There are lots of conversation starters in this short article on change and refocusing at Seattle’s Capitol Hill Arts Center. The three-year-old arts center is discontinuing its theater productions after the current season draws to a close, and focusing their efforts on other work.
”Everything [we do] is really successful, except the theater season,” says [Artistic Director Matthew] Kwatinetz. “If what we do is so important to the community, they have to come out.”
At issue in the article are two things: whether or not an arts organization has a right to change (says the journalist, ”If CHAC doesn’t continue to produce these compelling theater works, who will?”) and whether the for-profit model is possible for an artsy, funky, socially conscious cultural organization. Most of you will know my personal opinion on the matters — of course it does, and of course it is, if both are consistent with the organization’s purpose.
But, obviously, the two questions are related. The in-house theater season hasn’t drawn the crowds or the earned income necessary to cover its costs. For most arts organizations, that’s a fact of life, softened by the balance of contributed income. But CHAC decided not to form as a nonprofit corporation, making economic sustainability through earned income an essential element of its mission.
Tax status doesn’t make the Capitol Hill Arts Center more or less noble as an arts organization. That status certainly offers different tensions and opportunities than a contribution-supported theater might face — which is why they chose it. It will be interesting to watch how those tensions and opportunities play out over time, and what other arts organization choose a similar path.
Kate says
Turns out many of the small, incubator dance companies in NYC are for-profit. Exhausted by the rigors and bureaucracy involved in becoming/maintaining 501 c 3 status they are opting to live or die as a for-profit. Curiously, they still rely on donations – although their donors don’t seem to mind that their contributions are not tax deductible. Nonprofit status is merely a tax benefit, not a license to stand on your soapbox or to be rigidly confined to an antiquated ideal from days gone by. If an arts organization sees no benefit in becoming a 501 c 3, the more power to them. Subsequently, if an arts organization sees no benefit (defined loosely) from serving its original mission, it’s either time to close up shop and release the funds for another purpose or to update the mission.
Neill Archer Roan says
When I read a story like this, I can’t help but feel troubled and a bit sad. Still, there is something remarkably fresh, honest, and real about this story. For some reason, many cultural consumers feel entitled to have a range of experiential choices, regardless of whether or not they actually attend. They just want to know these opportunities are out there. The brutal reality is that cultural choices are accompanied by real costs. Real people have real things at stake. They’re not theoretical. Wishing doesn’t help. It is refreshing to read that some professionals have the presence of mind and discipline to consider the unthinkable. There is such a profusion of choice out there that not everything can or should survive. The winnowing process is a necessary one, even when it feels bad.
What’s productive, in this case, is that the Weekly is covering the story and helping the public participate – as they might choose to – in the end of the story. As a sector, I think we’re going to see many more stories of this sort. Organizations that we’ve taken for granted may perish.
Oversupply erodes both cost and value in every product category. We’re not exempt from the dynamics of supply and demand. Scarcity can be a good thing. For what it’s worth, I hope that this story wends its way to a happy ending. In any event, I admire the people who are involved. We need more tough-minded people in this sector.
matthew says
Hello, everyone. Although I am quite a belated poster, I wanted to thank you for these comments. It is interesting to read them half a year later and reflect on the incredible successes we’ve had in that time.
Since then, we’ve not only continued to produce theatre (outside the seasonal model) but have expanded our offerings to deal with a much broader selection of the arts-hungry public, ranging in interest from late night club offerings to classical matinees.
I continue to be fascinated by my observation that attendance to live performance in general seems to be going up, while theatre seems to exhibit a non-linear trend in attendance. To say this in a different way, while some theatre productions seem to exhibit a dwindling audience, other very experimental (and often amateur) blends of performance/music/dance (in other words, nascent theatre) seem to be increasing in attendance.
In my view, this is an essential question for theatre producers (and artistic/managing director teams) to consider. Is there some feedback loop being missed by an anachronistic model that no longer is tied to the play-goer’s (ie, consumer’s) value?
One of my hopes with being a for-profit is that essentially we say to our audiences: look, we know you want to see something, so you decide what that is. We’ll keep throwing things out there, and based on your response, we’ll modify our actions. The caveat with us — as a triple-bottom-line company — is that we still cannot sacrifice quality, message, community, or sustainability in that feedback loop.