Dog Days: April 2009 Archives

Three experiences converged into one idea for me this week: if the arts can be viewed as a part of the solution to social problems they will increase their standing in the hierarchy of public causes.

1 - I attended the partners' lunch for San Diego's Monarch School, our local charter school for homeless teenagers, where I heard story after story of individuals and businesses initiating projects to raise resources, including money, for the school.

2 - My youth orchestra participated in the League of American Orchestras/Feeding America national food drive.

3 - I participated in the preparation of the local arts and culture economic impact report.

The simple trajectory of my thinking started at the luncheon when I realized arts organizations do not generally have people and businesses offering to organize fund raising initiatives (a 5K run for example) independent of the staff with the intention of donating all proceeds to the organization. If we do get such a call, we are likely to hesitate and quite possibly decline the offer because we lose control of how our name is used for fund raising in the community. Monarch School gets these offers and accepts them.

In fact, I understood that as a participant in the national orchestra food drive my organization was behaving like the businesses that give unsolicited help to Monarch. The staff we called at our local Feeding America affiliate was thrilled to get an offer out of the blue to collect food. We filled four collection bins with over 550 pounds of food in one day. But this wasn't a mission related activity for us, and not one we could likely sustain. Nor did this project bring our program or students in direct contact with food bank staff or clients.

I saw through juxtaposing these poverty related experiences with the preparation of our San Diego arts and culture economic impact report that the language and data arts advocates share with policy makers does not carry the same weight with the general public. Trumpeting economic impact does  not draw unsolicited offers to help with our mission. Elected officials want to have information they can quote to show investment of public dollars into the arts will create jobs, draw high spending tourists to their city, increase tax revenues, and keep youth engaged in safe activities.

Of these impacts, I believe the general public, including our arts audiences, only thinks about the benefit to youth. Our audiences think about the art but give almost no thought to the job creationg or tax generating side of the arts. (Haven't we all been asked at least once in our arts career, "Is this is your full time job?") The public cares about mission, purpose, and impact. People offer to help Monarch School because they see the school helping students get out of poverty and integrating them back into society, not because of the student/teacher ratio or curriculum.

The wider public does not see the arts participating in other community causes. Though artists and arts organizations work in education, health care, job training, economic development, and elder care, this work isn't very visible compared to professional productions and exhibits. An opera company with a high school program that works with students to create their own opera is hard to notice amidst a season of large scale productions. Likewise, a museum program for Alzheimer's patients is much less prominent than its gallery exhibits.

There is great work being done to create healthy communities through the arts, but its space of the public mind-share is limited. This is probably because much of this work is being done by small organizations or individual artists that have limited resources for trumpeting their impact while the rest exists as small programs inside large civic arts organization like opera companies, symphony orchestras, museums and regional theaters.

I believe that the more we highlight arts activities that create community and touch individual lives the more successful we will be at persuading the public of the value of the arts. These community service programs at arts organizations have to become a core component worthy of the same promotional attention as other activities. This may be the most important step to communicating the arts' value to the broadest swath of the public; a result that will bring greater support for the professional art making we all love to see and do.

The heirs of America's most well known musical theater team, Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein II, have sold the rights to the works of these two artists to a foreign pension fund. In case you forgot, these include Oklahoma!, Carousel, South Pacific, The King and I, and The Sound of Music. Should you be alarmed that these landmarks of the American musical theater will now be foreign owned after being privately owned by their authors and heirs since creation? The answer is complicated.

The first place to look for a clue to assessing this sale is to examine how the news was reported. In the NY Times you'll find the story in the Theater section and in The Times of London it resides in the Business section. The NY Times gives some attention to the cultural import of these works by quoting the families' business manager that the buyers are "committed to maintaining high artistic standards for both future productions and the commercial licensing of specific songs." The quotes from the buyer's CEO indicate they believe

musical theater classics like Rodgers and Hammerstein songs were "a very solid investment" for pension money. Imagem is owned by the Dutch pension fund ABP and the European media company CP Masters BV. "I see musicals as a very big growth area for investment."

The UK Times article doesn't even mention artistic quality - from its reporter's point of view, the sale is all about the business opportunity that exists to license the songs for advertising. These shows are property in Europe and heritage in America.

Assuming that pension funds are exclusively focused on growing their investments to meet payout obligations, this sale is problematic. How long until the families' reputation for holding productions to the letter of the text is undermined by the lure of advertising revenue? How long until the lyrics of a song are transformed to sell a product - doing more damage to the integrity of these artists' work through mass replication than any theater production anywhere could even dream of doing? Or even worse, how long until a show can't get performed because of a non-compete clauses written into advertising licensing agreements?

In today's United States, copyright law is a mess. Different rules apply for every artistic medium and activity. The basic situation is that copyright holders have the authority to allow or prevent any change to their work and can sell to anyone for any price well beyond the lifetime of the creator. The Rodgers and Hammerstein heirs have the right to sell this cultural property to whomever they like for whatever price they can get. I suppose they decided their fathers' legacies would be well served by having an owner with an interest in licensing it to all corners of the globe. To secure this global reach, they've sold off an American cultural asset during a national economic crisis so Dutch pensioners, who have government provided health care and robust social services, receive their monthly retirement checks.

We have federal rules regarding foreign ownership of media companies and sensitive national security information, but not our cultural heritage. I doubt this sale will be reviewed by the Federal Trade Commission or any other regulatory agency. It probably isn't required. The arts aren't enough of a priority for anyone in government to even think about this sale as a national loss they way they'd decry the sale of an historic object. Nor do I recall seeing cultural ownership on the advocacy agenda of our national arts service organizations.

The fault here is not with the sellers or with the buyers. The fault is in our national failure to reach a balance between private ownership and the public good. Weeks after Wynton Marsalis challenged us to see that it is our homegrown arts that bind us together as a nation, we are reminded that like nearly all things in the United States, our heritage doesn't belong to the public. This is particularly true in the performing arts.

Countries all over the world have laws to ban the export of cultural antiquities or treasures. There is a very live debate going on now about the deaccessioning of art held by American museums in the public trust. Yet we have no mechanism for holding performing arts "properties" in trust. The National Endowment for the Arts doesn't acquire works of art for the public. The Library of Congress surely has copies of the Rodgers and Hammerstein works but not the rights. No theater that I am aware of has a "collectors fund" like museums to acquire the copyright on performing arts works. The trend to launch Broadway shows at non-profit theaters brings some royalty revenue to the theaters but I'm not sure if it includes an ownership stake in copyright or is a producers right for the first production. I don't believe Museums even hold the copyright on a work of art when they buy the object. (Correct me if I'm wrong)  This is a huge hole in the cultural sector's effort to keep heritage alive and intact.

The impossible question in a country founded on private property ownership is, "When does private property of any type become so important to the public that it can only be transferred to the public trust or supersedes private ownership and transfers to the public domain?" This is particularly pertinent to the arts because copyright has been extended and extended so many times that nearly a century's worth of creative output is privately held and out of reach.

This issue will arise over and over with copyright owners standing on one side and the public interest standing on the other. For example, Creative Economy initiatives are springing up across the nation. Cities, states, and economic development agencies are using incentives to entice artistic entrepreneurs to practice their creativity for local economic benefit. Those publicly funded entrepreneurs will then have the right to sell their privately owned work to the highest bidder anywhere in the world. Right now, the copyright owners have all the cards in their favor with the public demanding little.

This has to change. Today, I'm contacting Congresswoman Louise Slaughter of NY, Co-Chair of the Cultural Caucus, to ask her to begin looking into the issue of how the United States can preserve ownership of its cultural heritage. You can do the same by contacting her here.

I am an everyday advocate for the arts to be part of the public and government policy conversation. But I don't have any idea how many artists are directly engaging elected officials. I know many are making art that includes political commentary but suspect that very few are applying their creativity to the workaday world of government. By chance, I've come across an artist that has made communication with elected officials her medium. And she's asking artists to join her in applying their creative ability to generate ideas to improve our country.

Sheryl Oring is videotaping artists as they explain in one minute what they would do to fix the country if they could do anything at all, and then posting them on YouTube. This project, called "Creative Fix," began on Thursday at UC San Diego and will move to a San Diego gallery on May 2nd and a Los Angeles gallery on May 30. (Details are below) I have the impression she'd like to take the project to other cities too, so please consider inviting her.

The first 18 videos are now posted at Sheryl's You Tube channel. The ideas verbalized in them are a mix of serious and silly. Though each person is asked to be brief, this project is a chance for everyone to see if artists can contribute a new and useful perspective to our national challenges. Of course, instead of discovering a new super idea from these artists, I think the real benefit is reminding the participants and viewers that we all can and should have a voice in the future of our nation.

I had a chance to see the results of her recent "I Wish to Say" project when I attended the UCSD Open Studios earlier this month. Her work stood out to me because it invited everyone it came in contact with to become a participant and contribute their own voice to the whole. I didn't see this Washington Post video that day but think it will give you an idea of her sensibility and choice to be a recorder instead of an editorialist for her collaborators.



All artists are invited to be part of this new project - writers, musicians, actors, dancers, architects, visual artists, etc. Whether or not they are as creative with their "fixes" as with their own art doesn't really matter. Simply having artists participate is a "creative fix" I'm thrilled to see happening. Hopefully, they won't view this chance to share their solution as an isolated moment but continue to be part of the dialogue to improve our country.

The upcoming sessions will be:

May 2 from 3 to 6pm at Agitprop
2837 University Ave, (entrance on Utah St.) - North Park in San Diego

May 30 from 3 to 7pm at compactspace
105 E 6th St, Los Angeles

More information can be found here.

I'm back after a spring break that included camping on the CA coast. I returned home for budget week in the City of San Diego. For months local supporters of arts funding have been wondering whether or not the mayor would recommend a cut in city support for arts and culture. All were ready to rally if we saw drastic cuts proposed as has happened in other cities.

On Monday, the mayor released his 09/10 budget proposal to the City Council and public. Late Tuesday night, the City Council voted unanimously to support the reduction in city employee wages and benefits he'd made the cornerstone of balancing the budget's $60 million gap. There are weeks of hearings and votes still to come but the first hurdle has been crossed with the arts being part of the mayor's effort to sustain all city services at their current levels.

City leaders view the funding program for arts and culture as an important city service because of years of concerted advocacy work. San Diego was in the national spotlight four years ago (under a different mayor) for financial mismanagement that resulted in a backlog of annual audits, a downgrading of its bonds to ratings so low the city couldn't borrow, and skyrocketing employee pension obligations. The arts and culture community knew that city funding was at risk of being diminished or eliminated in such a volatile environment so established relationships with the mayoral candidates early in the election. This included public engagement through candidate forums and questionnaires, private meetings to educate them on the impact of arts and culture to the city, and politically astute trustees of arts organizations making their support of the arts prominently know to the candidate they supported.

Once the new mayor was in office the relationship building and education continued with the mayor and full City Council. This work has been a partnership of the City's Arts and Culture Commission and all volunteer Regional Arts and Culture Coalition. We jointly publish an annual economic impact report, testify at City Council meetings, and attend mayoral and City Council community events. Arts and culture trustees continue to participate in meetings with the Mayor and Council members as well as engage them in less formal settings. Arts organizations acknowledge city funding by recognizing the mayor and council members in program books as well as at events. This weeks news is years in the making.

You can have this success too. We've done it the nation's eighth largest city without any paid Coalition staff or a dedicated Coalition website. The core ingredients has been cooperation, collaboration, and diligence. Arts and culture organizations, no matter their size, dedicate the time and effort they can afford. The organizations respect and value each others' work and recognize that as a collective we make a stronger case for stable funding than as individual institutions.

We are hearing plenty of bad news across the arts sector these days. Oddly, some of the simplest news, like our mayor proposing stable funding for arts and culture, comes about only because of tremendous work that goes unheralded. This work is undramatic, saves energy and avoids turmoil. Best of all, anyone can do it.

Of course, we're never done. Now, we have to be sure the City Council votes in support of the mayor's proposal.

Yesterday, I read this Newsweek article about Wynton Marsalis' delivery of the annual Nancy Hanks Lecture at Kennedy Center the night before he spoke to Congress. This article makes it clear that Mr. Marsalis didn't give a speech - he performed one. After reading about this performance, I did what anyone who reads this article from outside the arts world might do: I went to YouTube. It wasn't there - in fact, it wasn't anywhere on the web.

I immediately drafted a post begging Americans for the Arts to put the lecture online so all of us could view and share it. I worked on the post so late at night that I didn't publish it for fear my blurry eyes misstated something. Prepping it for publication a few minutes ago I discovered the video at Americans for the Arts' blog - they posted it today! Thank you!

I still haven't found it on YouTube but maybe that's next. I want anyone who's looking for it to find it. I'm unclear what plans Americans for the Arts has to let the world know the video is online so I'm doing my part by letting you know. Pass it on.

The video includes Bob Lynch's welcome as well as former Senator Tom Harkin's introduction of Mr. Marsalis. You'll find the actual lecture starting after 17 minutes of these remarks. The balance is over an hour, so be prepared to give it some time. I'll share my thoughts in a future post. As with all art, its nice to have your own experience before others tell you about theirs.

UPDATE Americans for the Arts has removed the introductions so the video starts with the beginning of Mr. Marsalis speech. They've also added a feature that allows the video to be embedded on other sites so I've put it below. (It might have been there originally and I just discovered it.) An advocacy colleague and I decided tonight that it would be great to have the Nancy Hanks Lecture webcast live next year so organization across the country can use it to gather arts supporters that are unable to travel to DC.


Wynton Marsalis: 22nd Annual Nancy Hanks Lecture on Arts and Public Policy from Americans for the Arts on Vimeo.

UPDATE 2 The speech is now on YouTube, and you can find the full transcript here. Use the link in the first paragraph to download a pdf.

The arts are not part of the ideology of either major US political party. I'm not sure if all arts supporters in our nation's increasingly partisan landscape realize that instead of being a member of either tug-of-war team, the arts suffer the thankless role of being the rope.

This was very clear during the economic stimulus debate in January and February. The Republican minority in Congress used arts funding as a target to rally support for their opposition of the stimulus bill while Democrats in the House kept stimulus funds passing through the NEA intact. Despite their recent vocal attack on arts stimulus funding, the Republican led Congress steadily increased funding to the NEA from the late 90s until Democrats took over Congress in 2007. Of course, they also cut and nearly eliminated the NEA in the mid-90s.

The latest tug-of-war story swaps the political parties. In New Jersey's Star Ledger we learned last week that former Gov. Kean (R) might sue Gov. Corzine's (D) administration because proposed cuts to arts funding violate a tax law passed with Kean's strong support in 2003. In this case, the disagreement appears at first glance to be rooted in how much arts funding is mandated by the 2003 law. A closer look leaves me wondering if arts funding has inadvertently gotten mixed up in electoral politics (Kean is honorary chair of Chris Christie's gubernatorial campaign) and tax ideology (the tax is supposed to be canceled if arts funding drops below a $16 mil. minimum - Corzine proposes $14.4 mil).

I'm sure arts funding supporters in New Jersey were thrilled when a guaranteed funding source was secured in 2003. But as a variety of mechanisms for guaranteed arts funding are explored across the country, we do not yet know what new vulnerabilities they expose. What we do know, is that as long as we pursue government funding for the arts there are likely to be moments of political backlash.

I see this backlash as reverse rope burn. Reverse because the tug-of-war teams don't feel a burn from the friction; the rope does. If we accept that reverse rope burns come with government arts funding, then we can learn and think about how to mitigate the damage they cause. I contend that no advocacy message that exists today will fully protect us from this political heat. But I do believe the most important salve we have for these burns is a strong and regular relationship with our local elected officials. While we all continue the endless work of cultivating these relationships, we can't let the occasional burn discourage or stop us.

Tuesday was Arts Advocacy Day in Washington, D.C. and reports from my CA colleagues indicate they had a good day visiting Congressional offices. Yesterday, the LA Times covered the high profile testimony in Congress offered by Wynton Marsalis, Linda Ronstadt, and Josh Groban. Ironically, they argued for more NEA funding while telling stories of learning to love music in informal settings such as their own homes in the midst of their families.

Like them, I grew up in a family that played music and sang together. I'm wondering how the NEA, schools, or even non-profit arts organizations can return informal art making to the daily life of the home. The LA Times article suggests that the Congressional testimony focused on the import of reaching children with arts programming.

"Increasingly, people's experience with music is passive," Ronstadt said. "We need to teach our children to sing their own songs and play their own instruments, not just listen to their iPods." I'd take this a step further, we need to teach children, parents, and grandparents to sing together before we even start worrying about whether or not they are writing their own songs.

The question of reversing the cultural trend away from a small group of professional artists producing for the consumption and enjoyment of the majority is central to advocating for the arts today. We need these professionals but we also need a broader amateur and family art world. I'd love to see us talk about reaching multiple generations simultaneously so the creative experience returns to daily life.

All people have the capacity to share creative experiences, but we now have generations that haven't practiced together. Our Youth Symphony partners in Tijuana have taken Venezuela's El Sistema model of integrating parents into the music experience of their child by having them sing familiar folk songs while the students learn to play the melodies. I'm not aware of any school programs that merge the generations. Most non-profit arts programs with this aim exist outside their core focus and are dependent on donations. As a result they are amongst the first to go when funding gets tight.

Instead directing the attention of policy makers and funders to youth arts education as the future, let's change our language to promote multi-generational arts experiences to create art filled lives today.

Related: Mark Swed at LA Times blogs about Ronstadt's testimony and Americans for the Arts posts all written testimony from Tuesday.