Andrew Taylor on the Business of Arts & Culture
www.artsjournal.com/artfulmanager/
home (mobile version) | about this weblog | about Andrew Taylor
Of mission and motion
Posted: June 9, 2006
[ view a fully formatted version of this post ]
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.