I’m pleased to notice a new blogger among the ArtsJournal crew, James Undercofler, who recently joined the faculty at Drexel University’s Arts Administration program after an illustrious career in symphonies, conservatories, and cultural nonprofits. His State of the Art blog will focus on the particular challenges of the nonprofit structure in supporting and advancing artistic intent. And his opening question sets the tone for that essential conversation:
Is the traditional not-for-profit, 501(c)3 (NFP) so cumbersome in its
structure as to actually impede the very promise of its original
intention?
His answer is a qualified, ”Yes.” Suggesting that particularly at the small, startup phase and the large, institutional phase, the nonprofit model can distract and distort an organization’s artistic vision or mission.
It’s certainly time for a fresh set of eyes and a refreshed public conversation on the subject. And I’ve often thought we need a national rapid-response team to swoop in on artists and arts enthusiasts at the moment they’re pondering nonprofit status (mostly to talk them down from the precipice). But I’ve come to believe it’s not the nonprofit structure itself, but rather our interpretation and application of it that create the problem.
Nonprofits don’t kill artistic intent, people kill artistic intent. That said, the structure they’ve chosen certainly ranks as an accomplice to the crime.
The nonprofit status allows the government (as in every tax payer) to indirectly particpate in the funding of culural organizations. For every individual dollar contributed to the Philadelphia Orchestra, for example, the contributor receives a “rebate” from the government of anywhere from 20c to 45c. That is a powerful way for all citizens to implicitly support the arts, and the 501 c 3 structure just allows for necessary checks and balances as protection of the public’s money.
James Abruzzo