Ann Daly has some great thoughts on the present and future of the arts ecosystem in the United States. While her comments spring from frustration at the ”creative class” rhetoric that seemed more heat than light (a grievance she’s aired before), the real power of the piece is in its recommendations for the future. Says Daly:
Once upon a time, it seemed a promising gambit to latch on to the coattails of the newly-minted, seemingly ascendant creative class. But it turns out (anyone surprised?) that the category is so diffuse as to be meaningless for any other purpose than the theoretical, or — more politically expedient — the rhetorical. Florida’s prescription for economic growth — in part, to build the vibrant street culture that is sought after by the creative professionals who drive business development — has yielded no tangible benefits for arts and culture per se.
Daly sees the most recent rhetorical wave as an opportunity to not be fooled again, and to move forward on our own terms. She suggests five ”modest proposals” to reframe and refocus our collective work:
- The cultural sector needs to look beyond institution-building
- The cultural sector needs to focus on infrastructure
- The cultural sector needs to think and act systematically
- The cultural sector needs to anticipate the future strategically
- The cultural sector needs interpretive advocates
Here, here. Read the details.
Trev says
There is a presumption in Ms. Daly’s argument that alludes to a power elite who can impose some sort of structural framework onto the arts and then use that structure to manipulate them toward desired ends. I can’t help wondering who she means by “we” and whether the “we” she’s referring to has the power to do any of what she recommends.
“We” can analyze organizational models and dream up ideal infrastructures and conceive of synergistic meta-systems and forecast statistical trends, but when it comes right down to it, it’s all going to be more descriptive than pragmatic. Richard Florida’s ideas turned out to be impractical because academics and policy wonks mistakenly assumed they could be used to engineer culture. I see the same thing going on here.
I can appreciate the vision and the need for guiding metaphors, but I think this top-down superimposition of mechanistic theories may be blinding us to more organic, bottom-up opportunities in the arts “ecosystem.”
Andrew Taylor says
Great points, Trev. Although I do believe there is a ”we” that has some significant influence on the larger system — whether or not they appreciate it. I’m thinking of institutional funders — major foundations, community foundations, strategic individual contributors, etc. — who may provide only a fraction of the financial resources, but carry a huge influence on system behavior.
I also think that even individual arts organizations and advocates play some role in framing their community’s conversation about the arts and civic life. To the extent we’ve hitched our wagon to emerging trends in city planning, economic development, and such, we’ve only reinforced a detached and instrumental role for the arts in our communities.
”We” could be a thoughtful and interconnected group of ”interpretive advocates” that embrace learning and connection rather than more cheerleading for the nonprofit arts.
Although, I do agree that ”the cultural sector” isn’t a unified body with a coordinated leadership (nor should it be)…so it can’t really DO anything.
A Miller says
Explain “detached and instrumental”? Not sure I understand how that applies?
Andrew Taylor says
By ”detached and instrumental,” I mean to say that our advocacy efforts, and our public ways of describing what we do in the arts, can disconnect us from our true power and purpose. If the arts are described as a *means* to some other public end — economic vitality, educational achievement, pro-social behavior among at-risk youth, and so on — we can easily lose sight of the power that actually *causes* all those positive effects.
So, ”instrumental” refers to a view of the arts as ”instruments” for another purpose. ”Detached” is the disconnect from the engine that drives our ultimate success — meaningful interaction between individuals/groups and acts of focused creative expression.
Probably still unclear, but there’s a shot at it. I go on and on about the distinction in a Rotary speech I’ve posted on-line here:
http://www.artsjournal.com/artfulmanager/thoughtbucket/000776.php