• Home
  • About
    • Jumper
    • Diane Ragsdale
    • Contact
  • AJBlogs
  • ArtsJournal

Jumper

Diane Ragsdale on what the arts do and why

If our goal is simply to preserve our current reality, why pursue it?

February 14, 2012 by Diane Ragsdale 9 Comments

About a month ago I read an article in the Atlantic (recommended to me by LINKED IN) on the phenomenal success of Finland’s primary and secondary education public school system—a success which, the article suggests, the US has failed to understand.

There are some notable differences between the US system and Finland’s:

  1. Teachers in Finland are given prestige, decent pay and a lot of responsibility.
  2. Finland has no standardized tests; teachers are trained to create tests and assess students independently. (Periodically the government assesses all schools.)
  3. The system is cooperative rather than competitive. Schools are not ranked or measured against one another.
  4. There are no private schools in Finland. You can shop around at different public schools, but they are all of the same high quality.
  5. Finland pursued education reform by aiming its teachers and schools at the goal of achieving social equity (“every child should have exactly the same opportunity to learn, regardless of family background, income, or geographic location”), not excellence.

This last point (no surprise) is the one that Americans studying the success in Finland seem to miss. Education in Finland “is seen first and foremost not as a way to produce star performers, but as an instrument to even out social inequality.” Finland has achieved excellence through the pursuit of equity.

A couple weeks later, with Finland’s approach and success still on my mind, I came across another intriguing article on education reform, this one at the university level.

The Chronicle of Higher Education ran a piece on Sebastian Thrun, a research professor of computer science at Stanford University, who recently gave up his tenure track position to found, Udacity, a start-up offering low-cost online education. What prompted Thrun’s move? Evidently the professor watched as the IRL enrollment for his artificial intelligence class dwindled while its popularity (among students at Stanford and around the globe) exploded online, eventually reaching 160,000. Thrun has set a goal of reaching 500,000 people with one of Udacity’s first course offerings.

When addressing his motivations for the move, Thrun commented that when universities were first being created, “the lecture was the most effective way to convey information” but that despite the invention of new tools (like film and digital technology) “professors today teach exactly the same way they taught a thousand years ago.”

Here’s what I’ve been thinking the past couple weeks, in large part because of these two articles.

In ten or twenty more years does the nonprofit arts and culture sector want to be the US education system: excellent art for rich people and mediocrity, lack of resources, and lack of opportunity for everyone else? Or do we want to be Finland’s: high quality artistic experiences (or “an expressive life’ as Bill Ivey might say) for every man, woman, and child? Like most universities, do we want to limit our reach to those that have the time, money, privilege, proximity, and courage/comfort (see Nina Simon’s brilliant post Come On In and Make Yourself Uncomfortable) to access us at our venues? Or do we want to collaborate as a sector with the goal of making it possible for anyone to have affordable (online, big screen, small screen, gaming system, etc.) access to high quality arts education and performances?

At the end of the Chronicle of Higher Education article Thrun is quoted saying:

I feel like there’s a red pill and a blue pill … and you can take the blue pill and go back to your classroom and lecture your 20 students. But I’ve taken the red pill and I’ve seen Wonderland.

The clock is ticking.

The arts and culture sector in the US needs to be reformed.

Just because the arts have been an elitist form of entertainment as long as most of us can remember is no excuse for that to continue to be our story in the future.

Just because we have wrongly and self-servingly bought into and sold to others the idea that to be ‘talented’ you had to be a ‘professional’ and to make ‘art’ you had to be a ‘nonprofit’ doesn’t mean we need to continue to make the same mistake.

We got it wrong the first time.

If our goal for the next century is to hold onto our marginalized position and maintain our minuscule reach—rather than being part of the cultural zeitgeist, actively addressing the social inequities in our country, and reaching exponentially greater numbers of people— then our goal is not only too small, I would suggest that it may not merit the vast amounts of time, money, or enthusiasm we would require from talented staffers and artists, governments, foundations, corporations, and private individuals to achieve it.

Let’s be Finland. Let’s pursue Wonderland.

PS: In an impromptu video chat with Doug McLennan a few weeks back as part of the Lead or Follow debate, I rambled on somewhat incoherently about the article on Sebastian Thrun. There is not much new information in the video, but if you read the comments section William Osborne has written a very interesting reflection on the Matrix red pill blue pill metaphor and the arts.

Image downloaded from Lenny’s Alice in Wonderland Site.

Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on Reddit
Reddit
Email this to someone
email

Filed Under: Democratization of Culture

Comments

  1. Richard Kooyman says

    February 15, 2012 at 4:14 pm

    Bravo to Ragsdale for empowering ideas to move our educational system forward. I’d like to add one caveat though. The Arts are always an easy target to criticize as elitist because of the excesses the mainstream media love to broadcast. But the art market is much more diverse that $10 million dollar painting being sold to hedge fund managers. Lets be careful when we call arts merely ” an elitist form of entertainment”. The arts are much more important to a fair and just society than that.

    Reply
  2. Adam Leipzig says

    February 16, 2012 at 5:59 am

    Go, Diane, Go! Throw down the gauntlet. Demand that we all be the best versions of ourselves and our organizations! We are with you!

    Reply
  3. Russell Willis Taylor says

    February 17, 2012 at 4:03 pm

    Superb post. The arts operate in a societal context — when we forget this we reduce our value, impact and influence. Mission driven does not have to mean we are blind to everything else — and in the United States we are completely ignoring the fastest growth market for audiences: those in poverty. How many arts organizations that are committed to artistic quality have a real strategy to be of enduring benefit to this group?

    Diane, you are keeping us all honest and thank you.

    Reply
  4. Scott Walters says

    February 24, 2012 at 3:04 am

    Diane — I love Finland’s #5, and you are spot on in pointing to it as the difference maker. Most importantly, your pointed “not excellence” is crucial. Our arts philanthropy, state of foundation, has focused on “excellence” to the exclusion of “equity.” What I would like to suggest is that it is more than simply access to “high quality” (there’s that excellence thing again, sneaking in the back door) arts experiences in the sense of consuming, but in the sense of creating as well. That we need to re-empower every person to develop their own expressive lives rather than consuming the expressive lives of other people. Education is not about the teacher, and the artist are not about the artists. Teachers and artists are (or at least, I believe, ought to be) midwives who help others to give birth to themselves. The model of Finland is one we could all learn from — thanks for bringing it to our attention.

    Reply

Trackbacks

  1. The Artful Manager | Go big, or go home says:
    February 15, 2012 at 3:26 pm

    […] emerging Diane (I was already a huge fan of the previous iteration). She’s particularly bold in her latest post about goals and aspirations for the entire arts system, and lobs a challenge into the room for […]

    Reply
  2. NCN Articles of Interest 2/17/2012 « National Creativity Network says:
    February 17, 2012 at 4:26 pm

    […] If our goal is simply to preserve our current reality, why pursue it? Blog: Jumper, ArtsJournal.com […]

    Reply
  3. On my Soapbox: Digitization of Live Performance | Jumper says:
    February 21, 2012 at 12:35 pm

    […] mentions my post from last week in which I wrote: “If our goal for the next century is to hold onto our marginalized […]

    Reply
  4. EAL/LA | Blog | The Subversive Tack: Because Making the Case Isn’t Working says:
    April 3, 2012 at 8:43 pm

    […] are wonderful and their work is vastly under-recognized– and that’s my point.  As Diane Ragsdale alludes, there are a lot of resources going into advocating for the arts– there have been for […]

    Reply
  5. Are we overdue to amend our default cultural policy? | Jumper says:
    March 24, 2013 at 11:24 pm

    […] back I wrote a post on the extraordinarily high quality of the school system in Finland, which differs from the US […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Diane Ragsdale

Diane Ragsdale is an Assistant Professor in the College of Performing Arts at The New School, where she also serves as Program Director for the MA in Arts Management and Entrepreneurship. Alongside her post at the New School Diane teaches on the Cultural Leadership Program at Banff Centre for Arts and Creativity in Canada and teaches a workshop on Cultural Policy at Yale University for its Theater Management MA. She is also a doctoral candidate at Erasmus University Rotterdam (in the Netherlands), where she lectured 2011-2015 in the cultural economics and sociology of the arts programs. Read More…

Jumper

White's Tree Frog

About 20 years ago, when I was in graduate school, I came across the following poem: When an old pond gets a new frog it’s a new pond. I think the inverse also may be true. I’ve often been the new frog jumping into an old pond. Since 1988, I’ve worked in the arts in the US in various roles … [Read More...]

Follow Us on FacebookFollow Us on TwitterFollow Us on RSS

@DERagsdale

Tweets by @DERagsdale

Recent Comments

  • Diane Ragsdale on The Changing Face of Arts Engagement: My remarks at the Stratford Festival Forum: “Carey - Yes, I am sorry our paths did not cross! Thanks for weighing in with these reflections. Great to…” Aug 30, 05:18
  • Diane Ragsdale on The Changing Face of Arts Engagement: My remarks at the Stratford Festival Forum: “Hi Jerry - Thanks for sharing and yes, I'd love to know more. I am a big fan of Mike…” Aug 30, 05:17
  • Jerry Yoshitomi on The Changing Face of Arts Engagement: My remarks at the Stratford Festival Forum: “Diane: Thank you very much for making and then sharing these vitally important remarks. New business models are necessary. It…” Aug 29, 01:55
  • Carey Perloff on The Changing Face of Arts Engagement: My remarks at the Stratford Festival Forum: “Sorry I missed you at Stratford, Diane! My favorite theater in North America, even when you're directing in the snowy…” Aug 26, 12:47
  • william osborne on Is it time to resurrect the artistic leader discretionary fund?: “A discretionary fund for artistic directors, and especially for those who come from the ranks of the excluded, is an…” Feb 5, 12:53

Approaching Beauty Course Posts

On artistic leadership and aesthetic values in a changed cultural context: A new keynote address

Last week I had the privilege, pleasure, and honor to give the keynote address at the Canadian Arts Summit--an annual gathering of the board chairs, … [Read More...]

Art for ____________’s sake. What would you fill in?

A few weeks back I was in NYC and had the opportunity to attend a Public Forum event featuring the brilliant Jeremy McCarter reading from his new book … [Read More...]

Irvine asks: Is there an issue in the arts field more urgent than engagement? My answer: Yes.

A couple weeks back the Irvine Foundation launched an online Q&A series, Are We Doing Enough?—aimed at “exploring tough questions about engagement … [Read More...]

A Q&A on the Beauty Class with Students from the SAIC

Recently, I received an email from a student at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, preparing for a seminar on Arts Organizations in Society. … [Read More...]

It’s creative; but is it beautiful? (My talk at the Pave Symposium on Entrepreneurship and the Arts)

In May, I gave a talk at the Pave Biennial Symposium on Arts & Entrepreneurship at Arizona State University. The theme of this year's conference … [Read More...]

Archives

Subscribe to Jumper by Email

Enter your email address:

A Few Things I’ve Written

"Surviving the Culture Change", "The Excellence Barrier", "Holding Up the Arts: Can We Sustain What We've Creatived? Should We?" and "Living in the Struggle: Our Long Tug of War in the Arts" are a few keynote addresses I've given in the US and abroad on the larger changes in the cultural environment and ways arts organizations may need to adapt in order to survive and thrive in the coming years.

If you want a quicker read, then you may want to skip the speeches and opt for the article, "Recreating Fine Arts Institutions," which was published in the November 2009 Stanford Social Innovation Review.

Here is a recent essay commissioned by the Royal Society for the Encouragement of the Arts for the 2011 State of the Arts Conference in London, "Rethinking Cultural Philanthropy".

In 2012 I documented a meeting among commercial theater producers and nonprofit theater directors to discuss partnerships between the two sectors in the development of new theatrical work, which is published by HowlRound. You can get a copy of this report, "In the Intersection," on the HowlRound Website. Finally, last year I also had essays published in Doug Borwick's book, Building Communities Not Audiences and Theatre Bay Area's book (edited by Clay Lord), Counting New Beans.

Categories

  • artistic home
  • Artistic Standards & Quality
  • arts conferences
  • Arts Education
  • arts facilities
  • Asymmetric power dynamics
  • beauty
  • community
  • Democratization of Culture
  • Economic Impact Studies
  • engagement
  • entrepreneurship
  • ethics
  • Funder Jargon
  • Innovation
  • institutionalism
  • interdependence
  • intrinsic value
  • leadership
  • nonprofit model
  • nonprofits and information disclosure
  • philanthropy
  • Pricing
  • purpose
  • subsidization of the arts
  • succession planning
  • Supply/Demand
  • sustainability
  • Uncategorized
  • Undercapitalization
Return to top of page

an ArtsJournal blog

This blog published under a Creative Commons license

Copyright © 2019 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in