take up our rightful role in the larger conversation?

A much more bite-size issue, that fits into the for profit-nonprofit nexus is the technology gap, particularly acute in music education. We have a generation of teachers who did not grow up with access to the technology that their students are nimbly and consistently employing. We can simply wait for the next generation of teachers or we can find innovative ways, with the help of industry professionals, artists, students and teachers together to close this knowledge and experience gap today.

Many leaders in for profit industries care about arts education in the schools; even more of them are also parents who care about education reform generally. Finding a way to motivate the nonprofit and commercial sectors on the issue of innovative learning experiences is a remarkable place for the NEA to be engaged.

TERRI: I think the most interesting role here for the NEA is as a convener. Invite everyone to the table that should be part of the conversation and let them discover the collaboration organically. Anything else will be a lot of dialogue with little or no concrete outcomes. The NEA needs to find a way to be that bridge between non-profit and for profit endeavors, which comes out of a true understanding of the mission and goals of each.

CARY: Many prominent artists and music organizations have spoken out in favor of arts and music education. For example, NARAS (a fellow commenter for this blog) is an exceptionally active and commendable organization. So is the VH1 with its Save the Music campaign. These are laudable efforts and, frankly, I’m not sure that formal partnerships between for-profits and non-profits will make much difference in terms of the effectiveness and impact of these efforts. What’s most important is that we all speak out at every opportunity.

MARY: In my view, the NEA’s greatest opportunity for the goal of improving and expanding access for arts education in US schools is to collaborate with the US Department of Education in a clear and goal-oriented way, to establish strong ties with and through the Arts Education Partnership and to set a clear and deliberate and collaborative plan with the DOE and AEP to facilitate state and community-level leadership and commitment to adequate support for high quality arts education teachers and access for every child. This can also include on-going efforts to train school leaders and educators about best practices for arts education as part of the core curriculum and define local and state education reporting about access to arts education. The NEA’s arts education leadership program has made important strides in this area and is hitting the right chords to move access forward – more work is needed. I hope this train stays on its track.

The Panel 5 discussion continues tomorrow..........

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 14TH

BARRY: Some suggest that the nonprofit arts sector is a farm system for the ‘for profit’ entertainment industries. The argument is that many artists and technicians learn their craft in the nonprofit world before moving over to the ‘for profit’ entertainment sector. Do you share this view? Is today's education system and work experience system such that the nonprofit arts play a much smaller role in preparing workers for the ‘for profit’ entertainment sector than they did in the past?

TERRI: Being a non-profit entity in the ‘for profit’ entertainment industry whose mission is to inspire the next generation of the television industry by supporting programs that educate and provide professional and personal skill development, career guidance, and mentoring, I think I would definitely fall into the category that says we’re preparing workers for the entertainment sector. I think the nonprofit arts continue to play a vital role in training and offering up opportunities to develop the artistry and craftsmanship for the entertainment industry than ever before.

KRISTEN: Education and experience paths are far from linear today. At the same time, business leaders looking at the most important business trends through 2020 rate both knowledge management and differentiation high on the list (The Economist Intelligence Unit: Foresight 2020). By “knowledge management,” they refer the areas of business most significantly impacted by innovation, creativity, and interpersonal strengths. “Differentiation” refers to the demand to customize products and services for individual consumers or find other ways to be set themselves apart from competitors.

Something that Yahoo co-founder Jerry Yang said on a panel we presented in conjunction with Americans for the Arts to congressional leaders 10 years ago is perhaps even more resonant today. He said that when he looked to recruit new employees at Yahoo, he didn’t look in the computer science or math departments; he recruited from the arts departments because that was where students learned how to develop their creative and innovative prowess.

It might mean that an education in theater leads doesn’t potentially lead to a career in film anymore. Instead, training and experience in the arts might lead to a career in a creative position in an international manufacturing corporation. There is a remarkable opportunity here for nonprofit arts educators, but also for entrepreneurial and collaboration minded nonprofit arts organizations as well.

CARY: That is true for some niche markets, like classical, jazz and folk, where nonprofits can serve as a breeding ground for music labels that specialize in those areas. But to be candid, at least as it pertains to music, there will often be limitations on potential given the niche music genres.

MARY: NAMM is most interested in promoting and advocating for opportunities for all people to learn and make music. In essence, we feel strongly that every person is innately musical. Talented, creative and highly motivated individuals will find their way on various artistic pathways. With sufficient tenacity and perseverance, the life of a musical artist can be sustained via for-profit or non-profit sectors – and sometimes both (combing teaching for a non-profit community music school and working freelance on gigs and in recording studios, for instance). What matters is access to learning and education in the arts early in life so the opportunity to pursue creative interests in any of the arts – either vocationally or a-vocationally – is part of one’s life in a capacity that meets personal goals.

BARRY: The arts would dearly love to have more public support of ‘A’ List celebrities– to tout the value of the arts to American society, to the education of our youth, to the promotion of tolerance, and to the role American culture might play in foreign relations. Yet, in spite of years of effort, relatively few successes can be pointed to. Are the ‘celebrity’ culture and cultural policy largely incompatible? What should the arts community know about the motivations of celebrities to more effectively attract them as a partner and resource?

MARY: The issue is, with maybe the exception of sports stars, most of the ‘A” list celebrities are IN the arts – actors, musicians, authors, visual artists – and from my experience they are engaged in advocacy as their lives permit. However, the political process is difficult to understand and some artists are not comfortable in the role of advocate and this is very understandable to me – a certain “artists’ freedom” is at the core of what defines an artist and there are also issues of personal space, time and privacy. We have benefited recently by the participation of what I consider “A” list celebs – Robert Redford, John Legend, Linda Ronstadt, Josh Groban – in 2009 US Congressional hearings about the value and importance of arts and arts education including $50mm in economic stimulus funds for the NEA to sustain jobs in the arts sector. Celebrities are passionate about their field and their work as artists; often, they need to feel compatible with an organization that can help them carry a message to policy leaders – and organizations must respect a celebrity’s boundaries and goals for associating with a cause. For NAMM and its WannaPlay campaign and music education advocacy activities, our association with celebrities is a sacred trust that we value highly; again, it is a collaboration around a shared goal.

TERRI: Part of the issue may be that I think the celebrity factor only works if it is organic to the cause and there is a true connectivity. I think the motivations of a celebrity are fairly simple. It comes down to a passion for the message, an effective use of their time, and enhancing their image. When approaching a celebrity, if the arts community can deliver on at least 2 of the 3 it has a chance of engaging them and if brings all 3 to the table then it has a much better chance at achieving the desired outcome.

KRISTEN: There is a finite pool of “A” List celebrities who are being asked to service the entirety of charitable causes – not just the arts. The task is large. I actually think that the arts do quite well in terms of getting celebrity spokespeople behind their cause. Even a quick scan of looktothestars.org, an unscientific gathering of celebrities and their causes, shows 250 celebrities currently listed who actively support the category “Creative Arts.”

Ultimately, celebrities support causes for exactly the same reasons that funders and volunteers do: they have a personal connection to the cause, to the organization or to the person making the request. It’s about figuring out how to make as many of those connections in the process of developing the “ask” as possible.

CARY: This will remain a never-ending challenge for all of us. It’s extremely challenging to generate significant attention to ANY issue, even laudable ones like arts education. Part of it is quite probably the constant, incessant, diverse demands placed upon today’s popular musicians and bands. Demands for their attention are extensive, and there’s no magic formula to penetrating and commanding their attention. If you can get even one “A List” celebrity to pay attention to, and advocate, your cause, take it and be glad for it.

The Panel 5 Discussion continues tomorrow.

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 15TH

BARRY: Do your organizations ever consider how you might collaborate in some way with the National Endowment for the Arts? To what extent is the agency considered a partner or potential partner in your work or planning?

MARY: NAMM has collaborated with the NEA on a few occasions when mutual short –term projects can meet the needs of our shared mission. In 2005, NAMM supported a conference that was part of the White House Conference on Aging that brought forward ideas about the role of music in the creative aging process. NAMM funded music research about creative aging contributed to the dialogue about the role of the arts in community and medical settings. Within the past year, NAMM has collaborated on a conference at the Kennedy Center about the role of disabled persons in the field of arts administration. We have an open and ongoing dialogue with persons at the NEA to stay informed of their efforts and to contribute – ideas, networks and support – as appropriate.

TERRI: Honestly the NEA has not been on our radar but after this series of conversations I think it definitely should be.

BARRY: Would any of your organizations be amenable to a summit meeting to discuss these and other issues as a way of shining a spotlight on the challenges and opportunities for both sectors? How might the NEA go about organizing such a convening?

TERRI: Absolutely! There are many ways but to start but one would be asking panelists from this forum who else they might identify as important participants to invite to be part of the dialogue. Hosting the summit in the entertainment industry’s backyard would be another. Making it easy and familiar for the sector you’re trying to reach always helps. And a focused strategic agenda with actionable items so that everyone feels their time is being used productively is essential.

MARY: In 2008, NAMM hosted about 200 arts and arts education leaders from the Arts Education Partnership at the NAMM Show that takes place in Anaheim, CA in January. Every year, we host national and international music service organizations and their leadership at the NAMM show and would sincerely welcome a collaboration with the NEA to help convene sector or cross-sector participants at this annual gathering of the music products industry. From our experience, NEA staff is effective in identifying key stakeholders and convening thoughtful idea exchange.

BARRY: The nonprofit arts sector regularly seeks financial support and political influence from the entertainment industry. What, if anything, does the commercial entertainment industry seek from the nonprofit arts? What do you think the nonprofit arts have to offer the entertainment industry that they would value enough to increase public and financial support for the nonprofit arts? For example, all artists have an interest in intellectual property rights – as do both nonprofit arts organizations and ‘for profit’ entertainment companies and the writers, directors, authors, musicians, etc. Why haven’t we worked closer together on this and other areas of mutual concern?

CARY: It’s understandable that nonprofits tend to be less focused on public policy issues. They usually have scarce resources and it is not their primary mission. As much as we’d honor and benefit from their support on issues of mutual interest, we understand it can be difficult to organize and bring about.

When nonprofit arts groups are engaged, though, they can be a powerful voice. Look at local symphony orchestras and the music community’s campaign (http://musicfirstcoalition.org/) for a performance right on terrestrial radio (the right for performers to be compensated when music is played on FM/AM radio; every other industrialized nation compensates the performer, not simply the songwriter). When they have engaged, members of these orchestras have been among the most persuasive voices in support of this campaign.

KRISTEN: Bill Ivey has spent a career living, thinking and writing about this subject, most recently in his book, “Arts, Inc.” It’s essential reading for anyone even peripherally interested in this subject.

BARRY: The high tech sector is deeply involved in work related to the arts, especially the media arts. In spite of this involvement, the sector has only a limited direct connection to the nonprofit arts sector. Why is this the case? Is the potential synergy between these two areas largely imagined? What might the nonprofit arts do to engage the high tech sector?

KRISTEN: The synergy between the arts and high tech is no more or less imagined than between high tech and any other industry. There are a handful of “deliverables” that currently remain compelling to consumer product industries, among them: access to a market demographic they desire; access to influential users of the product, and content to make available through their product. If the arts can show they can deliver any of these – or other – desirable resources, a joint venture will emerge.

CARY: The high tech sector is an increasingly important partner in the distribution of all genres of music. For example, some orchestras are offering free downloads of their concerts in order to better connect with audiences. One marvelous aspect of the Internet is that it allows musicians to more easily find and cultivate their fan base, no matter how narrow and niche or mainstream.

There will inevitably be plenty of opportunities for smaller high-tech start ups to develop business models that enable musicians to locate and connect with fans of niche music and help get the message out.

Wrap Up Tomorrow.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 16TH – PANEL 5 WRAP-UP

BARRY: In many ways this was one of the most important panel discussions in this whole NEA Forum, for our ability and success in developing meaningful links and intersections between the nonprofit and the ‘for profit’ sectors will have enormous consequences for the future of the nonprofit arts & culture field in the next couple of decades. As one panelist pointed out, technology is already blurring some of the traditional lines between the two universes and changing long established delivery systems and thus economic models. And beyond the changes wrought by technology in enabling individual artists across all disciplines (to take greater control of the creation of their art, to develop new collaborative opportunities in that creation, and to employ new means in the distribution and access to the finished works) – there are other developments in how the society perceives creativity, and its value and role in the wider economy and education system that mean significant changes in what we in the arts do and how we do it.

I want to note that we made numerous attempts to include more people from the private sector ‘for profit’ industries – entertainment, and specifically high tech companies – into this discussion -- which entreaties, unfortunately, met with little success. This panel was composed principally of those at organizations that have long been our allies and sympathetic supporters – the entertainment industry foundations and industry associations. We earnestly sought high tech representatives – including specifically those from Google, You Tube, Twitter and Facebook, and our experience was disappointing at best. It is virtually impossible to make contact with the right people at any of those or other high tech companies via telephone or email. They all have elaborate gatekeeper systems to insulate them from any sector that might want to explore the possibility of a dialogue with them. Like most of corporate America today, their telephone answering systems and websites discourage the most intrepid of sleuths from ever ascertaining whom at the company might be the appropriate connect person, let alone actually getting to that person directly. I am fairly tenacious in this kind of exercise and have some past experience and knowledge about how to penetrate these barriers, but even I was ultimately no match for the obstacles these companies erect to keep anyone from initiating contact with them. They want to sell you things; they want you to buy what they are selling. Beyond that no matter how big they are they really want you to leave them alone. If something doesn’t originate with them, they have little interest in pursuing it. They pay great lip service to wanting to reach out into communities, but by and large it is only lip service. At times it seems the high tech industry has the same regard (or disregard) for any entity outside its narrow sector that the finance and banking industry seems to hold for most of America – a conclusion echoed by a number of people within our community whose help I sought in trying to get to the high tech companies. I am, apparently, not the only one to have met the great wall.

I was able to identify who I think were the “right” people at each of my target companies – the person in charge of governmental / public policy affairs, or communications at each – but was unsuccessful in identifying a phone number to call or an email address to send a message to. And I tried. We did in the final analysis send each of these people a certified letter, return receipt requested, via the U.S. mail inviting them to participate in this Forum. We got no reply from any of them. I sort of felt a little like I was in a Michael Moore movie.

Now I have no doubt the Endowment Chair, high placed government officials, elected or otherwise, and a slew of prominent corporate leaders (and quite possibly some from our own field with greater credentials and cachet than I have) could probably penetrate these defenses where I could not, and I would hope the arts sector can somehow enlist some of these people to do just that so that we might somehow engage in a dialogue with key high tech companies with which we might have substantial common ground and interests – for our mutual benefit. The reality is we share many agenda items and we can help them as they can help us.

The very fact that it is so difficult to approach these companies is emblematic of a problem for the arts sector. If nothing else, it is certainly testament as to how far on the outside we are, and how far we have to go. These are the type of companies that are rapidly gaining monopolies, at least of the high tech delivery systems for creative output, and if we don’t soon develop a relationship with them, gain access to those delivery systems (in part on terms somewhat favorable to us), and convince them we have mutual interests and that cooperation and collaboration will benefit them as well as us, then we are going to be locked out of some of our own future.

As several panelists noted, there have been, and are now, successful collaborations between the arts and the entertainment industries – many on a smaller, more individualized level. But it occurs to me that perhaps more progress might be made if there was an effort on a grander scale to facilitate this kind of cooperation – ultimately manifesting itself in smaller, more localized projects and efforts. Again this is an area the Endowment might take a lead position in. They are likely our potentially most effective convenor.

Here are some of the points made by Panel 5 participants that I found noteworthy:

• As to more collaboration by and between the nonprofit and ‘for profit’ sectors, three areas of focus might benefit us: 1) Center on issues of mutual concern – we need to avoid just asking for money all the time. What areas do the potential collaborator and we both care about and want to advance? And we should think in terms of the “big” issues as a starting point – thus, for example, the whole issue of diversity is equally challenging and important to many sectors and might be a good starting point for convening and dialogue; 2) Center on creative individuals (instead of institutions) to find both commonalities and understand the process of moving forward; and 3) Center on education as a mutual area of interest.

• As to the NEA outreaching to the private sector more, Cary suggested that the Endowment needs to expand beyond its exclusive focus on the niche art forms to support for popular arts forms as well – if it wants to broaden and expand its representation of the full breadth and depth of creativity. While that might be both controversial and arguable to some, I think his point was that the Endowment needs to find some way to champion both emerging art forms and those fully developed to the point of being mainstream. – both traditional “fine” arts and current “popular” arts. Certainly asking the question how the Endowment might promote and facilitate a ‘bigger tent’ might lead to an interesting and perhaps valuable discourse and exchange of ideas. If, as earlier panels have suggested, the time is ripe for a redefining of the agency, its role and purpose and how it might discharge its responsibilities to the American public, the question of the Endowment itself being a ‘bigger tent’ seems relevant.

• Technology is already changing business, economic, delivery system and other models in both the nonprofit and ‘for profit’ sectors. One only need look at the music industry model – from creation to delivery to the economics to see how dramatically technology has already changed an art form. As one panelist put it: “There are a handful of “deliverables” that currently remain compelling to consumer product industries, among them: access to a market demographic they desire; access to influential users of the product, and content to make available through their product. If the arts can show they can deliver any of these – or other – desirable resources, a joint venture will emerge.”

• The blurring of nonprofit and for profit involvement is also readily apparent in social causes – e.g., the green movement – where the nonprofit mission has melded into the private sector bottom line of profit making. Who knows what kind of marriages might exist between the arts and other sectors. Though, of course, some in the arts may find these marriages a negative, not a positive.

• With respect to Arts Education, Kristen observed that: “Students are finding their way to create and play music, regardless of what’s offered in their classroom,” and further noted that: “If the nonprofit arts were to champion their broader role in the discussion of fostering innovation and creativity in our students and our school systems – imagine a Chief Innovation Officer in every school - we could demand a bigger seat at the table than if we limit our discussion to “sequential arts curriculum” struck me as a newer approach that might yield better results. She continued: “Many leaders in for profit industries care about arts education in the schools; even more of them are also parents who care about education reform generally. Finding a way to motivate the nonprofit and commercial sectors on the issue of innovative learning experiences is a remarkable place for the NEA to be engaged.”

• All four panelists echoed the call for the Endowment to be more of a convenor in bridging intersections between the nonprofit and ‘for profit’ sectors.

• As to recruiting more celebrities as active arts supporters and spokespeople, Kristen pointed out the Looktothestars.org site and its list of 250 celebrities who self-identify as supporters of the creative arts as a place the Endowment might first look if it were to want to have these people play a greater role in mustering support for arts & culture.

Perhaps the time has come for another attempt by the President’s Committee on the Arts & Humanities to try to convene a national group of ‘A’ List celebrities and recruit their star power to our cause. [Harriet Fulbright (former Executive Director of the President’s Committee) and I enlisted the help of Terry Semel (then co-chair of Warners and Vice Chair of the President’s Committee under Clinton) back in the 1990’s and came this close to making a major milestone advance with the entertainment industry – but that’s a whole other blog].

• The idea of a Summit meeting convened by the Endowment with arts leaders and for profit companies in those sectors we wish to engage was supported by our panel and these four contact points are perhaps another good starting point for the Endowment.

Thank you again to the panelists.

Up next: PANEL 6 – The Working Artists (the LAST Panel in this forum). Begins Tuesday, October 20th.

PARTICIPANTS:

Lily Yeh
Claire Light
Lily Kharrazi
Homer Jackson
Eugenie Chan
Diem Jones
Ralph Helmick
James Bewley
Paul McLean

Have a good weekend.

Don't Quit.

Barry

Posted by msaunders at 01:07 PM | Comments (3)

October 08, 2009

CONTINUATION OF FOURTH PANEL - NEA DISCUSSION

Please scroll down for the Friday Wrap Up – and for the beginning of the Panel 4 Discussion. Earlier Panel entries can be accessed on the right had side under “recent entries” – scroll down.

BARRY: There is a growing class of recently retired arts leaders (including some who aren’t yet finished with their careers, but who have moved over to the consultant side of the fence as it were). What role should the Endowment play in maintaining the sector’s institutional memory and somehow capture the lessons learned from this class of leaders for the benefit of the sector’s future leadership? How might it accomplish that?

IAN: I would never presume to assert that emerging leaders have all of the answers. I’m only 29, but even in the last few years as I’ve gotten older I’ve begun to understand just how much there is that I didn’t know at 26, and how much more I have left to learn. So I think our retired and semi-retired arts leaders have an important role to play in guiding the next generation forward and grounding our efforts in historical perspective. Every management team can benefit from having experienced voices as part of it, even if those voices are heard in an advisory rather than supervisory capacity.

What is the Endowment’s most appropriate role? I’m not sure it needs to get involved to too great a degree in this transition, but I think it can start by setting an example in its own hiring practices by putting people with the right combination of experience, skills, vision, creativity, and energy in leadership positions and ensuring that experience levels are appropriately distributed among the teams. The Endowment could also commission an oral history or other research project to record the rich historical perspectives of the retired and semi-retired arts leaders and preserve them for posterity. The next generation of leaders will also need the humility to seek out those perspectives and not get caught up too quickly in their own brilliance. But with that said, I suspect the perspective of elders is more likely to be valued properly when sought out voluntarily or incorporated into a common vision than when dictated from the top down.

SCOTT: Encourage them to write, and speak. This is the time of Web 2.0: teach them to blog, teach them to podcast, and pay them to tour the country speaking at colleges. Disseminate their wisdom.

BARRY: How do we effectively address the need for continuing education and training of the field, and what is the role of the Endowment in meeting this infrastructure need?

CORA: I think the need for professional development for arts administrators is urgent, especially given the impact of the recession on arts funding and organizational staffing and budget reductions. Perhaps the NEA could take the lead by convening Web 2.0 providers, private foundations, and nonprofit service organizations to develop a joint plan for web-based programs and infrastructure to meet that need.

HOLLIS: Building capacity in the non-profit arts and education fields has to take place, especially for mid-size and smaller organizations. The NEA already has excellent strategic planning documents online and these materials could be supplemented with new materials. The NEA should take advantage of the podcasts, webinars and other web-based media to reach out to the field. Organizing regional or arts administration seminars targeted to those individuals and organizations that need additional professional development would be another strategy. This issue would benefit from research and a needs assessment to determine the best use of limited resources.

LAURIE: Trading on the theme of big picture thinking once again, the Endowment can create opportunities for cross sector education among constituents. The arts community must be willing to venture beyond the silos of specific artistic discipline and job function to experience a more holistic, more global world view of arts and culture. As a field, we must learn to stand together and not be pitted one discipline against another or one job function against another. The Endowment can model and exemplify that world view through fostering ongoing regional continuing education in administration, finance, programming, fundraising and marketing that is geared toward working across disciplines as well as across job function. Can’t you just imagine a workshop on the principles of nonprofit finance taught by a dancer or a session on fundraising techniques taught by a musician?

SCOTT: Technology. The NEA should create a portal for the gathering of the wisdom of the past, and the wisdom of the crowd. Allow people to share best practices, publish research, engage in on-line discussions and conference calls. Create a website, pay a moderator to aggregate information and facilitate communication, convene forums. It’s not that hard anymore.

BARRY: Do the programs and services the Endowment currently offers reflect the best use of its money? Do you think the NEA has (is) doing enough to promote and nurture smaller arts organizations and newer, more cutting edge art? What about its support for multicultural arts? What should the NEA do to ensure that it makes provision for these kinds of arts and arts organizations? Where should the proper balance lie between support for traditional Anglo America arts forms, arts expressions and legacies, and arts organizations, and both multicultural arts and newer, more avant garde artistic expressions of younger generations?

JODI: This may be an unpopular position, but I don’t see a role for the Endowment in making value choices about what art is worthy and what isn’t. I am becoming a broken record about this, but I see the Endowment becoming the champion for creativity and the arts in schools; in helping young people of all ages and races have the arts in their lives, so THEY can make the choices about what art is valuable, and what isn’t.

SCOTT: The avant garde is a misnomer. The original meaning of the avant garde was a group of soldiers that were sent ahead (avant) into unknown territory to scout around and the report back to the main regiment. The contemporary avant garde misses that second part – they don’t report back the results of their experiment beyond blowing a raspberry in the general direction, because they aren’t actually trying to discover anything new, they’re just trying to “provoke” people (i.e., get up their noses). The NEA needs to fund people who are truly trying to advance the field. And that means trying new things, yes, but also it also means reflecting on what is discovered and reporting back to the field. I’ve said it before, but artists need to write and speak about the art, not just do it. As far as “support for traditional Anglo American arts forms,” we have quite enough CDs and videotapes of the works of the past, and a long line of foundations willing to support tradition; the NEA needs to fund the present and the new. If they had a ton of money (the fantasy billion mentioned in past conversations), then sure, be balanced; but when you’ve got a few measly bucks, spend it on the arts of today, and make sure something remains from our society other than reruns of Friends.

DOUG: I think the NEA is largely trapped in a model built for a different time. Ask any of these questions individually above and the answer is probably no. Ask them together, and it's clear that answering no is an impossibility. Too much. Too complex. Too difficult. I'm not sure you can balance it all. I'm not sure that you can have effective impact while trying to do it all. But it's not clear how you do less than all and make hard choices. By the current NEA definition, it will always be inadequate. It will always be chasing and be behind. There needs to be a better overall strategy for a federal agency for the arts. It can't just be Santa Claus to really make an impact.

IAN: As I mentioned before, I think the Endowment could do a better job distributing its resources to organizations of all sizes. There is really no reason for the NEA to be giving $50,000 grants to organizations with budgets in the tens of millions of dollars. It’s just another check off the list for those development departments. On the other hand, even a $5,000 grant could have a transformative impact on an organization with a smaller budget, and the vast majority of arts organizations fall into that category. Furthermore, I’m not convinced that the current discipline-specific structure really makes the most sense for the field, particularly as more multidisciplinary work and organizations appear and as genre boundaries between what has historically been considered “art” and multicultural, commercial, and vernacular forms of creativity become ever more blurred. I keep coming back to this point, but as the national funder for the arts in America, I really think the Endowment should focus most of all on maintaining and building the infrastructure that makes cultural production and consumption possible, leaving the specifics of what art gets produced when by whom to others who are in a better position to judge. The decentralized support to state and regional arts agencies is a good example of this infrastructure-oriented funding in practice. Specific programs to subsidize presenters of various sizes, competitions, record labels, distribution networks, technology platforms, community cultural planning efforts, research, and service organizations would help as well. But the Endowment should be vigilant in ensuring that an appropriate portion of these funds ends up ultimately helping artists, rather than arts administrators and for-profit consulting firms. Even though I am generally in support of unrestricted funding, then, there may be instances in which the NEA’s project-based support is more appropriate; and I would also advocate for the establishment of a robust evaluation department to assess program effectiveness using tools from the NEA’s 21st-century peers in the philanthropy community.

MARCY: I have always felt, as a public funder and working for private foundations, that public agencies need to support the work that represents the multiplicity of people we are trying to serve. Here in California no arts funder can claim their audience reach mirrors the demographics of our state. Is that a good goal? We don’t have all the voices at the table. We’ve been working on that one since I was born in 1964. And something that was significant in the conversations around the planning table at the Department of Cultural Affairs in Los Angeles last year rings even more true in this downturn. The dollars for the arts are limited, yet the potential role of the arts is ever expanding. How can we work with our sister public agencies – education, health and human services, senior services, HUD, community development to meet mutual goals?

SHANNON: I do not believe that increases in NEA allocations should automatically be directed to specific programmatic regranting dollars for states and regionals. At WESTAF we are always looking for ways to assist the field by experimenting with new models to respond to the rapid changes in arts participation. Yet, regranting funds often come with strings that preclude us from exploring new avenues. I would love to see a pot of money that required us to try something new and think big. How about some type of venture-capital approach whereby we competitively fund organizations that want to experiment with developing new streams of earned income? Or a program to provide seed money to organizations that want to initiate some type of "on demand" web-based presence for their performances or exhibitions? What would a grant program look like that supported new participatory models, such as garage bands, knitting circles or "spontaneous" DIY arts programs?

On another note, I think that the NEA should expend significant resources to develop a new, contemporary cultural policy for our nation, one that responds to new technologies, evolving ways in which people participate in the arts and the shift in audience behaviors. Also, I would recommend that the NEA devote resources to working with state arts agencies and state legislatures to explore the next generation of arts policy, including creative-economy based economic development principles, cultural tourism opportunities and other ways in which the arts can help provide solutions for the pressing issues of the day.

BARRY: Has the Endowment done enough to nurture, protect and foster greater development of multicultural arts, and what might it do to support those legacies and create greater access to those cultural heritages?

DOUG: Of course not. Culture is fragmenting in all sorts of interesting niches. The NEA has admirably worked to expand its multicultural focus. Doing that without expanding funding means that there's less for legacy arts. This is problematic for that sector. Even so, there is such an explosion of cultural niches - and not just split in terms of ethnic culture, but online culture and cultural which we now have access to because of technology - that the NEA influence grows dimmer with each year. Has the NEA kept up with new ways culture is produced, delivered, and consumed? Nope. But who has? My question is: has the NEA pondered the implications of the profound cultural shifts going on right now and what that will mean for how we fund and support culture? The line between non-profit/for-profit is awfully blurry these days and the implications in these changing business models for culture will have large cultural implications. I think the NEA in its current form is too diluted.

JODI: This is an interesting question, and one that I am going to frame in my background in international studies. Cultural exchange isn’t high on many people’s priorities in today’s day and age, but the argument could be made that we have a greater need than ever before to understand our world and the cultures that make it function. Taking it all the way back to arts education; while creativity is going to become increasingly important for the future American workforce, multi-cultural understanding is at least, if not more, important. I see a possible role for the endowment in partnerships with other federal and international agencies to leverage arts that promote cultural understanding and dialogue.

CORA: The creation of the Endowment’s Expansion Arts program, as Frances Phillips said earlier, was arguably one of the most significant funding programs ever created to lift up multicultural issues and community arts organizations nationwide. So we know that the NEA can have a profound impact on changing the arts landscape in this country. But changing demographics and the reality that many culturally-specific arts organizations founded in the 1970’s are now struggling with leadership transitions, audience shrinkage and inadequate working capital have upped the ante – the question of how to build something new is now looking at how to fix something broken.

Here are a few starter suggestions:

• Support a research agenda that provides trend data on organizational, audience and artistic impacts from changing demographics.

• Convene multicultural arts leaders nationally to start a dialogue about the best ways to preserve the work of their organizations, and preserve institutional legacies, which may also entail the planned shuttering of some organizations.

• Create a national challenge grant program to help jump-start and revitalize local support for multicultural arts organizations.

HOLLIS: I do not know the proportions of funding among the NEA programs and the spread of funding among types of organizations. However, the Endowment can play a crucial role in supporting organizations of color, which in some communities are now or will be the dominant cultural expression. Often the greatest challenge for these organizations is receiving the first recognition from the NEA or state arts agency, which in turn serves as leverage for private fundraising. As I wrote earlier in the week, the question for the NEA is where it can have the greatest impact with its limited dollars. Governments lean toward the peanut butter funding policy – that is spread funding as evenly across the constituency to reach per capita allocation requirements to place funding in every legislative district. That functions fine with non-discretionary funding based on population or demographics, but not for a discretionary grant making process with matching requirements.

I believe that one of the NEA’s goals should be to shore up and support “multicultural organizations” - an outdated term. This whole country is a crazy quilt of cultural backgrounds and heritages. The sooner we realize and embrace that the more effectively the NEA can allocate limited resources. If the NEA strives to improve those organizations that have less access to private fundraising dollars and may be located in under resourced communities, it can improve the quality of life and also showcase art forms representative of that community. There are many tactics to address this need, through direct funding or earmarked allocations to state or local arts agencies that can be re-granted at a local level. There are creative examples of partnerships have been forged between established and emerging arts organizations that could be mined for promising practices. The Endowment should pilot community development projects centered around arts organizations, work/live space for artists, education programs for students and adults, and links with local businesses. A holistic approach with multiple partners places the arts and culture in the real world rather than being isolated.

LAURIE: Schools are hungry for authentic multicultural artistic experiences. Educators can readily see the value of using multicultural arts to bridge differences in culture and language. What better way for students to understand how the human experience transcends culture when presented through a multicultural artistic lens? The Endowment, through its vision for quality and equity for all students, can provide access to these cultural heritages.

SHANNON: I do not see a lot of explicit support for multicultural arts coming from the NEA; however, these communities are most likely served through their folk life programs and abstractly through their regranting awards to partners such as Regional Arts Organizations and State Arts Agencies, under the aegis of “underserved” communities. Now, that definition is quite broad, so the support of multicultural communities is left to the discretion of the regranting agency. I also take a bit of exception to the verbiage of "underserved," in that it places multicultural communities and arts practitioners in a victimage stance. Rather than celebrating the tremendous offerings of our nation's multiplicity of cultures, they are defined as underserved, implying that their artistic needs or practices are somehow "other."

One of the things that I have observed in some multicultural communities (and I am not intending to generalize), is that artistic practices are often ingrained into their culture in ways that would make the "traditional" arts administrator blush. Storytelling, dance and craft can be a way of life for many multicultural communities--and the thought of receiving federal support for those activities might be anathema--but yet, that is where a lot of the vibrant activity lies. What might the NEA's role be in promoting these multicultural activities? I don't know. The NEA must be sensitive to the appearance of co-opting these practices. Further, one could anticipate a loud cry from the anti-Affirmative Action crowd if the NEA were to be explicit in its support of multicultural arts. (Not that they should cow-tow to the screamers, but--as I mentioned before--the last thing the NEA needs at this moment is a rehash of the Culture Wars.) As a federal agency, the NEA's constituents are the citizens of our country--including the wealth and breadth of our multicultural communities. As such, these constituencies should be served by the NEA--how such a program might be shaped is certainly open for healthy debate.

MARCY: I think this about the broader cultural universe as well. Past, present and future, there is a diversity of expression that exists wholly outside of our 501© 3 arts universe. How can that work be supported, what do those artists need and want, how can we hold this up as an equally American art to the work we support in 100 year old institutions. There are a myriad of mechanisms. In my view the first step is a shifting in our frame of reference.

SCOTT: There are many cultural heritages in America that are being ignored, but we tend to define multiculturalism almost exclusively in terms of race. Where are our great rural works of art? Our arts are dominated by urban themes and images. Where are our working class works of art? Our arts are dominated by educated, middle-class elites. I could go on, but you get the picture: if you promote diversity of all kinds, it benefits the arts. Yes, Rocco, that means geographical diversity too.

Thank you all very much for another lively discussion.

Wrap-up tomorrow.

Friday, October 9th - Panel 4 wrap up

BARRY: Another insightful Panel with much to think about. Here are a few of the points made by panelists that struck me as needing more thought. Doubtless there are many more that will resonate with me (and you) on a second or even third reading:

• I don’t agree nor disagree with Doug McLennan’s belief that Arts Education really isn’t as essential to an overall education as we have made it out to be. I find that assertion disturbing, but challenging and the question looms out there and ought to be addressed. Can the NEA help to improve that shortcoming by helping to establish standards for teaching the arts – I think they could. But should they, will they – I don’t know.

• Ian thought we should consider the problem of offering too much arts education given that the American economy does not now support but a fraction of the number of the artists we have.

• Hollis suggested changing the nomenclature to drop ‘arts education’ in favor of ‘arts learning’, and added that all education is local and that is where the battles are really waged. Other panelists similarly suggested we talk about ‘creativity’ in the wider sense when we discuss arts education. And I think they have a very valid point.

• Another panelist opined that the NEA needs to help to better align various factions and forces within the arts education community and might do so by promoting interagency collaborations and public / private partnerships. We are not of one mind when it comes to arts education.

• A common theme was that NEA might convene arts and education people in a national forum, and should be proactive in establishing a relationship with the Dept. of Education to more actively involve that agency of the federal government.

• A split remains as to direct funding of artists. Some decry the absence of the NEA in the more public arena of arts policy as it relates to artists – including intellectual property, media company policies and regulation formation and argue that the direct funding of artists can’t happen without a wholesale rethinking of the role of the Endowment vis a viz artists in the broader context.

• Some talked about the relationship of artists to arts education and offered that funding support for that intersection is a way to avoid controversy and still accomplish the twin goals of supporting artists and arts education.

• Another lamented the absence of any Endowment program to recognize the contributions specific artists make and in so doing honor the role of the artist in our society.

• Others thought the current system of funding organizations - which in turn fund artists - still works best on multiple levels – operationally, practically and politically.

• While there is some agreement that we need to do something to train, mentor and educate emerging leaders so as to cultivate some business acumen and management skills sets of the coming generations of leaders, there is no unanimity on how that might be accomplished. Some panelists thought we might build on current successful field attempts to support emerging leaders, others thought the Endowment might again play its convenor role.

• It was noted that the field’s failure to make room for next generation leaders with vacant slots that they might graduate into is creating a problem and that it threatens to push younger leaders to other fields, or to start their own organizations within the arts sector.

• Shannon noted that if the next generation opts for starting their own organizations as an alternative to limited spots in the current infrastructure, we are likely to repeat the current problem of founders overstaying their tenure and we will then end up with yet another situation in which the next generation down the line again has no positions open to them.

• Some thought the development of the next generation of arts leaders was a job best left to the Board of individual arts organizations. Others thought the NEA could reward exemplary leadership training where it found it.

• No one thought the arts are really doing enough to protect and nurture the various multicultural artistic communities in America – though no one was criticizing the Endowment’s efforts in this area. I liked Scott’s point that we need to think beyond ethnicity in thinking of serving the diversity of cultural heritages – which should include underserved heritages such as the rural arts tradition.

• Schools might be a ripe opportunity for the Endowment to promote diversity in cultural heritage thought one panelist.

• Cora thought the Endowment’s research on audience trends, coupled with convening the field to think about the multicultural support challenges and instituting challenge grants would all help in this area.

As to advice for the Chairman – there were some common themes, including:

• Develop better, deeper working relationships and collaborations with other federal agencies, and with other sectors.

• Address the needs of the arts infrastructure – the organizations that make up the arts ecosystem – including the full breadth of the smaller organizations.

• Be a convenor

• Think in terms of the big picture, and perhaps rethink the agency’s involvement with artists and how, as an agency, it can really best serve artists. Another says don’t focus on the artists or arts organizations at all – but focus on the public and its relationship to art – and that would include newer artistic expressions

• Focus on creativity.

• Develop a real cultural policy

• Recognize the meta trend towards individual control of art via high tech options and develop a strategy for the endowment to play a role in that tectonic change of moving towards project based creativity and away from institutional controlled creative processes.

• Strengthen the state and regional infrastructure system that already exists – it is the backbone of the future of NEA support

• Use the web to help better train arts administrators.

• Several thought funding ought to be directed less exclusively to major established cultural organizations and more to newer artistic expressions, or at least a wider representative sampling of current American communities. Others thought less funding should go to specific arts programs or projects and more to the infrastructure itself and let that system make the granting decisions.

Thank you Panel. And thank you all for following along.

PANEL 5 – Private sector entertainment industry representatives set to begin Tuesday, October 13th.

PARTICIPANTS:

Kristen Madsen – Senior Vice-President – The Grammy Foundation
Terri Clark – Executive Director, The Television Academy of Arts & Sciences Foundation
Cary Sherman - President RIAA (Record Industry Association of America)
Mary Luehrsen - Director of Public Affairs & Government Relations, NAMM (National Association of Music Manufacturers)

Have a good weekend.

Don’t Quit.

Barry

Posted by msaunders at 09:10 AM | Comments (0)

October 06, 2009

NEA FORUM - PANEL 4 - Arts Ed, Emerging Leaders, Consultants, Artists Services & Bloggers

Hello everybody.

“And the beat goes on................”

PARTICIPANTS:

Jodi Beznoska -Vice President of Communications - Walton Arts Center
Ian David Moss - Blogger Createquity.com
Shannon Daut - Deputy Director, WESTAF
Neill Archer Roan - Independent Consultant
Marcy Hinand Cady - Principal Hellicon Collaborative
Doug McLennan - Founder / Publisher ARTS JOURNAL.com
Cora Mirikitani - Director Center for Cultural Innovation
Hollis Headrick - Arts, Education and Philanthropy Consultant; former Director New York State Arts Education
Dr. Scott Walters - Associate Professor of Drama - University of North Carolina at Asheville
Laurie Schell - Executive Director, California Alliance for Arts Education

NOTE: Scheduling problems arose for Steven Lavine and Andrew Taylor -both of whom were scheduled to participate, but, unfortunately, could not.

SCROLL DOWN for the WEDNESDAY ENTRIES, and for the previous panel discussions.:

BARRY: What will it take for the arts to finally move arts education to an equal level of support and respect with math and science – in the minds of educators, politicians, business & industry, parents, the media and / or the general public and what specifically do you think the NEA can do to help us reach the goal of K-12, sequential, curriculum based, arts education for all students?

DOUG: I actually really hate the premise of questions like this. They assume that there is some "right" or obvious "value" to some generalized, and usually ill-defined category of "arts education." Scientists I know lament that science education isn't given its due in schools. The plain and simple truth, I fear, is that for whatever reason, arts education as a category (and how do you even define such a thing, really?) has not made a good enough case for being essential to the constituencies that make decisions about education. Perhaps this is the problem right here - trying to make a case for a sector rather than for specific excellent things. Too much "arts education" is dull and uncreative. Too much comes out of a place of missionary zeal for something that's supposed to be good rather than something that truly is. We're WAY too uncritical of the ways we have tried to teach the arts, and maybe understandably so. Who wants to attack something for being insufficient when to do so might destroy the ability to have any instruction in the arts itself. But the result is that bad programs with poorly-defined goals get a pass, and, in my opinion, arts education as a cause suffers. There are some brilliant programs out there. We need to celebrate those, help them thrive, help them spread. But we also have to stop pretending that all arts education is great. That it cures cancer. That it is essential. Truth is - in the wider world, it isn't essential, in many people's experience. To keep saying it is essential without making a better - and specific - case for how, is counterproductive.

As for the NEA. The NEA? Absolutely they should have a role. But if that role is just to promote the general "goodness" of arts education, it's a failure. If the NEA is a government policy-setter for cultural policy (and I'm not so sure it is at all ready to play that role) then it ought to be knee-deep in helping to articulate standards for what excellent arts education looks like. It could play a leading role in this. But again, I'm not sure that it's interested in that kind of cultural policy role.

LAURIE: We should keep reminding ourselves that the primary responsibility for the provision of a quality education, which includes the arts, lies within the education agencies—local, state and federal. That said, we must also recognize that the Endowment, along with scores of public and private local and state arts agencies, have succeeded in keeping many arts programs alive in public schools during times of economic distress. In California, there are signs of a shift in public perception about the value of arts education, even as education funding plummets and a crisis mentality persists. The public, with parents in the forefront, has made it known that they want a quality education for their children, one that includes the visual and performing arts. We see evidence of this in California with the passage of the historic Arts and Music Block Grant funds of $105 - $109 million in 2006, 2007 and 2008. In the PSA announcements from the state’s largest teachers union, which decry the loss of arts programs in an attempt to gain more funding for education. In the stories from local advocates who have successfully lobbied to save their elementary music programs. The perception is out there—the arts are an essential part of a quality education.

Perception and reality are, unfortunately, two different things. The gains in public acceptance can be offset when an “either/or” argument is put forward, forcing choices between PE and the arts, between math textbooks and arts supplies, between reading at grade level and participation in theatre coursework. Repeat after me: A complete education, which includes the arts, is about “both/and” not “either/or.” Reading, music, math, dance, science, physical education, history, theatre, media arts, foreign language, visual arts. It’s all important.

We need to continue to address the issue on multiple fronts—through national, state and local policy, local community advocacy, partnerships between schools and arts organizations, better pre-service education for generalist teachers, leadership development for school administrators, relentless exposure in the media, deeper relationships with the business community, to name a few. Everyone has a role. No one sits this one out. As an “outsider” agency in terms of the education establishment, the Endowment can use that status to drive a conversation that addresses how we can create a system of shared responsibility, or reciprocal accountability. Reciprocal accountability not only holds schools and teachers responsible for student performance, but also federal, state, and local educational agencies for ensuring that schools have adequate capacity and resources to provide strong instruction to all students.

The Endowment, along with the other national public and private agencies—including the Department of Education, Americans for the Arts, Arts Education Partnership, the Kennedy Center, and others—can also model what it means to be a coalition of allied stakeholders, to clearly define, understand and support the roles of each coalition member. Take a leadership role when necessary and play a supporting role at the appropriate moment. The Endowment is in a position to use its prominence and visibility to convene stakeholders from the education, arts and business communities, to drive the dialogue about partnerships and shared responsibility, and to be a force for change.

MARCY: Arts education is definitely not our specialty here at Helicon but we do support it strongly. The direction I would take in thinking about arts education is beginning to move the public discourse around creativity and art making. In order to have broad public support for the arts, and arts education, we have to redefine what art is and begin to acknowledge the broader cultural universe – the non 501 © 3 activity, the web-based activity, the garage bands, and culturally specific work that takes place in church basements, the 20 somethings that have gallery shows of each other’s work. It is a broad and diverse universe and we need to effectively acknowledge and bring under the tent the diversity of expression that is out there. Participation in the arts is waning, yes, in our self-proclaimed arts institutions, but participation has never been higher as Alan brown in California’s Inland Empire and the folks at the Social Impact for the Arts project in Philadelphia. Now how to make the bridge to the education field? Wallace just gave Harvard University $10 M to provide a free ride PhD program to 25 promising students who want to reform the education system in America. Has anyone talked to the Harvard School or Education (or the people at Wallace) about how the arts will be infused into the curriculum, and/or this program?

CORA: I think CCI’s recent work with the City of San Jose and Kerry Adams-Hapner in the Office of Cultural Affairs was instructive in showing how artists, and arts education, can be directly linked to the economic goals of a city. San Jose initiated a program called the Creative Entrepreneur Project led by a civic leadership committee coming from government, high tech, higher education and the arts. The basic assignment was to find out how artists and “creative entrepreneurs” could be attracted and retained as part of the creative workforce for Silicon Valley.

Over the course of a year, we produced good baseline survey research, initiated entrepreneurial training for artists in cooperation with the City’s Work2Future program, organized a citywide convening of artists to inform and help mobilize them, and developed a menu of program and policy options for the City to consider covering housing, live/work, zoning, transportation, tourism, education and other potential strategies that could better support the arts workforce. If the NEA could help to position arts education as a key strategy to improve the business and economic health of cities, because it produces the creative entrepreneurs that will drive the future workforce, I think arts education priorities might shift and the whole tenor of the debate could change.

JODI: Before I begin, I’d like to say what a delight it is to be able to contribute to this dialogue. I am humbled by the ideas and expertise shared so far.
Back to the question. This is by no means a comprehensive solution, but I continue to be fascinated by an idea advanced at an American Assembly convening in 2004 entitled “The Creative Campus: The Training, Sustaining, and Presenting of the Performing Arts in American Higher Education”. I am paraphrasing, but the general idea is that if institutions of higher education required “arts” (define as you will) as an admissions requirement, elementary, secondary and high schools would need to develop structures that ensure arts education and participation. Obviously there are many details to be discussed here, but the idea of driving arts education from the top down is interesting.

As for what the NEA could do, many of the previous contributors mention the NEA’s potential power as a convener. It would certainly be interesting to convene the leaders of higher education in America to discuss their role in arts education. My apologies if this already occurs and I’m unaware of it.

SCOTT: Peter Hero said it nicely in Week 1 of this discussion: we “should focus on CREATIVITY, the currency of the 21st Century…the link between science and the arts is creativity… both artists and scientists teach us to see the world in new ways.” This means teaching young people to develop their own independent sense of innovative problem solving, teaching them to be aware of techniques for tapping into their own creativity, and not simply teaching them to be compliant to the vision of their arts teacher. Too much of our arts education is focused primarily on creating a product (a musical, a concert), and not enough on sparking young peoples’ imaginations and encouraging them to take charge of their own creativity. Yes, that’s dangerous – who knows what young people will come up with? But if you want the public to value the arts enough to insist that arts education be part of the curriculum, then the centrality of creativity and innovation must be emphasized over compliance.

SHANNON: I am by no means an expert in the arts education slice of our field; however, I am the product of a childhood steeped in the arts—through both formal arts education as well as informal artistic training (piano lessons, church choir and the like).

Honestly, I don’t know if arts education will ever be perceived as equal to math and science training, due to the fact that our culture places such a pre-eminent value on the “hard sciences.” That said, I do think there are strategies that can be employed to merge the significance of arts education with the goals of creating a competitive U.S. scientific workforce. At a recent WESTAF symposium on the Creative Economy and Economic Development, Kwang-Wu Kim, Dean of the ASU Herberger College of Arts, commented that the United States will never be able to compete with the sheer volume of scientists and researchers in China and India, but we can compete by developing higher quality science professionals, and that this competitive advantage can be realized through integration of arts education and stressing the importance of building up this field to provide creative solutions to the scientific issues that our country—and the world—faces. As “innovation” seems to be becoming the new buzzword in our national conversation, the arts education field needs to be out-front with the message that innovation can best be developed through a strong artistic and creative educational framework.

The NEA can play an important role by establishing a formal partnership with the Department of Education in order to develop a national policy on arts education. Arne Duncan, the Secretary of Education, appears to understand the significance of arts ed, and could be a strong partner to develop new standards that will help this country realize its goals of innovation through a strong educational policy that includes arts and creativity as a core component.

NEILL: I doubt that there is anything the arts can do to foster respect and support for arts education that equals that for math and science, especially among such a broad array of stakeholders. While many of us might believe that this is a noble goal, we may be better served to work towards more feasible goals.

The NEA is an infinitesimal agency in the overall scheme of governments. It can research publish, and convene to help move arts education forward, but as a small federal agency it is unlikely that city, county, and state governments - let alone local school boards - will welcome anything perceived as more Federal educational policy mandates.

IAN: This is surely not going to make me the most popular guy in the room, but I think that it’s really, really important that we have an industry-wide conversation about the long-term implications of increased arts education before we just assume that more arts education is a good thing. Before you call me out as the Grinch who stole music classes, let me explain. I think that the conversation about arts education is inseparable from the conversation about the professional arts infrastructure in America. The reason is simple: the kids who fall in love with learning to play the tuba or do a pirouette today are the adults who are going to be competing with each other for gigs and grant money tomorrow. If we are successful in our efforts and ensure that every child has the opportunity to experience all the arts they want to during their formative years, what happens to them once they get to college? The arts are a powerful drug, as addictive as nicotine for some. The arts encourage people to dream big, and we’ve developed a post-Baby Boomer culture in America that tells children to follow their dreams no matter what obstacles they encounter. That’s fine so far as it goes, but there needs to be a pot of gold on the other side of that rainbow. When music conservatories, playwriting programs, schools of art—institutions whose ranks and capital budgets have been swelling apace in recent years—blithely charge marginal students tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars and fail to offer them even the pretense of “real life” entrepreneurship skills, that’s as close to third-sector malpractice as it gets in my opinion. A recent poll of Harvard graduates from the class of 2009 revealed that 16%—more than any other industry—considered the arts their “dream field” that they would pursue absent other considerations (6% actually are pursuing careers in the arts). If we’re trying to hook 55 million children on the arts in a system that pours 3.2 million new high school graduates into the market every year, even if only 10% of them decide to pursue professional careers, what happens to them when, by the NEA’s own figures, only 2 million artists can coexist in that market at any given time?

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t have arts education or that students across the socioeconomic spectrum don’t deserve access to it. But I do worry that focusing our efforts on arts education is an example of putting the cart before the horse. Much of the literature that advocates arts education as a strategy for cultivating demand for the arts assumes that students who have invested thousands of hours of their lives in perfecting a craft during their formative years will happily set all of that aside as soon as they turn 18 and 21, become productive members of society with skills that they somehow picked up while practicing piano for four hours a day, and donate all of their expendable income to their local arts organizations. Really? Don’t you think that some of them might be a little bitter about having to leave their dream behind? Don’t you think some of them might continue on and spend their parents’ life savings on three graduate degrees in a quixotic quest for fame and glory that never materializes? Is this the best use of our collective human capital? Before we lean too hard on a strategy that, if successful, is virtually guaranteed to pour legions of new aspiring professional artists into the system, we need first to resolve the chronic under capacity issues that plague that system, starting with significantly increasing the supply of philanthropic capital (whether government or private) available to the arts field.

HOLLIS: This is a two-part question; the first is about advocacy and public engagement and the second is about program design. It’s useful to make a distinction about the term “arts education” because very few arts organizations funded by the Endowment provide arts education, which typically means sequential arts instruction taught by certified visual art, music, dance and theater teachers. The NEA supports a broad range of arts groups to collaborate with schools using many different program designs depending on the context of the community, the organization and its school partner(s). My preference would be to change arts education to “arts learning,” which provides for a much wider interpretation of learning in and through the arts, from arts instruction to arts integration.

The NEA can improve its collaboration with US Department of Education (USDOE) so that Endowment programs reinforce the key messages and policies from the USDOE that support arts learning. Arts learning, imagination and creativity should be linked when communicating to the wider public, the Congress, and administrators. In general, the public and Congress view arts education/learning too narrowly, usually referring to school-based programs with an arts specialist. However, through research about the brain and arts learning and we know much more now about how young people and adults learn and the vital role that the arts play in fostering cognitive and affective skills and attitudes. While the arts benefit students intrinsically by learning an arts discipline, they also learn other valuable skills such as persistence, discipline, using materials, collaboration, and of course exercising their imagination. Imagination and creativity are two values that are vital to a healthy and inquisitive student and for a creative and flexible employee in the business or non-profit world.

As other panelists have noted, the NEA must shape its priorities and funding strategically, selecting initiatives and programs that can leverage the greatest benefit. The Endowment alone cannot mount an effective campaign to support arts learning because it does not have sufficient resources and because it is trapped inside the beltway, even though is has dedicated staff and a network of arts education projects it funds. As your readers should know, all education in the US is local. There is no national arts curriculum, although there are voluntary national standards and benchmarks in the arts that have been developed by the music, dance, theater and visual arts national organizations. Many of these comprehensive standards provide the framework for state standards in the arts.

The most difficult issue for advocacy is that the arts education field is composed of many players who have different agendas, so it is very difficult to create a strategic communications plan and action steps to promote the importance of arts learning. Arts education is driven by state policy, schools, cultural organizations, and funders. Frequently these sectors are not aligned, leaving the most important beneficiary, the student, with inadequate school arts programs or projects with cultural organizations that sometimes articulate with the school curriculum, but often serve as enrichment. Here is quick list of arts education/arts learning action steps for the NEA.

• Expand current effective interagency collaborations with the White House, USDOE and seek like-minded administrators in other government agencies to address student achievement. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan recently sent a letter to the arts education community voicing his support for arts education. Whether that support yields tangible results in the climate of high stakes testing remains to be seen.

• Develop strategic public/private partnerships with organizations to align key messages about the value of arts learning for a well-rounded education. This includes groups that bridge the various sectors of arts education like the Arts Education Partnership, as well as state arts agencies, state alliances for arts education, and professional organizations.

• Continue the NEA Arts Education Leadership Initiatives that bring together state arts agencies, key arts organizations to push for congruence of goals, programs and standards at the state level.

• Support programs that put students at the center of quality teaching and learning. Demand that schools make a financial commitment to partner with an arts organization. If a school or district does not have “skin in the game,” they are unlikely to invest in the program over a multi-year period. Offer multi-year support for the best programs. It is unlikely that learning will stick with students and teachers without two or three years of funding.

• Internally, align the NEA arts education program initiatives more productively with other programs to reinforce the link between well-educated young people as vital to the health of communities large and small, and as potential audience members and supporters. Research shows that if students learn an art form and are comfortable in cultural organizations in their communities they are much more likely to become future arts consumers.

• Support research that demonstrates the value of arts learning as a means of helping to close the achievement gap and as a vital part of the core curriculum. Collaborate and with NASAA, foundations, and others to evaluate effective partnership programs among schools and cultural organizations.

BARRY: Several previous panelists have expressed caution about the Endowment trying to re-establish direct funding of individual artists because of the possibility of political attacks putting the agency once again in a vulnerable position. We’ve already seen signs of that. Do you think the Endowment should consider funding to artists once again? How might the Endowment help to create more intersections between independent working artists and nonprofit arts administrators?

SHANNON: We know that the last thing the Obama administration wants to do is reignite the Culture Wars. During the campaign Obama seemed—almost magically—to be able to stay above the fray of culture war-style attacks. However, governing has stripped away what seemed like Teflon coating, and culture war issues have once again begun to emerge and “stick.” During Gioia’s tenure at the NEA, he worked diligently to implement high-profile NEA initiatives that centered on what I would describe as safe, palatable art. While this was effective in re-directing the conversation about public sector support of the arts, it did not address or negate the core issues that ignited the culture wars of the mid-90s. And perhaps doing so would be virtually impossible, especially given the recent rightward tilt of the Republican Party.

The NEA’s policy of providing direct grants for projects in lieu of to individuals, serves to (usually) safeguard the agency from vulnerabilities. If the NEA were to fund artists once again, I think it must be for specific projects. An effective way for the NEA to award grants to individual artists would be for proposed projects whereby the artist would work with another entity—be it an arts organization, homeless shelter, nursing home, health care facility, etc. An innovative approach—which may be outside of the purview of the agency—would be for the NEA to serve as a “matchmaker” for artists with specific project proposals to be paired with appropriate entities in their communities. This could be accomplished through a technology component and may help artists leverage NEA support (be it through money or a “stamp of approval”) for other non-traditional funding support—I’m thinking of something like a public-sector version of www.kickstarter.com.

JODI: I think the reason to be cautious about the NEA’s funding of individual artists should have less to do with political concerns and more to do with impact. It’s my contention that a National Endowment for the Arts should serve the nation in as broad a capacity as possible, and the way to do that is through arts education. However, in my experience in the presenting world, working with individual artists is a highly successful way to foster arts education in our schools. So I think the intersection between independent working artists and nonprofit arts administrators is through arts education. If the NEA can develop a strategy to support non-profit organizations in their work with arts education, we will accomplish the goals of supporting individual artists, connecting them to their community in deeper and more meaningful ways, and providing the tools for our schools to have robust and successful arts education programs.

MARCY: I am afraid, when we are afraid of the “vast right-wing conspiracy.” Artists need support now more than ever. Talk about a beleaguered population getting undercut even further by the economy. The Study Helicon is doing for LINC on how artists are faring in the recession is going to be a wake-up call. And I think artists are who are going to lead us as administrators into new ways of thinking about how we get product to market. I was very heartened by a blog I read after the Yosi Sergent situation at the NEA (and to learn about Anasa) Click here AnasaTroutman.com She reminded us all that there will be a lot of fights along the path to a more just and equitable society, and to keep our eyes on the prize. The quote I liked best was “as artists, it our responsibility to shift this debate and get people focused on our larger goals; to get back into the imaginative space of what this country will be and how we will all be able to live and thrive once we are able to align our policies and our practice with our values. Continue to do the work of helping people see what’s possible.” I think that goes for us in administrative, funding and other leadership roles as well.

HOLLIS: Artists should be funded through the NEA, but that will come with risks. Reallocating funds from current programs will not be easy, unless additional funding is secured from the Congress, which is highly unlikely. As other panelists have remarked, with a 24-hour news cycle and right wing activists on the prowl, it will only take one incident to pull the NEA back into the contentious topic of artistic freedom and public funding. Many of us have been through that struggle and I’m not sure it can be won in the current political environment with such extreme polarization. However, the NEA might allocate funding to state arts agencies or other local arts organizations earmarked for artist fellowships. Another tactic might be to resurrect direct artists funding as long as grant recipients are required to perform some public service related to their project. One successful example of artist public service is Music National Service, a musical peace corps. This still leaves open the attacks from Congress and citizens about artistic freedom and the use of public funds. This is the third rail!

DOUG: Artists are already being funded by the NEA through the institutions that get NEA money. The NEA provides the money, but granting institutionally provides a wee bit of insulation from the quagmires of faux "controversies" that political forces have used for political attack. But funding institutions rather than artists is problematic. In some ways it's like funding the tool makers instead of the people who use the tools. The notion of institutions being efficient ways of doing things is increasingly problematic in our social-networked digital world. Funding institutions only is an unbalanced way of supporting the arts - great for the institutions, but increasingly not so much for the artists. Sure direct funding makes the NEA more vulnerable. Anything the NEA does makes it more vulnerable, these days, and as one side of the political spectrum gets more and more desperate to find ways of rallying its base, it's a certainty the NEA will be a political target again. Whatever it does, in my opinion. But I think the direct-funding-to-artists issue is just a small piece of a larger failure. Many see the NEA as primarily an institution that provides funding. Indeed, the NEA often acts like that is its primary function. But it ought not to be. Sure the funding is important. Sure the bestowal of the NEA stamp on a project is valuable. But the NEA is vulnerable, in my opinion, because it hasn't taken a more expansive role in the government's cultural policy. Where was the NEA while corporate interests got new copyright laws passed that disadvantage artists and the public? Where was the NEA when the media barons were lobbying for deregulation? Where is the NEA in shaping how the government deals with culture? I think it's increasingly difficult for the NEA to be primarily just a "promoter" of culture without articulating more effective and coherent positions on issues that affect the arts. Direct funding of artists is important I think, but unless it's part of a larger rethinking about what the NEA ought to be, it's not in the cards.

LAURIE: Speaking again from the perspective of arts education, artists who work in the schools bring unique gifts to the education community. The role of the artist in education is about motivation and inspiration, about viewing the world through a different lens, about enriching the educational experience. While I don’t believe that the political attacks regarding funding of artists pertain to artists who work in a school setting, tension does exist between the arts and education communities as to the use and value of teaching artists. Educators are wary of artists stealing their jobs; artists are impatient with having to focus their artistic energies on standards and assessment. Both have a point. In the very best of scenarios, the creative collaboration that can exist between artist and teacher is a positive and powerful thing. The Endowment can nurture that collaboration by supporting programs that are not prescriptive, but rather foster a sense of shared ownership and responsibility.

NEILL: As a former individual artist, I’m torn. In principle, I believe that directly funding artists would be good for artists and the country. Experience tells me, however, that doing so is politically perilous and that such a program might very well produce public outrage that ends up reducing support for artists and the arts sector.

SCOTT: No, I don’t think the government should directly fund individual artists, at least not the way they’ve done it in the past. Throughout history, artists were often supported by a powerful patron, and today artists often point to that as a precedent for government funding of individual artists. But there was a very important difference: in the past, the patron supported the artist himself, and the relationship was ongoing. Furthermore, with the patronage came certain expectations – Leonardo served as a military architect and engineer, for instance, he wasn’t just doing stuff with his tempura day in and day out. But today, the NEA doesn’t want to risk offering permanent support for a mid-career artist who has already shown glimpses of genius, and contemporary artists get bent out of shape if anyone suggests they have a responsibility to anything other than their “personal vision.” It’s totally dysfunctional.

However, such an ongoing relationship might be undertaken between artists and nonprofit arts administrators, for instance if a resident theatre committed to producing all of the work of a specific playwright, and if that playwright committed to producing quality work on a consistent basis. But the key word in that sentence is “commitment,” a concept that seems almost totally lacking in our contemporary free-agent-nation arts scene. Alas.

CORA: My current mission and work is focused on supporting individual artists, so of course I think that the NEA should fund them! But seriously, it’s always struck me as a little strange, and sad really, that the United States is one of the few industrialized nations on the planet that does not adequately honor its most significant artists as “living national treasures” who are the exemplars of a democratic society and our diverse American culture. I think the NEA is on the right track with its Jazz Masters program, Heritage Fellowships, and even the National Medal of Arts – all of which recognize and even fund individual artists - but these special initiatives don’t go far enough. I would love to see 50 artists – one from each State - recognized and given a cash award from the NEA each year. Perhaps the NEA could work with state arts agencies or expert funders (like US Artists), in the selection process, or partner with private funders to make this happen. There are so many possibilities - all that’s lacking is leadership and the political will.

IAN: Again, my position is rather iconoclastic on this one. I don’t think that direct funding of individual artists is a particularly good use of the Endowment’s resources. My objection is less political than operational. Let’s say the NEA is right that there are two million artists in the United States. No agency is equipped to properly evaluate the talents of two million artists—or even a tenth of that number. Hell, top colleges only receive twenty to thirty thousand applications a year. Individual artist fellowships might have made sense back when the NEA was first formed and the arts infrastructure was significantly underdeveloped compared to now. In 2009, though, it’s a horribly inefficient way of distributing money, unless artistic merit (quite a subjective bugaboo to begin with) is just thrown out the window and anyone who claims to be an artist can apply for an automatic $20 grant. But somehow, I don’t think that’s what the individual artist fellowship advocates have in mind.

Far better, in my opinion, for the NEA to support the infrastructure that makes funding for artists possible. There are established procedures in place to pay most individual artists for the activity that they generate. Composers can be commissioned by the ensembles they write for. Dancers can be paid by the companies they dance for. Playwrights can get royalties from the plays they write. The problem is not that artists can’t get money for their work, it’s that too many artists can’t get enough money from their work to make a living. Rather than circumvent the curatorial system that already exists and add another, very expensive layer on top, the NEA should work to subsidize the payments that are already made through the system—especially at the smaller organization level—and thereby support the curatorial activity that already takes place. There is one thing on which the individual fellowship advocates and I will agree: artists don’t receive nearly enough of the funding that goes to support the arts. According to Americans for the Art’s research study Arts & Economic Prosperity III, artists themselves receive only 11% of total arts organizational expenditures—a figure far too low.

The Panel 4 discussion continues tomorrow.

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7TH:

BARRY: We talk a lot about next generation succession and emerging leadership issues. What role do you think the Endowment should have in helping to train, prepare, develop and support the next generation of arts leaders and how might it go about that?

MARCY: As an alum of the National Endowment for the Arts Fellows program, I can attest to the broadening of vision and perspective, and the invaluable hands-on training I was given on the national arts system by working at the NEA for a semester in 1991. In 1993 when I moved to San Francisco at least 15 women my age, working in the arts in the Bay Area and Sacramento, who had all been at the NEA in this program and others early in our careers, met monthly to network, discuss policy and advocacy issues, and just share information. There are numerous opportunities to engage to next generation of arts leaders. And, I applaud the Hewlett Foundation’s support for the emerging arts leaders of the Bay Area group. This NEA program, however, or some version of it, is inexpensive, comprehensive, national, and nurtured many of the leaders working in our field today.

SCOTT: First of all, their role doesn’t need to be monetary – colleges and universities have already shouldered that burden of training, and they’re already getting money from other sources. The NEA contribution comes from using their bully pulpit to change the narrative away from the pathetic Cinderella story that forms the basis for most arts education (if you work and work and have a good soul, someday you may be lucky enough that Prince Harold [or Harold Prince] will recognize your beauty and poof! he’ll make you a star) into something more mature, responsible, and responsive. They need to support artists who are also arts leaders, by which I mean artists who make speeches, write articles, think about the field as a whole, and facilitate the creativity of others. Arts leaders are reflective, articulate, educated, and inspirational. To accomplish this, the NEA should only give money to artists and organizations who are willing to undertake this heavy lifting, and who are able to do it really well. If young people knew that the institutions who employed them were going to hire them based not only on their ability to belt out “Dance Ten, Looks Three,” but also on their ability to speak and write and reflect, then they might be more inclined to pay more attention in their English 101 and Western Civilization classes and learn how to put words and ideas together in ways that make sense. Tony Kushner said as much in his article, published to resounding silence in American Theatre Magazine, called “A Modest Proposal,” in which he called for an abolishment of all arts majors and a focus on getting a damn good liberal education. Hear hear!

JODI: Can I be honest about this? I’m not sure. I am having a hard time seeing an effective way for the NEA to influence the training of the next generation in a formal way. I do see an issue with the different genres and national associations each developing their own “emerging leader” programs, duplicating efforts in a lot of ways. Perhaps there is a role for the NEA in this vein; establishing a national dialogue among these efforts? That seems pretty thin, but I will admit this one stumped me. I see the need for arts organizations, universities and funders to take up this charge, not necessarily our National Endowment.

IAN: I believe that our field too often privileges experience at the expense of talent, learning ability, and entrepreneurial spirit. The wisdom of experience is not the same thing as the functional skills required to get things done. After all, how many arts organizations across the country are now redesigning staff job descriptions around maintaining a presence on Facebook, created by Mark Zuckerberg from his college dorm room?

What the field needs most in this area is a clear leadership pipeline for arts managers. The private sector has formed many fruitful partnerships with top colleges, professional schools, and so forth, establishing rotational leadership development or project management programs, 360-degree evaluation practices, and a clear “track” for professional advancement in many industries such as consulting and banking. While not all of these innovations may be the best choice for the arts, clearly our field has a lot to learn from our for-profit cousins.

While the burden of involving next-generation leadership in organizational decision-making will ultimately fall to arts organizations themselves, the advantage of getting the NEA involved in this discussion is its national and cross-disciplinary scope. For example, the League of American Orchestras has developed an exemplary orchestra management training program, but it will never be open to non-orchestra professionals because that would be outside of the League’s mission. A couple of participants in previous weeks of this blog drew attention to the untapped potential of the Endowment as a convener, particularly of national service organizations. I think this would be an excellent topic to bring up at such a convening—and please, NEA, if you do so, include emerging leader voices in your planning process.

The truth is, though, we don’t need the Endowment’s help to start taking better advantage of the contributions of emerging leaders. Most of the bright younger and newer arts professionals I know are not hard to find; it’s just that their entry-level or junior management positions don’t afford them the kind of platform that others in the field have to make their intelligence and insight obvious to everyone. If your organization doesn’t already involve the entire staff in strategic conversations about the future, there’s nothing preventing you from changing that tomorrow. If your organization’s board doesn’t already include voices from people younger than in their forties, that’s an easy change to make. If you don’t have any idea of what your direct reports think about how the organization could do what it does more effectively, ask them. You might be pleasantly surprised by what they come up with.

SHANNON: Besides offering convening opportunities for arts professionals (including emerging leaders), as others have mentioned, I’m not sure what direct role the NEA could play in fostering the next generation of arts leaders. I don’t see that as being a necessary part of NEA’s core work. Americans for the Arts has done a great job of fostering emerging leaders networks through direct professional development, but more significantly (in my view) by providing an impetus for local emerging leaders to create their own networks to connect and develop professionally. The NEA certainly does not need to recreate that wheel!

I think the NEA could do great service to emerging leaders indirectly by offering programs that focus on innovation and non-traditional artistic and creative programming. I have been noticing a trend where many of my younger peers (I will still be an emerging leader for 250 days and counting, thank you very much!) do not necessarily consider themselves arts administrators; they see themselves as creatives fulfilling their vision for artistic programming, often in unconventional ways. That they are often outside of the NEA’s radar might ultimately negatively affect the NEA’s ability to reach new creative communities that operate outside of public sector support of the arts.

I have two concerns about the future of the public sector arts field:

1. Many in my generation, in addition to the Gen Y’ers (or Millennials), do not see a lot of opportunities to lead public sector arts agencies. You know that toy where you have a square grid that comprises an image, with one space left open, and you need to move the tiles around to complete the image? That’s what I see happening in public sector hiring practices—a “boomer” Executive Director will move from one organization to another, rarely allowing for emerging leaders to enter into the grid and become Directors of public (or nonprofit) arts organizations. This causes a downward spiral whereby emerging leaders are not seen as qualified because they have not held an ED position. Concomitant to that dynamic is that younger generations are increasingly turned off to the tightly structured and bureaucratic nature that goes along with working in the public sector. These two factors make we worry that we will soon be left with a chasm of leadership in the public sector arts field in the very near future.

2. Many emerging leaders, frustrated with the lack of leadership opportunities in the field, have started their own organizations in order to fulfill their visions. Often these new organizations are highly innovative and entrepreneurial, which is wonderful for the field and creative communities across the country. However, my concern is that we are recreating the boom in new arts organizations that occurred in the 70s, and will face another wave of “founder’s syndrome” when my cohort begins to retire.

CORA: The Endowment could support more Internship programs within the agency, which would not only train and mentor next generation leaders from around the country, but also make a statement about their importance to the future of the arts field. The NEA might also consider reinstating direct funding to service organizations and other intermediaries who have the existing expertise to train, prepare and develop our next generation of arts leaders.

DOUG: Sure the NEA should encourage better leadership. Of course. I'm not sure what role that ought to be, other than helping organizations that are doing good work under excellent leadership. Reward good leadership where you see it. develop the capacity to better understand what good leadership is.

LAURIE: Being successful in the exercise of leadership means having the vision, personal commitment and ability to enlist others to the cause. It means being able to hold multiple viewpoints while not losing sight of the ultimate goal. It means knowing a little about a lot of things, but mostly about knowing what moves and motivates others. In observing the leadership style of those whom I admire, I notice they enter a conversation with a healthy respect for strategy (big ideas) as opposed to tactics (short term actions). The Endowment can foster that big picture thinking by encouraging cross sector leadership development, bringing artists, arts administrators, educators, community and business leaders together to learn from one another. I was fortunate to attend the Harvard Kennedy School of Government’s Senior Executives in State and Local Government program this past summer. As one of only two people from the arts sector out of a class of 70, a powerful moment for me was in affirming my own core values as well as experiencing the growing sense of community among an intentionally diverse group-- diversity in cultural background, race, ethnicity, age, gender, geography, sexual identity, and political agenda. Hearing what moves and motivates city councilors, fire chiefs, state legislators, union negotiators, city officials, and others offered a great opportunity to practice hearing and seeing the world through the eyes of another. Which is ultimately what the practice of leadership is all about.

NEILL: If those who have a moral and fiduciary duty to addressing human resources and workforce preparedness issues in America’s arts organizations - namely their Boards of Directors and staff leadership - have not attended themselves to these issues, there is little the Endowment can or should do. My experience is that many organizations are working through these issues in an orderly way. If the Endowment leadership believes that more is needed, they should work with the States, Regionals, and Discipline Service Organizations to craft a programmatic approach. Personally, I am impressed by and have a lot of faith in the quality of the young arts leaders with whom I work. I believe that they are far better prepared than many of their elders were and that they are readier to assume the mantle of leadership than perhaps many are prepared to admit.

HOLLIS: Building capacity in the arts community is an important issue, but assistance in this area should be targeted to communities and populations that need it most. There are arts administration degrees offered at many colleges and universities across the country, most of them blending classes with internships. I would recommend focusing on communities of color and small to mid-size organizations that need this type of infrastructure support. In general, larger organizations do not have problems finding qualified employees. Striking the right balance between direct funding for arts disciplines and arts learning programs, and building capacity in the arts community will be a challenge for the NEA. Such an effort might be best handled through state arts agencies that are in close touch with the needs of their constituents.

BARRY: What would you like to see the Endowment accomplish? What policies should govern its actions? What should be its priorities? If you were to advise Rocco Landesman on what the agenda for the NEA should be --what would you tell him?

IAN: As I mentioned in a comment the other week, it strikes me that the NEA and most of its followers have focused quite narrowly on the concerns of nonprofit arts organizations in the United States. In a perfect world, I would like to see the arts field work much more collaboratively and proactively with other fields. There are a myriad of ways in which the arts intersect with broader federal and societal priorities. As Chairman Landesman has recognized, the arts potentially have a gigantic role to play in the economic revitalization of neighborhoods and downtowns, particularly outside of major metropolitan areas where small investments can make a big difference. So why isn’t there more interaction with Housing and Urban Development? The arts are widely regarded as the linchpin of a broader creative economy, due to the space they provide for innovation for its own sake. So why are the arts so rarely a part of the discussion of the White House’s new Office of Social Innovation? Our world is rapidly becoming more integrated even as it becomes more complex. If the recent political brouhahas involving the NEA teach us anything, it should be that we can’t afford to stay in our silos for much longer.

Beyond that, I would encourage the Chairman to focus on the infrastructure of arts production in the way that I mentioned earlier. While the Endowment already does a decent job of spreading funds around both geographically and to organizations of different budget sizes, the fact remains that the vast majority of arts organizations have no hope of receiving an NEA grant because they are too small. Arts organizations receive far more from the federal government in the form of Congressional earmarks than they do through the Endowment’s competitive process. Given that large, established institutions have by far the most tools at their disposal (prestige, connections, large customer base, individual donors) with which to ensure their own survival and artistic success, I believe that the Endowment’s resources would be best directed toward the identification and support of exemplary “under the radar” arts programs, including innovative models for cultural production and distribution.

Finally, as mentioned earlier, the Endowment’s value in centralizing attention on issues of field wide interest has yet to be fully realized. By convening discussions relevant to the field and by commissioning high-quality research that enhances our understanding of what the arts do and how they do it (not just how many artists and patrons there are), the Endowment could provide an extremely valuable service that not many others would be in a position to duplicate.

DOUG: I kind of covered this in an earlier answer. But culture has changed dramatically since when the NEA was founded in the 60s. The needs are very different now. Very different than they were even five years ago. It's probably time for a rethink of what the NEA really is, what's needed from a federal agency for the arts. Is it funding? Maybe. But maybe there's a greater need than funding right now (not that funding isn't important). Funding is difficult right now. I'm not saying funding isn't important. But I wonder if funding should be the NEA's most important role right now. What funding there is ought to be used more strategically, I think. What do artists want the NEA to be? What do they need most? Have they been asked lately?

LAURIE: I return to the theme of big picture thinking. The Endowment has an opportunity to advance arts and culture by thinking expansively, by painting a vision of an arts-rich country that is irresistible to the public and policymakers alike. Using one of the favorite images from my Harvard experience, it’s time to get off the crowded dance floor, where one can see only the sweaty gyrations of those immediately adjacent, and move into the balcony, where a greater perspective awaits. I would challenge the new leadership at the Endowment to move to the balcony, to look and think more broadly than programmatically, particularly in the arts education arena. Programs alone are ultimately not going to enable us to achieve a vibrant cultural conversation. Programs may be politically safe and easy to justify, but they are essentially tactical and prescriptive by nature. BE BOLD is the motto of the day.

CORA: There have been so many great suggestions already posted on this blog – I guess I would encourage the Chairman to draw upon his producing and entrepreneurial experience to work in innovative ways across the nonprofit and commercial arts divide, across traditional discipline silos, cross-culturally and internationally, and fearlessly, with artists. And finally, to quote you Barry, “Don’t Quit!”

SCOTT: First, I think the NEA should completely stop giving money to mega-institutions like Steppenwolf and Lincoln Center – those institutions that previous responders have noted currently have captured the NEA. Why? Because those organizations don’t need it. That little splash of NEA money disappears in the ocean of their multi-million dollar annual budgets without a trace. Instead, use the money where it will have a serious impact: small and midsize institutions in out-of-the-way places. New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles are rolling in dough; but hand out a decent grant in Paducah KY or Amery WI and watch things happen. It’s a big country, and most of it isn’t comprised of places with a million people. They deserve the arts, too.

Second, the NEA should make it clear that its focus isn’t on the artists, isn’t on the institutions, but is on its constituency, which is the American public. The focus should be on inspiring creativity in the public (see my comment on arts education), and that might, of course, involve “providing” works of art, but it also might involve facilitating creativity in the Average Joe. If they want public money, artists should be servants to the greater good, not special, privileged people whose only commitment is to their inner muse. If you take public money, you are a public servant. It is time that artists recognize that.

Finally, the NEA needs to swallow hard and recognize that its main contribution should be in promoting the arts of today, not the constant reinterpretation of works from the past. Antonin Artaud said it: no more masterpieces. We need to tell our own stories in a language that speaks to today’s audience about today’s life. There are plenty of foundations out there who will fund Shakespeare and Mozart, but the NEA needs to be funding institutions that are committed to finding and developing our own artistic worldview. Prior to the 20th century, the focus was on new work, not old – and as a result, we got Aeschylus, Shakespeare, Mozart, Beethoven, Michelangelo and Leonardo. In the 21t century, what does America have? Aeschylus, Shakespeare, Mozart, Beethoven, Michelangelo and Leonardo. We are an echo culture, not an originating one. That has to change.

MARCY: I guess it boils down to four things for me –

1) Reach and include the broader universe of cultural enterprise -- everyone from the for-profit musicians, to the volunteer choruses, the mariachi bands, and the stitch-n-bitch circles, everyone who is creative and creating.

2) Encourage the dynamic adaptability of the sector. We are not going back to the old days. How do we evolve and move forward?

3) Fund to transform the systems of deliver of art to market, in all its permutations, locally, nationally, virtually.

4) Facilitate the creation of vibrant communities (as Doug McLennan calls them) around the arts and creative people, instead of “sustainable” institutions.

SHANNON: I believe that the NEA should continue its work to bring artistic and creative experiences to every nook and cranny of this country. That approach obviously serves the agency (and all of us) in terms of advocacy, but I think as a foundational principle, federal agencies should consider their constituencies as all of the peoples of this country.

I also believe that the NEA should focus on developing a national framework of cultural policy in the United States. It should be broad enough to be relevant to the wildly diverse communities that exist in our nation, and serve as guiding principles for agencies across the country to activate their communities through the arts. Of course, the arts as an economic driver for our nation—through the creative economy—should be an important component of such cultural policy principles.

Lastly, I think the NEA should work to establish partnerships with other federal agencies, so that the arts can contribute to offering solutions to the challenges we face as a nation. For example, the arts are a valuable component of the beautification of our nation’s transit systems. Many of these projects occur with percent for art legislation at the local or state level, but the DOT would be a natural partner to expand this successful program to the federal level. And then there’s health care. Of course, the arts community should not be rallied to help pass the Obama administration’s reform efforts (a lesson learned just a bit too late!), but the NEA should not shy away from working in partnership with the Department of Health and Human Services to incorporate the arts in ways that can improve health care services and provide programs that can help HHS increase the quality of health care for patients.

JODI: It’s all about arts education. I have two areas of focus for the NEA

1) Work to develop deep, strong relationships with related federal organizations to leverage a national focus on creativity and the arts in education.

2) Refocus efforts to arts education programs, focusing on programs that engage artists and organizations in efforts to bring the arts into schools.

HOLLIS: Stress the value of the importance of the arts in our lives. This means working the Congress to articulate how the arts play a vital role in the health of our communities and in the lives of young people in schools. Acknowledge that in some communities the arts are not something to be consumed, but a cultural dimension that reflects heritage.

Analyze NEA funding and review the balance of allocations to NEA programs, state arts agencies, and other initiatives. Develop a strategy that provides the most leverage for the Endowment’s grants budget. The NEA cannot be all things to all people. Its imprimatur is a stamp of approval and serves as a catalyst for local fundraising. However, limited resources need to be focused. Well funded organizations that do not need NEA funds for core programs and survival should be less of a priority than supporting small and mid-size organizations that are closer to the community and are usually on the cutting edge artistically. I am not advocating for lower quality standards or lax management practices but a triage process to allocate where NEA funds can have the most impact.

Continue to highlight the importance of the arts as a vital economic sector in a healthy community. Arts organizations hire people, pay employment taxes, enrich community life and offer a range of programs for every interest. I am aware of those who say that the economic impact has never been proven; it’s not a silver bullet. But is one or several case making arguments that most people understand. Point out that the arts and creative industries include what goes on in the front of the house, but also the back of the house – stage hands, arts handlers, accountants, web designers, administrators, teaching artists, etc.

In sum, exert leadership to take a hard look at strengths and weaknesses of the NEA. In current parlance, reset the NEA’s mission and strike the balance between support for arts disciplines, arts learning, and building capacity in the field. In the process, reach out to potential new partners in a grand public/private initiative.

NEILL: The near- and mid-term future are almost certainly going to be tumultuous. Our times have been described as an “era of permanent white water.” I predict increasing instability for that part of the sector that is institutionally based, especially with those organizations that have failed to do serious planning work that involves re-thinking mission, business model, and delivery systems. I also predict a simultaneous bloom of creativity and art among the part of the sector that is not institutionally based. We are likely to see one of the most creative and expressive periods of our lifetimes occurring at the same time that there are significant numbers of organizational dissolutions at all sizes and across disciplines.

I can’t help but think that these tectonic changes are likely to be extremely disruptive for Mr. Landesman and the Endowment. Because the Endowment has been politically coerced to make its primary relationships and delivery systems institutional, if it continues to frame its constituencies in the same way, it will find itself in an unrecognizable landscape.

The last thirty years have been the era of the organization. We are moving into the era of the individual where the arts are concerned. To remain relevant, the Endowment will have to devise strategies to relate to individuals, collectives, and collaboratives where advocracy is a key organizing principle. There are staggering social and political implications that accompany such a future, chief of which is less involvement by those who have typically served on Boards of Directors. Ad hoc organizations (project-based) don’t institutionalize. These changes have significant implications with respect to fundraising, advocacy, community relations, and audience development.

If Mr. Landesman is able to just hold things together while we (the broader arts community) figure things out - and preserve or hopefully strengthen the Endowment’s ability to add value to the sector - it will be an important accomplishment.

I would urge him to consider moving back to a discipline-based organizing principle where the agency is better able to strengthen its relationships with the disciplines. I would also urge him to work to strengthen State and Regional arts agencies. Any strategy that strengthens the Endowment’s ability to add value locally is pivotally important. Mr. Landesman has to find ways to make the Endowment meaningful. It is not enough to just look or act important - not in these emerging times when so many convenient distinctions - professional, amateur, institutional, ad hoc, etc. - are blurring together.

Still more Q & A with the Panel 4 Participants tomorrow.

Posted by msaunders at 08:54 AM | Comments (1)

October 01, 2009

CONTINUATION OF THIRD PANEL / NEA FORUM DISCUSSION

Please scroll down for the Wrap Up of this Panel, to the previous blog entry for the beginning of this discussion, and to the entries before that for the Panels 1 & 2 comments.

BARRY: What are the essential elements that ought to go into forming a national policy on arts & culture?

FRANCES: Policies on media and communications; international exchange; immigration policy; and support for the full economic scope of the sector with loans, insurance, and other supports as well as grants. A balanced focus on excellence and broad public access. Recognition of the nation’s evolving demographic profile. A scope that recognizes for profit and nonprofit arts as parts of the same system and fields.

DANIEL: Since I understand that Blogs are characteristically brief, I offer one essential element to forming a coherent policy on arts & culture – education in the arts. The RAND study Cultivating Demand for the Arts has found a strong correlation between arts education (including lessons, appreciation classes, and being taken to a performance or exhibition by relatives or friends) in childhood and adult participation in the arts (click here: Demand for the arts. Therefore, more widespread and better arts education for young people could result in more Americans taking part in the arts, bringing multiple benefits to both them and their communities. We believe that access to high quality arts learning deserves a secure place in every child’s education for several reasons: it can enhance a child’s ability to “learn how to learn;” it can develop skills of persistence and teamwork; it can enhance the school experience for students – stimulating their interest and enthusiasm for learning, it can strengthen empathy and imagination through experiences that the arts uniquely provide, and it can help them discover beauty and meaning in their lives. More broadly, arts education plays a vital role in ensuring America has a vibrant cultural life, and, conversely, its absence over the long term could cause harm. In short, every child – and the broader society – benefits from high-quality arts education.

LOIE: We need to be able to answer the question of why does art matter and demonstrate how this is relevant to our communities. I think the arts actually are part of the day-to-day lives of our citizens; the problem is that many people just don’t make this connection. There is a disconnect.

LAURA: Whatever it is, please make sure it is actionable!

MOY:

1) A widening of the lens that embraces, values and supports all artistic and cultural expressions in the US

2) A more rigorous refinement of the NEA’s theory of change, its ultimate, intermediate and short-term outcomes, strategies and metrics (qualitative and quantitative) that tracks progress and/or achievement which appear to currently focus on inputs as the proxies to measure progress. More needs to be done in this area.

3) I would suggest as a “throw down” springboard for discussion a bold, inspiring vision that purports everyone is creative and the NEA’s vision is to support the development of the creativity found in every individual in the following ways:

• arts education (every child should have a regular, if not daily, opportunity for arts learning in and out of school)

• arts participation (every individual should have opportunity to participate in arts and culture in real (geophysical and virtual/online) time experiences in a way that not only enriches the quality of his/her life but build highly valued workforce skill sets, provide opportunities for community engagement and volunteerism, and develop his/her ability to navigate an increasingly diverse world.

4) A comprehensive assessment and analysis at the midway point of its 2006-2011 strategic plan, given the new NEA leadership, the impacts of the current economy on the arts/culture and entertainment sector.

5) This development should include not only the anointed thought leaders from the politically anointed to the usual suspects/experts in non-profit arts and culture sector, with all due respect to my colleagues around the world, but also via web-based surveys and deeper interviews (web-based, telephonic and in-person) with a broader public ranging from traditional culture bearers, students posting on You Tube, PTA parents and CEO’s to designers and technologists at IDEO, Google and Facebook.

6) A reevaluation of the NEA’s focus on the supply chain and perhaps not enough on the demand side, much less strengthening the infrastructure; e.g., organizational development, capitalization, research and development for new ideas and new art forms and longitudinal data collection and analysis on key evergreen issues such as cultural preservation.

7) Then the hard decisions will come: crafting a powerful strategy to execute a bold vision (see #3) that is ambitiously viable, politically smart, and with the right (and significantly larger) size/scale of funding. At $100 per capita times 300 million people = $30 billion for arts and culture!

8) A person to guide this effort with the new NEA leadership.

BARRY: Has the Endowment done enough to nurture, protect and foster greater development of multicultural arts, and what might it do to support those legacies and create greater access to those cultural heritages?

JOHN MCGUIRK: The NEA has made great strides to represent and support the diversity of arts and culture organizations across the nation, yet given the rapidly changing demographics, there is much more to do. Beyond cultural heritage, preservation, and transmission, multicultural arts have a unique capacity to build bridges of understanding among different cultures. Imagine a cultural diplomatic corps within the State Department promoting international arts exchange, working with local culturally specific arts organizations.

FRANCES: The Endowment’s Expansion Arts program kept a spotlight on the emergence and vitality of multicultural arts organizations. That sustained focus was critically important as a conscience for the national arts scene. Now, many of those organizations seem to be languishing. Subsequent generations have different priorities (and different understandings of their identities). When, for example, I look at the organizations serving the Asian American population in San Francisco, many have shifted from focusing on Chinese or Japanese constituents to become broadly pan-Asian and, in doing so, they struggle to foster communications across generations.

This is a particularly hard topic for The Endowment, because many of these organizations come out of local settings and their vitality depends upon their being steepened in localness. But we still need inclusion and respect and we still need to tell our larger story as American culture evolves. Perhaps this is a case in which the Endowment’s resources help to document the important work of these groups—honoring their legacies, positioning them as subjects for research and reflection, and enabling them to move into their futures.

Another piece of this subject is that hip hop, one of the most vibrant cultural movements of recent decades, is a very multicultural movement that emerged, for the most part, outside of the structure of nonprofit organizations. If the Endowment doesn’t cast its glance over the for-profit and unincorporated dimensions of the arts field as it addresses policies for artists, it will miss important work, including important multicultural arts.

JOHN KILLACKY: San San Wong, director of the Cultural Equity Program at The San Francisco Arts Commission was lamenting to me about the dire financial shape of many Asian American arts organizations. I commiserated, but added that these organizations were, unfortunately, not in any worse shape than African American and Latino organizations. Given that many of these ethnically specific organizations were founded over 30 years ago, one would think they should be thriving.

Location and demographics should also be a determinant of success. More than 57% of Californians are people of color: Latinos account for almost one-third of the state’s population, Asians and Pacific Islanders 13%, African Americans 7%, and American Indians 1%. California has more self-identified multiracial individuals (767,000) than any other state. There are an estimated 10 million immigrants today, 28% of the state’s population.

These numbers, contrasted with the stark reality of so many culturally specific organizations at risk, demand future grantmaking be seen more through a racial equity lens. A 2006 survey by the multi-ethnic public policy research and advocacy institute, The Greenlining Institute, sparked considerable discussion in California, including legislators investigating whether foundations should be more transparent about their giving in terms of race and ethnicity.

Greenling surveyed 13,566 grants made in 2004 by 24 foundations and found wide discrepancies as to their investments in people of color-led organizations.

California’s community foundations awarded a greater percentage of grants (18.8%) and dollars (25.7%) to these organizations than both California-based independent foundations (11.4% of grants and 4% of dollars) and national independent foundations (7.7% of grants and 14.7% of dollars).

Greenlining’s analytic framework only tracked people of color-led organizations and did not include grants to organizations serving these communities not led by people of color, so it only captures part of the philanthropic picture. Nevertheless, the systemic bias and inequality revealed is sobering. In a state where there is no majority culture, these numbers call for redress.

With major support from Hewlett, Packard, and Irvine Foundations, The San Francisco Foundation, along with eight other grantmaking organizations, will be working to strengthen grassroots organizations over the next few years. NEA, over its’ esteemed history, has tried to address racial and ethnic disparities in the past. As foundation’s are recessing systemic bias, so too should our national agency.

LOIE: The NEA does a great job with its Folk Arts program and National Heritage Fellowships in fostering traditional multicultural arts but probably more could be done to capture what is going on in our cities and our immigrant communities and to promote cultural exchanges.

BARRY: For some time, funders were criticized for funding programs and projects they liked, but not allowing funds for the increased overhead such programs and projects necessitated. Has that changed? Is there a trend towards unrestricted operations grants?

JOHN MCGUIRK: All funders should include a portion of overhead and operating costs within project grants. This is a prudent best practice within arts administration and philanthropy. However, responding to the call for unrestricted operating support is much more difficult. For example, the demand for unrestricted operating support usually far outstrips the available financial resources, even with highly restrictive geographic boundaries. This means selecting only a very small percentage of high functioning organizations aligned with the funders' goals to receive ongoing general operating support. Lucky if your organization is one of the few, but most organizations would be left out, and have little opportunity for inclusion. Project support offers the capacity for funders to spread the resources more broadly and impact a larger system of arts organizations.

LAURA: Yes and no. Hopefully there will always be the amazing fellowship opportunities offered through private funders like MacArthur or US Artists, but for the rest of us… I hesitate to put this out in public, but the traditional model for public grant programs—essentially unrestricted funds that arts organizations get to do with as they want— is a dinosaur that hasn’t quite died yet. Public funding sources want to know what they’re money is buying; outcomes are key. And this is becoming more and more important for foundation funders as well. However, we should develop clear standards as a field for the inclusion of adequate overhead for all grants.

LOIE: Grant funds need to be able to be used for operating support as that is where the need is huge. You can still look at an organization’s mission and artistic excellence in considering whether or not to fund them.

VICTORIA: Funding for general operating support is critical to the vitality, stability and survival of arts organizations in this dire economic climate. Funders should provide core support for the delivery of services and other activities directly in pursuit of an arts organization’s mission, including administration and overhead expenses. Over the years, as local government funding has increased, so has the trend for local arts agencies to support operations rather than special projects.

FRANCES: I admire the Nonprofit Overhead Cost Project and other recent research into true costs of vital organizations with vital programs. Based on informal observation, I believe that funders recognize and support truer overhead costs, but I do not have data to back up that belief. Grantmakers for Effective Organizations has included this theme in its research and conversations along with promoting general operating support. Perhaps I believe more grantmakers recognize the need for overhead costs to be covered because much is being written on this topic. I hope that if the subject is being aired, grantmakers are adapting their practices.

At the same time, some of the nonprofit ranking services such as Charity Navigator suggest that donors should seek organizations with low overhead costs without analyzing the type of nonprofit or stage in its development. I recently received a direct mail piece touting zero overhead costs from my contribution. The letter made me believe that the organization was not telling me the truth, but someone out there had tested the market and found that promise to be meaningful to the public.

In conversation, I know of funders repurposing grants for general operating support in the economic downturn, but I do not know how widespread this practice is.
And there is the topic of capitalization, of providing nonprofits with resources for the rainy day, the good idea, the new opportunity. I recommend the recent report out of Pennsylvania, “Getting Beyond Breakeven,” by TDC, funded by the William Penn Foundation and The Pew Charitable Trusts.

BEN: One of the few bright sides of the economic crisis is perhaps that more funders are turning to general operating support as a funding mechanism in an effort to help organizations through the current economic crisis. The Boston Foundation, for example, repurposed many of its prior project grants towards more general purposes and recently announced a new strategy that will essentially offer gen op grants to groups who can demonstrate certain impact of their work. At DDCF, we now attach gen op grants as “partner” grants to many of our project grants—e.g. a dance company receiving funds to create a new dance piece through National Dance Project or the MultiArts Production Fund (both of which we support) now receives additional gen op support as well. The legacy of this economic downturn may be a return to gen op for many funders.

JANET: I don’t know if there are statistics to prove that more private funders have moved to unrestricted operating grants but the “buzz” is that many have done that during the past year to better respond to needs of their grantees. GIA has published research on general operating support. I’m always a proponent of funders being less prescriptive and more responsive to their communities. That doesn’t always mean general operating grants are the answer. Sometimes community needs are not necessarily in sync with organizational needs and the funder needs to make a decision to entice action through funding.

“Boutique” funding is the prerogative of the private funder. Recently, I read an article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review titled “Catalytic Philanthropy” by Mark Kramer of FSG Social Impact Advisors. He cited examples of philanthropists creating their own action-oriented organizations. So instead of writing a check to an existing nonprofit to deal with an issue having negative social impact, the funder creates their own organization, directs the program and addresses the issue. I can’t imagine this extending too far into the cultural community, but maybe? The current and future generations of donors want to be more engaged, want to have a say, want to make a real difference. This leads to a different kind of philanthropy, perhaps.

BARRY: How does the funding community achieve increased organizational capacity for its grantees and any kind of longer term stability (for the whole field), if there is not some provision in its grantmaking activities that grantees must obtain funds to extend the program being funded after the grant expires? (Thus, for example, the xyz arts organization obtains a grant to hire a marketing staffer, and does so. What is really accomplished if after expiration of the grant (and the money runs out) the newly hired marketing person is let go. Two steps forward, two steps back. How can the funding community work together to address these kinds of challenges?

VICTORIA: The funding community can achieve increased organizational capacity for its grantees and achieve long term stability if they work together and speak with one voice. Articulating a clear and compelling argument about the value and public benefit of arts and culture is ever more important during this period of unprecedented change. Emerging and new leadership within our creative communities and at the helm of local, state and federal government can bring more energy, diversity and substance to our advocacy efforts.

FRANCES: I know from personal experience as a former executive director that investments in increasing a development or marketing staff rarely pay for themselves or, if they do so, it takes three or more years. At the same time, I work for a foundation that believes in project funding of limited duration. All I can say is that smart nonprofits are continually broadening their scope of funding and influence.

LOIE: Fostering sustainability is a challenge all funders face and it is particularly important in the current economic climate. This is another area where the NEA could help share best practices and promote collaborations, partnerships and mentorships to provide professional development to the field. Leadership training is also important.

BEN: I think the presumption behind grants such as the one cited is that short term support of a marketing director should either 1) increase revenues sufficiently to allow the organization to keep the marketing director on after the grant ends, and/or 2) demonstrate the value of marketing to the extent that the position becomes an indispensable priority. If revenues haven’t increased or if the director hasn’t proven the value of marketing to the organization, maybe she/he should not be retained!
Most funders are clear about the limits of this support and would consider support of such a position to be an invitation to investigate new practices, make new gains, etc., rather than mere payroll relief for a short term.

For my own part, I wonder whether stability isn’t perhaps over-rated. I wonder what the landscape would look like if funders tried to amply support artistically vibrant organizations as an objective, rather than to create stable organizations.

LAURA: If we had a system that basically funded arts organizations in perpetuity with permanent subsidies this wouldn’t be an issue. But we don’t. Most grants these days are project oriented and we funders make little provision for sustainability other than asking the question in the application and then hoping for the best. So this goes back to the issue of building capacity in the field. We’ve got to teach organizations to fish, combining technical assistance (that doesn’t become too high touch) with grants.

DANIEL: Wallace’s experience is that grant funding works best when the goals of organization receiving the grant are in harmony with our own – which is to say that our funding is a “good fit” with the organization and its direction. We’ve found that talking with other funders can reveal common goals and opportunities for collaboration, but it’s not clear that convoking other foundations is a cure for the problem of extended funding as much as honest conversations between grantor and grantee.

BARRY: What kinds of initiatives (research and data, professional development opportunities, convenings etc. ought the funding community get together as a whole and launch (if any)?

LOIE: As previous panelists have stated, having viable, timely research and good data is extremely important in helping us to make our case as to why the arts matter and to help all of us stay on top of developments in the field. Arts education, leadership development, organizational sustainability and technology are all priority topics. Partnerships and collaborations are key here and, rather than reinvent the wheel, we need to use the existing national and statewide organizations, including the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, Grantmakers in the Arts and Americans for the Arts. This is no time for a silo mentality. We are all in this together.

JANET: 1. A national discussion of undercapitalization of nonprofit arts groups. Are there standards and models for capitalization that funders should agree on that would provide a consistent framework and vocabulary for grantees?

2. How do we develop more funders for the arts from corporations, foundations and individuals?

3. Research on staffing practices and professional development needs for the field, particularly mid-sized organizations.

4. Research on the value of service organizations as technical assistance providers and advocacy networks.

5.Research on multi-issue foundations and their commitment to the continuation of arts funding.

6.Public relations campaign on creativity, the benefit of the “artists among us” and of arts education as creative workforce training.

LAURA: The five California-based funders blogging this week are part of more than 30 collaborating on the Cultural Data Project (CDP), a system for collecting quantitative information from arts organizations developed by a group of Pennsylvania funders led by the Pew Foundation. The CDP is far from perfect, but it’s the best tool we’ve had to date to collect apples-to-apple information. In addition to Pennsylvania and California, it’s being adopted in Maryland, New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts. So we’ll soon have the ability to do a lot of important research, like analyzing systems of support for arts organizations across the country. The Pew Foundation has done an amazing job leading this initiative, but the NEA could make the CDP a truly national database by helping the rest of country implement the system.

BEN: Perhaps none. I believe that the diversity of interests and perspectives is an asset for the funding community, rather than a liability—just as that diversity is an asset to the arts community itself. One man’s funder cooperation is another’s funder collusion, and I am sore pressed to think of a single initiative undertaken by all funders that serve the arts field in its fullest sense well.

FRANCES: I want to see us work together on what we will do in the face of the demise of newspaper journalism and criticism. Online tools are proving to be valuable for marketing, and we benefit from the voices of bloggers, but what can we do to build widespread, well-informed reporting and critical discourse about the arts?

Thank you all very much for an outstanding discussion.

Wrap-up tomorrow.

WRAP – UP / Friday, October 02, 2009

I always find much food for thought in the remarks and discussions of those leading the funding communities in the arts sector, and this discussion was no exception. Without any attempt to fully synthesize and summarize all of the points made by this esteemed group, the following things stood out to me:

• There was substantial discussion of the issue of how the demand for the arts impacts our future, both on the conceptual level of the demand of the whole of the public for art and the more specific audience demands within performing arts disciplines. How do we better make our case, tell our stories, and educate, inform and convince the public of the value of art to people’s everyday lives? More than one panelist made the connection between the future demand for arts and creating that future demand via arts education in the formative years of our populace growing up.

• Several panelists pointed out the need of arts organizations for basic operational support to survive the current financial crisis challenge. Several more pointed out that funders had repurposed and repositioned funds to help organizations survive, but more than one panelist also spoke of the money challenge being deeper; that the money issue related really to more fundamental organizational capacity – having the right board in place, responding to key decision maker needs as a precondition to having them respond to the organization’s needs, having deeper ties and relationships to the local community, and that some organizations (most likely the ones faring better in the current climate), are those that have previously addressed these fundamentals. While returning to operational arts funding may be something the NEA can / should do – it was also pointed out that we need to tie funding to specific outcomes.

• There was a lot of discussion of collaboration, and it was pointed out that there has been, and continues to be, substantial collaborative effort (including the extensive sharing of information and ideas) – particularly at local and regional levels by and between all segments of the funding community. The one area where that seems most prevalent is in the area of research and data collection. It was also pointed out that collaboration is difficult in the best of times, and never more so given the economic downturn. Panelists pointed out that diversity in funding approaches and local perspectives as a counterpoint to widespread collaboration might just be a good thing. Advice to the NEA included taking the lead to encourage more collaborative efforts by figuring out what the field could do to complement the NEA’s strengths, and to urge the other funding entities to move in where the agency was weak.

• There was also provocative discussion of the need for the arts community to better understand its audiences, including the “public” as an audience for all the arts.

• The undercapitalization of arts organizations as fact was validated by more than one observer. In response, Janet suggested that we take a long look at the past 40 year model we’ve been using to promote adequate capitalization, and ask “what hasn’t worked”. The Endowment might play a role in this kind of introspective analysis by the field.

• One repeated suggestion by this Panel was that the NEA can play an invaluable role as a national convener of the entire field – to consider a wide variety of issues ranging from the aforesaid review of the arts funding model to the establishment of a national policy on arts & culture.

• Another common comment was that the NEA needs to figure out what it can and cannot best do, and focus on setting its priorities for the near and long term, and determining how to best go about that task. The consensus was that the agency cannot be everything to everyone. Conversely, it was pointed out that the funding community itself should do the same thing – figure out what it can and cannot do – and that perhaps the NEA can plug some of the holes and do what the outside funding field cannot, and vice versa – the independent funders along with the cities and states, can work together to do what the national agency can’t. Perhaps the Endowment might convene a meeting to do just that.

• There was some agreement that the weakness of the field in the area of advocacy stems from the perception by many arts organizations that making a substantial commitment in this area really doesn’t yield tangible results for the individual organization – in short the arts operate in their own self-interest, with the implication that there is a widespread belief that spending a lot of time and resources doesn’t advance that self-interest – at least not enough. Most of the comments suggested that funders could best support advocacy with research and other evidentiary materials that would help the field better make the case for the value of the arts. Somewhat personally disappointing, and surprising, there was no talk about how funders might support efforts to better teach, equip and empower the arts community to know how to be better advocates and lobbyists -- not to advocate or lobbying for anything specific, but to train the field how to do it.

• While the field continues to expand its support for multicultural arts provision, several panelists remind us how much more needs to be done in this arena.

• In terms of the development of a national policy for arts & culture, I think Moy laid out the best steps to address such an issue, while Daniel emphasized inclusion of arts education for audience development, John Killacky argued for the inclusion of artists in the mix, Francis included the international aspects, and Loie reminded us of the public value as the underpinning of any policy.

NEXT WEEK’S PANEL (Emerging Leaders, Arts Education Specialists, Artists Representatives, Bloggers and Independent Consultants) continue the discussion. Begins TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6TH.

PARICIPANTS:

Jodi Beznoska – Vice President of Communications - Walton Arts Center
Ian David Moss – Blogger Createquity.com
Shannon Daut – Deputy Director, WESTAF
Neil Archer Roan – Independent Consultant
Marcy Hinand Cady – Principal Hellicon Collaborative
Doug McLennan – Founder / Publisher ARTS JOURNAL
Cora Mirikitani - Director Center for Cultural Innovation
Hollis Headrick – Arts, Education and Philanthropy Consultant; former Director New York State Arts Education
Dr. Scott Walters – Associate Professor of Drama - University of North Carolina at Asheville
Laurie Schell – Executive Director, California Alliance for Arts Education
Andrew Taylor – Director BOLZ CENTER for Arts Administration / UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN – MADISON SCHOOL OF BUSINESS; author of The ARTFUL MANAGER blog.

Have a great weekend.

Don't Quit.

Barry

Posted by msaunders at 09:28 AM | Comments (1)