Jumper

Diane Ragsdale on what the arts do and why

Archives for February 2011

Which nonprofit arts orgs deserve these pennies?

In response to last week’s post, Leonard Jacobs posted a thoughtful essay at The Clyde Fitch Report in which he made many excellent points–many of them fair criticisms of my post. I cannot adequately address all of Jacobs’ points in this post, but I hope to address a few while expounding upon some of my previous comments.

In my first post, I was endeavoring to both (1) discuss perceptions of the current threats to funding (which Jacobs rightly says are not ‘attacks’ in the sense of the culture wars) and (2) make the assertion that the current case for cutting support for the arts seems to rest on behaviors of organizations that are often held up as leaders but that, to my mind, do not exemplify the highest principles or the best (or even most common) practices of our field. Here’s are some further thoughts, specifically on responses to the proposed cuts:

(1)   I believe the percentage of the population that is actually hostile to the arts (philistines, if you will) is relatively small (at least I hope so; perhaps I am naive on this matter?). Furthermore, because I’m not persuaded that rhetoric will change their minds, I think advocacy efforts are better focused elsewhere. I’m not proposing to do away with advocacy as Jacob’s construed from my previous comments. There’s no danger in continuing to hone and strengthen the case for the merits of the arts. However, as I’ve said before, if the arts actually mattered more, to more people, then perhaps their value would be self evident and advocates wouldn’t need to work so hard to defend funding for them.

(2) Jacobs and others seem to take the view that the threats are largely political and symbolic. I tend to agree. Some that would cut arts funding believe big government is bad and it should be reduced or eliminated across many areas; others that government support and intervention in some areas is justifiable but the ‘arts’ do not merit such subsidies because they largely benefit those that could pay anyway (the very wealthy and the upper middle class). In either case, since ‘the arts’ matter to a small percentage of their constituencies anyway, the recession offers a good opportunity for politicians to put forward cuts to the arts (which, conveniently, most people seem to equate with ‘the fine arts’ and ‘snooty organiations with expensive tickets’).

So what about that new report from the NEA (to be posted on Feb 28th) that Jacobs mentioned, which indicates much higher participation levels than previously reported? Importantly, these expanded participation rates are due to an expanded definition of participation from one limited to ‘attendance’ to one including (as I recall from the Webinar last week) media related participation and amateur/hands-on participation. In other words, it appears that a lot of the ‘participation’ unearthed by this new report may be happening outside of the nonprofit arts ‘establishment’.

(3)  The final point I was endeavoring to make in my last post is that perhaps there would not be a general perception that the arts primarily serve those who could pay for them anyway if the sector itself did not hold up as ‘exemplars’ those organizations that are elitist, exclusive, wealthy, and extravagant.   

I get that many such organizations exhibit qualities that are often associated with ‘leadership’: they are the largest firms; they have been around the longest and have staying power; they have high profiles and clear brands; they often do very high quality work; they are powerful and able to attract talent; they bring prestige to their cities and people often feel civic pride about their presence; and they are highly professionalized and institutionalized operations (no artsy flakiness in these shops). In other words, they exude qualities that one associates with being at the top of the corporate heap.

These may be qualities of leadership by corporate or commercial standards, but are these the right metrics for leadership in a nonprofit context?  Where and how do we account for leadership in the sense of being the best at pursuing and achieving charitable and educational ends?

I observe many organizations that are doing work that lives up to (what I would consider to be)  ‘nonprofit’ ideals. Generally, they seem to be undervalued and underfunded. I am, thus, troubled that a significant portion of the contributed resources going into the nonprofit arts and culture sector is (and has been for years) directed to organizations that seem to want (in principle) to behave like either country clubs or commericial entities.

Which leads to my question: Does it (should it) mean something different to be a ‘leading arts institution’ vs. a ‘leading nonprofit arts institution’? Is it time to question a  hierarchy that puts (in perpetuity), for example, the Lyric Opera of Chicago above Chicago Opera Theater; or Roundabout Theatre Company above the Foundry Theater? As I said last week, perhaps we need to re-think what constitutes leadership in the nonprofit arts sector. If we’re not sure anymore, perhaps it’s time to figure this out.

Switching gears a bit: I understand from Scott Walters’ post on his recent visit to the NEA, that we in blog- and tweet-land have ruffled feathers by daring to question the establishment. I want to express my respect and thanks to Scott for having the courage to speak candidly both at the meeting and in his follow-up post. I’m glad he was in the room. I also LOVE his most recent post on ‘excellence‘.

PS: Thanks for the essay, Mr. Jacobs. I appreciate your consideration of my post and the thoughtful feedback. I may  pick up on the pricing thread next week … Yrs, DER

Image of Please Help Penny Jar by Aron Hsiao, licensed from Shutterstock.com.

Perhaps we need to rethink which nonprofit arts groups are considered leaders in their fields?

Many have written in the past week on the pending and proposed eliminations of the Kansas, Texas, and South Carolina state arts agencies (among others). For a roundup of the news on this front I recommend this post on Createquity. Some see these attacks as yet another sign that the country is filled with philistines, some see them as symbolic or purely political, and others as the reasonable end of decades of disregard by arts organizations of their communities-at-large.

The arts (which in the minds of most people equates with ‘the fine arts’) are clearly not everyone’s cup of tea (and no amount of rhetoric will probably change this); having said this, it would be shortsighted to dismiss current attacks as being driven primarily by barbarians. Many politicians evidently perceive that they can safely target the arts for cuts on the basis of their being exclusive, elitist, extravagant, or wealthy (and suggest that taxes and subsidies would be better directed elsewhere) because the arts often serve and are defended by a relatively small percentage of their constituencies. Furthermore, and rather unfortunately,these arguments against the arts are not just political rhethoric; they are reasonable accusations that can be plausibly lobbed at more than a few so-called ‘flagship’ nonprofit arts groups.

Candidly, I find it increasingly difficult to defend why a nonprofit theater company (even, and especially, outside of NYC) needs to charge $100+ for its tickets, or why a nonprofit opera company needs to charge nearly twice as much, if not more. I’ll save for another day my thoughts on the downsides of coupling the price of admission and the value of the arts experience in the minds of consumers, but for now suffice it to say I agree with those who have expressed the opinion that lowering ticket prices (or otherwise reducing financial barriers) is the number one change that many flagship, fine arts groups need to make–both to demonstrate that they are earnest about being ‘inclusive’ and to increase attendance.

Secondly, for decade upon decade, many arts organizations have essentially paid lipservice to their educational missions, despite the fact that many people do not have meaningful exposure to the arts growing up and there is research that suggests that such exposure is linked to adult participation. (It seems that it would be in the best interest of arts groups to take their educational missions more seriously.) Nonetheless, I recognize that, in particular, hands-on participation activities are not (today) a core competency of many arts groups (although one might posit that over the next 10 years they will need to become so).

Given research demonstrating a link between hands-on participation and attendance, what if (over the next five years) 30 percent of all nonprofit arts organizations were (voluntarily) re-engineered as arts education hybrids, specifically designed to provide sustained adult and youth arts participation activities as their primary, if not exclusive, purpose? Perhaps doing so would (1) be a more effective method (than current practices by arts groups) for broadening and deepening engagement with the arts; (2) eventually lead to an increase in attendance and enjoyment by people at traditional organizations whose primary purpose is to produce or present great exhibitions and performances; and (3) in the short term, bring new revenues into the sector and reduce competition for audiences and resources?

Finally, at a time when many Americans do not have jobs, cannot pay their mortgages, and cannot afford other essentials it’s easy to pin adjectives like extravagant and wealthy on the arts when they continue to show up in the news under headlines such as these: (1) leading organization needs bailout (again); (2) leading organization breaks ground on fancy new building despite recession; (3) leading arts group unable to afford fancy new building built five years ago; (4) leading organization announces high-priced, celebrity-studded show or gala that is guaranteed to sell out; (5) executive of leading arts group making in the ‘high six figures’ takes 10 percent cut in pay due to recession; (6) leading arts group closes its doors after years of accumulated deficits, mounting debts, financial mismanagement, overspending, and poor board oversight. Headlines like these corroborate the perception that arts organizations do not merit subsidies because they are already wealthy or spend more than is necessary, wise, or justifiable.

The large majority of organizations are not exclusive, elitist, extravagant, and wealthy; but those that are, particularly when they are heralded as ‘leaders’, give the nonprofit arts sector a bad rap. Perhaps organizations that would prefer to target and price their performances exclusively to the upper middle class, who believe that the arts primarily exist to serve the highly educated cultural elite, who are not interested in fulfilling their educational and charitable missions, or who lack the will or discipline to exercise fiscal moderation, should be restructured as private, for-profit, membership-based clubs?

Or if that’s a preposterous idea, at the very least it may be time to question whether such organizations should continue to be lauded as exemplars of the nonprofit arts realm? Perhaps we need a new conception of what constitutes a ‘leading’ nonprofit arts organization in the 21st century? It may be time to set the public record straight.

Image of fallen chess king by Herbert Kratky, licensed at Shutterstock.com.

What is a mission-failing arts org? Like its opposite, perhaps you know it when you see it.

STREB: The Opposite of Mission Failure

In last week’s post I suggested that the sector might be strengthened if some ‘mission-failing’ organizations were to close. I defined mission-failing organizations as those that were not providing sufficient cultural or social value relative to the investments in them. It’s an awkward phrase and I find it difficult to describe a mission-failing organization with any confidence; however, I can give an example of its opposite–an organization that is providing great cultural and social value–and did so in a talk I gave in 2010 called The Excellence Barrier.

Here’s what I said (additional comments follow the excerpt):

Susan Sontag once wrote, “Existence is no more than the precarious attainment of relevance in an intensely mobile flux of past, present, and future.”  I take particular note of the phrase, “precarious attainment of relevance.”  No organization can be granted relevance in perpetuity based on the size of its endowment, the permanence of the building it occupies, the fact that it was the first or largest of its kind in its region or city, or its historic accomplishments.  The institution exists to matter to people, in a particular community, today.  That is the impact that must be assessed.

What does impact look like if not the metrics we’re currently assessing?  Alan Brown has done terrific work in assessing intrinsic impacts and community engagement, and I couldn’t begin to summarize his research here—but I suggest you take a look at it.   I would, however, describe what I consider to be one of the best examples in the US of an organization that is brokering relationships between people and art.

In 2003, choreographer Elizabeth Streb opened a performance space in the Williamsburg neighborhood of Brooklyn, N.Y. called S.L.A.M. Instead of creating a church-like space that patrons visited once a week for a sacred experience, Streb opened the doors and let people come in anytime to watch rehearsal or use the restroom. She added popcorn and cotton candy machines and let people walk around and eat food during the performances.

Streb noticed that her patrons wanted to join in on the action, so she installed a trapeze and began teaching people how to fly. Performances largely feature the professional company, but Streb also features her students in the shows. Not content to simply use the platform of S.L.A.M. to promote her own work, Streb began fostering the development of the next generation of artists, through an Emerging Artists Commissioning Program. 

Streb no longer needs to advertise her performances because she has created a robust social network that drives ticket sales. There is a palpable energy and familiarity in the room—people know each other and interact in the space as they would at a backyard barbecue. People come back to the performances time after time and the “initiated” (kids and adults alike) delight in showing newcomers the ropes, both literally and figuratively. The experience is participatory, not transactional.

Streb’s success is measured not when the ticket gets sold at the box office, but thirty minutes after the show when everyone is still lingering, buzzing, and talking with one another and the artists. Streb is cultivating “true fans”—a diverse group of people who are deeply engaged, enthusiastic, and loyal.  As Kevin Kelly, author of the article, “1,000 True Fans” might say, Streb’s fans “buy the t-shirt, and the mug, and the hat.” Streb does not behave as if achieving artistic virtuosity and being relevant to the community are competing or mutually exclusive goals. She is pursuing excellence and equity. 

By highlighting Elizabeth Streb I am, by no means, suggesting that the sector should institutionalize her particular approaches or practices. The key takeaway is this: You cannot miss Streb’s value when you go to S.L.A.M. And I would suggest that the opposite is also true. You know a walking dead organization when you see one.

An important point: in using the term ‘mission-failing’ I was intentionally avoiding the generic term ‘failing’ as I think it implies financial failure and one cannot assume that the groups that struggle the most financially are those that are providing the least value to society. (Though it is logical to ask how sustainable, and able to maximize mission, such financially failing organizations are and whether consolidation, strategic partnership, or merger with another organization might be necessary. Brian Newman has written a terrific post, Nonprofit Arts Zombies, on this topic.)

Pete Miller asked in his astute comment to last week’s post: “What is the path forward to winnow mission accomplishing organizations from time marking organizations?” Again, there is no easy answer. With very few barriers to entry (the IRS doles out 501c3 status like XTC at an 80s rave) growth of the sector will, no doubt, continue. It will, thus, become all the more imporant that we figure out how to ensure that resources are well utilized.

I do not believe it is the role of the NEA or any other funder in the US to hold ‘death panels’ and determine which organizations are mission-failing and should close. Ultimately, it seems that it is nonprofit boards and staffs that must wrestle with this question and charge themselves to take the decision that is in the best interest of the greater good.

In the meantime, funders need to determine what to do with their limited resources. As a philanthropoid friend wrote to me last week, “You spread the pain or you concentrate it. We all know we should target, but almost everyone just spreads the pain because it’s emotionally easier.” Candidly, we may not be able to (and I know many would argue we should not) reduce the actual number of nonprofit theaters (and other types of arts organizations) that exist; but funders certainly can reduce the number of organizations that receive grants and subsidies. Private and government funders should target their resources, and they should target them to those that are clicking on all cylinders, so to speak–and within that group, might I suggest prioritizing those organizations that cannot as easily cultivate support from individual donors or develop other revenue streams.

There were several posts last week at #supplydemand. I’ve put some of them in my featured texts section. If there are other relevant posts and texts you’d like to see included send them to me.

Two housekeeping matters: (1) Here’s a new essay, Rethinking Cultural Philanthropy, which I wrote for last week’s State of the Arts Conference in London; and (2) you can now follow me on Twitter at DERagsdale.

Image of Elizabeth Streb’s book STREB: How to Become an Extreme Action Hero.

Supply and Demand Redux: Rocco’s Comment and the Elephant in the Room

I’ve been following the responses to Rocco’s ‘decreasing supply‘ comment and his subsequent post on the NEA blog. Some believe that supply/demand is the wrong framework through which to look at the sector; some that there is no such thing as too much art and that we should increase patronage rather than ‘kill’ organizations; some agree with him but believe it was inappropriate for him to make the statement; and a few seem to agree with his points and believe that it was beneficial for him to make them. I’m in the last group.

Rocco has done the arts sector a service with his ‘decreasing supply’ comment as I think it has created an opening for a candid discussion about an elephant in the room: the US lacks a mechanism for identifying and dealing with mission-failing arts organizations and (because competition for resources exists) the nonprofit arts sector might be healthier overall if some mission-failing organizations were to close. Following on my overstocked arts pond post of a few weeks ago, here are some further thoughts on the supply/demand issue.

Competition among arts organizations for earned and contributed income exists. Some markets and organizations experience more competition than others, but it is not uncommon for arts groups located in the same city to be competing to secure patronage and trustees from among the same (narrow) demographic of upper middle class well educated arts-goers and funds from one or two government agencies and a small number of private foundations and corporations.

Many arts people take the stance that we should ‘let 1,000 flowers bloom’. While one might theoretically argue that there is no such thing as ‘too much art in the world’, the same cannot be said of arts organizations: to the degree that resources are not growing at the same rate as organizations (and they are not according to the most recent National Arts Index report), every new firm that enters the sector reduces the chances of every other to secure sufficient resources to operate.

If a commercial firm experiences losses year after year—unless it can successfully develop a new market for its product, or change its product to better serve existing markets, or restructure its business to reduce expenses, or find economies of scale through expansion or merger, or achieve revenues over expenses via other strategies—it will most likely shut down.  Or it might be taken over by others who believe they can do a better job of running it. If an entire industry is in decline and there is insufficient demand for the current suppliers to cover their costs then one would expect to see firms exit the industry until equilibrium is achieved.  There are exceptions– but generally speaking, this is what one would expect because commercial firms exist to make profits.

It’s more complicated for nonprofits because while they must have sufficient cash to operate, they exist (as Andrew Taylor has succinctly put it) to ‘maximize mission’ not profits.  Nonprofit organizations do not (in theory) exist to benefit themselves (i.e., to keep arts administrators gainfully employed); they have an educational and charitable mission and exist to benefit society (e.g., to support the development of artists and people’s relationship to the arts). One cannot assume that an organization that is balancing its budget is achieving its mission and providing cultural and social value to society; nor can one assume the opposite. 

If there are nonprofit arts organizations that are not providing ‘sufficient’ value to society relative to the current investments in them by the government, private foundations, and other donors, and if they do not appear to be able or willing to adapt to fix this situation, then it is logical to assert that other more deserving nonprofit organizations (arts or otherwise) that are currently competing with them for resources would be better off if those ‘mission-failing’ organizations would close (or be re-organized).

However, even if we were able to identify ‘mission-failing’ organizations (sometimes it’s obvious, often it’s not), we do not have a clear method for dealing with the ‘dead weight’ in the sector.  We don’t have a ministry of culture and large government subsidies. If we did, failing organizations could be de-funded and might adapt or close their doors as a result. The plurality of the US nonprofit model is both a strength and a weakness. Government agencies, private foundations, corporations, and major donors give more than just their money: they give endorsements that serve as signals to board members, leaders of organizations, and other donors. Renewed support from the state arts council or one well known family foundation to a failing organization can be all that’s needed to encourage other donors to re-up and for the board and staff to persist on the wrong course for another year (despite good sense telling all of them to do otherwise).

Many organizations were started with the belief that they should exist as permanent institutions and have fought for their survival at all costs. Some of our dead weight is in historically leading ‘tall trees’ that have been preserved for far too long. Those that are the largest or that have already existed the longest are often assumed to be the most valuable. This is why many arts organizations get nervous when the cutting supply conversation happens; they assume (and with good reason) that funders and government agencies will sooner turn off the sprinklers that are misting the grass, the small bushes, and the saplings than shift the hose from one tall tree. (I’d like to see some funders prove them wrong on this.)

We lack a sound mechanism for communities to identify and deal with mission-failing organizations—those that refuse to adapt or close despite a preponderance of evidence that it would be better for society if they were to do so. There is no easy solution to this but there are opportunity costs to ignoring the problem:  again, resources going to failing organizations are resources that cannot be utilized by those providing greater cultural and social value.

The reality is that organizations will close. Some already have, some are closing as I write this, and some will die in the coming months or years. And they will either be the right organizations to close or the wrong organizations to close.  Why is it better to shut our eyes, wring our hands, and hope for the best?

Of course, dealing with  failing organizations is only part of the strategy. We still have the issue of declining participation rates. Many took offense at Rocco’s comment that ‘demand is not going to increase’; but according to a report put out by his own agency, arts participation rates have been trending downward, more or less, for more than two decades.  I don’t perceive Rocco to be a pessimist as much as a realist.

Optimistically, I believe that there is ‘pent up demand’ (read: need) for the arts that is not being realized because of financial, geographic, cultural, educational, social, logistical, programmatic, and other barriers to participation. Pessimistically, I do not see many nonprofit arts organizations radically adapting their institutions to address these barriers. I hope I am proven wrong on this.

To be clear, I’m not suggesting that every organization needs to serve its entire community (it would be unwise for all but the largest flagship institutions to even try to do so); but if a given community has 100 arts organizations, neither should 80 of them be serving the same small segment of society. Perhpas arts organizations should spend less time stewing about the ‘decreasing supply’ comment made by Rocco Landesman and more time pondering why  participation rates have been declining and why the arts and culture sector is securing a declining portion of philanthropic dollars? This may be the other elephant in the room that merits some earnest discussion. And (please) this is not a call for greater investments in marketing and fundraising; it is a call for more relevant institutions.

Elephant image by Alexander A. Sobolev, licensed at Shutterstock.com

Return to top of page

an ArtsJournal blog

This blog published under a Creative Commons license