Are You Talking About Today or Tomorrow?

Monday was a big day for arts policy and data wonks. We got two major arts focused reports from the federal government and substantial media coverage for both. The NEA released its 2008 Arts Participation survey findings and the Department of Education released the NAEP Arts Report Card.

You can find Richard Kessler's two AJ posts on the NAEP report here and here and Andrew Taylor's AJ post on the NEA report here. The news is pretty basic: 8th grade students' music and visual arts knowledge has dropped since 1997 (theater and dance were not assessed) and attendance at professional non-profit museums and performing arts as well as participation in direct art making has dropped dramatically for all art forms except photography.

On the surface, the juxtaposition of these two reports suggest the truism that if students don't get arts education they will not become arts attendees or creators. Yet the NEA report also shows that participation is dropping amongst the more educated segment of the population. This is the same segment that has been the historical base of arts participation. The solution to expanding arts participation should certainly include arts education but it has to extend to new ideas too.

I contend the answers will come from listening to the next generation and our own communities.

I was at the League of American Orchestras conference last week and discovered an interesting perspective amongst the 35 and under attendees that gathered for a night away from the hotel and the orchestra old guard. (Thanks to the League for organizing this event!)

I asked multiple people at the party if they felt the conference discussions they'd experienced so far were focused on the agenda established by the conference title "The New Reality: Economics and Public Value." The consistent answer I received was "no." When I pressed further one woman succinctly stated, "The discussions are about today, not tomorrow."

I witnessed the field's broad focus on the present and its limited focus on tomorrow when I split my time between two sessions during the same hour. The "Philanthropy in the Arts: What Lies Ahead" session was full beyond capacity with at least 200 people in the room. Despite the forward looking title, I went expecting near-term information, and that is what I heard from the foundation and corporate speakers. They were sharing the same organizational assessment list our local foundations are currently using. (Did the nation's foundations have a conference earlier in the year to coordinate their language and thinking? Probably.)

After witnessing this large assembly devoted to making a fund raising case, I was shocked to find only 35 people or less gathered for the "Making the Case for Our Non-profit Status" session. Here is the real long-term issue that must be addressed for orchestras to continue to be eligible for foundation grants and tax-deductible contributions and almost no one was present. The conference program description for this session asked "Are orchestras prepared...to meet a new and higher standard?" At the moment, I'd have to say orchestras are generally not. Nor do they seem to be paying attention to the fact that national and state leaders are questioning non-profit status in general despite their own League's efforts to engage them on the subject.

To my mind, this is a symptom of not listening to our communities. Elected officials are charged with being the voice of our communities and they are asking all non-profits to demonstrate value to justify their special tax status. I don't think orchestras are the only arts organizations continuing to operate and program with little attention to community context or perception. How often do arts organizations ask what X soloist/artist/playwright or Y repertoire/exhibit/play has to do with their local community? And even if there is a local connection, how well do they communicate and demonstrate the connection to the community?

If non-profit arts organizations want to have audiences then they have to genuinely connect to the people of their community. They have to work to give people the feeling that the art or performance belongs to them. And they can't look down their noses if the community likes Pops concerts over Masterworks. To my mind, using the term "Masterworks" already implies to the public that these works are held in higher esteem by orchestras than the others they perform.

If they have to, it is arts organizations' responsibility to "make a market" where one doesn't exist for their cherished works. This means making themselves an indispensable part of the community. This is not the job of schools, government arts agencies, or national service organizations. Nor is it achievable with one project a year or a half hearted commitment to community engagement. It has taken Jose Antonio Abreu 35 years to grow El Sistema into an internationally recognized music program where none existed before. Despite its growth and reputation, all reports indicate that it still operates with deep roots in each neighborhood and town it serves.

Community now dominates the internet, from Facebook to Twitter to reader comments and forums. The evolution of this activity in the present is showing us that Community is where the future lies. I look forward to learning about those arts organizations and arts leaders that are finding their way into this new Community reality.

We learned this week that the survival of the arts really is at stake if we don't make discussing tomorrow our top priority.