Back to the basics, because the message is only going so far. It’s up to you to save the sector from its own worst instincts.
If you put a teacher at the front of a second-grade class and they declaim the entirety of the year’s curriculum on the first day in one 7-hour monologue, are they a bad teacher or a bad educator?
Or are they bad at all?
If you put that same teacher in front of that same class and they teach one concept at a time, testing the students on comprehension of the concepts, but it takes 180 days in which to complete a school year’s curriculum (instead of one), are they a bad teacher or a bad educator?
Or are they bad at all?
Do bad teachers and bad educators deserve a job? If a school habitually fails testing because of this kind of attitude toward students, does it deserve to be funded? Does its principal, who believes that testing is punitive and just getting the curriculum spoken out loud completes the contract the teachers have with their students, deserve that position?
Do I really have to answer that for you?
Now let’s put your nonprofit performing arts organization to the same test.
If you produce a play but you don’t ever find out if anyone got anything out of it that improved the community, are you a bad nonprofit organization that produces art or a bad nonprofit organization that produces community impact?
Or are you bad at all?
If you produce a play and present it to people in need, after which you not only delve into the issues of the play and how the themes and actions improve your community, but also actively lead a movement to reduce societal stressors, increase educational prowess (and test for success), and use your community connections to increase the power of this one movement, but it takes a year to build the snowball of change you desire and you have to spend resources that prove your worth, are you a bad nonprofit organization that produces art or a bad nonprofit organization that produces community impact?
Or are you bad at all?
Do bad artistic directors deserve a job? If an artistic director of a nonprofit arts organization habitually fails their community by creating seasons of programming meant to sell tickets but not to improve the community in tangible, charitable ways, does it deserve to be funded? Does its board chair, who believes that art is for those that can afford it, obsesses about the financial bottom line, neglects the community (except for their friends in high places), and believes that art is a product, not a tool, deserve that position?
Do I really have to answer that for you?
Your nonprofit arts organization may be (barely) allowed to receive funding and a tax exemption, but does it deserve any of that? Even if you’re the big ol’ flagship company in your town?
“Why shouldn’t it?” you may ask.
Hold on to your hats: because real charities make communities better by taking on the issues that the taxpayers want them to tackle. Taxpayers love it when their nonprofits can help out the sick, build houses for the unhoused, or simply increase every student’s educational success. Taxpayers hate it when rich people support themselves, which is the paradigm that large arts organizations insist on regurgitating (“Donors donate so that donors may attend”).
And before you roll your eyes into whiteness, remember that all nonprofits are charities. There is no other meaning; it’s just the IRS’s way of coding it. There is no such legal term as “non-commercial,” “public,” or even “community-centered.” That’s all codswallop. There is only “nonprofit,” and that requires “charity.”
The production of art is not charitable by itself. Thus, the production of art, without any charitable action, is not worthy of a donation. Inertia is the only reason most of the larger organizations are still in business — that and the intentional quashing, bashing, or reticence to empower the real nonprofit organizations within their respective arts communities.
If you believe that your art provides education to those who view it, prove it like an educational nonprofit (like a university) does. Test, engage, and gather long-term data. If you believe that people receive long-term health benefits by viewing your art, prove it like a heath nonprofit does. Test, engage, and gather long-term data.
But hey, if you wanna put on plays, symphonies, exhibitions, operas, and ballets because you just wanna, all you have to do is get out of the nonprofit arts business. Go commercial. There you can do anything you want.
Short and sweet: be a nonprofit or don’t. Pick a lane.
Leave a Reply