If you need any further evidence that the distinction between nonprofit, for-profit, and informal/community arts isn’t a particularly relevant distinction, a quick look at this report out of the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs should do the trick. The report by Ann Markusen et al, Crossover: How Artists Build Careers across Commercial, Nonprofit and Community Work, tracks the rampant sector-hopping that constitutes the lives of most working artists.
Says the report:
Surprisingly large percentages of artists split their arts time among the three sectors. Overall, 39% spend most of their arts time (65% or more) in the commercial sector. Another 19% do no commercial work, and 42% engage part-time in commercial artwork. Smaller shares of artists spend most of their arts time in not-for-profit (public and nonprofit) sector work (29%), and 55% report working part-time in that sector. Only 6% devote most of their art time to the community sector, but 69% work in community arts at least some number of hours.
Interestingly, artists found different aspects and benefits to working in different sectors — commercial, nonprofit, and community — and made the most of those benefits by jumping between them. Again from the report:
More artists rank the commercial sector highest in offering greater understanding of artistic and professional conventions, broader visibility, networking that enhances artwork opportunities, and higher rates of return. Artists rank the not-forprofit sector highest for increasing aesthetic satisfaction, exploring new media, collaborating with artists across media, and satisfying emotional needs. The community sector ranks highest as a place to enrich community life, affirm cultural identity, and pursue political and social justice goals.
So, if arts and cultural managers are really in the business of advancing art (which at some point involves supporting and advancing artists, one would think), a less sector-insular approach seems necessary. How can we foster opportunities for artists across sectors and organizations? How can we ensure we’re providing the best opportunities our particular sector can provide (and allowing other sectors to do what they do best)? And, most notably, are the nonprofit arts in the business of supporting artists at all?
Much to chew on. And this report offers some thoughtful background and context upon which to chew productively.
Great post. Upon perusing this publication I can see how this can also be very beneficial in helping artists to develop strategies that can result in greater exposure in the marketplace as well as more opportunities to have an impact on the community. I will definitely be printing this out and reading it carefully. The profiles of successful artists are especially inspiring. Again…great post!
Terrence Taps
http://www.TapDanceMan.com
http://feeds.feedburner.com/TapDanceMan
True Story.
Scene: Day One, professional orchestra’s strategic planning session. Subject: Mission Statement. Participants: Management only.
Submision: “We provide employment for musicians to do what musicians do, and to ensure the greatest possible community impact from that work.”
Action: This was the first submission crossed off the list.
I think this is a wonderful and important post. Specifically the last, very provactive, question asking if the nonprofit arts are in the business of supporting artists which nearly made me choke on my coffee.
The nonprofit arts are certainly a diverse ecosystem with a spectrum of models that address the needs of artists differently; from service organizations like Fractured Atlas or The Field to more end-product/curitorial orgs like museums, galleries, presenting houses, or some regional theaters. But somewhere in that mix are a group of artist-driven ensemble organizations who’s model is driven by the objective to support its artists by creating opportunities to work, create, and make a living with (God forbid) health insurance.
I work for an organization where everyday the administrative tasks are dominated by the never-ending puzzle of balancing the needs of the institution with the needs of the artists; and for me, it is an extremely challenging and rewarding art/business/humanity sudoku puzzle.
So to more succinctly answer the questions, yes – the nonprofit arts are and should be in the business of supporting artists without whom there would be no art to support or share. But there is great need in this environment for diverse approaches and missions to supporting artists. Thanks again for the post – I love the blog.
As an artist who has also worked for arts organizations, in granting organizations and the creative commercial realm, I am fed up with grantors. I read great intentions in posts like these, and I think these are good points… but increasingly, I think the grantors have no clue what it takes for me to create work and live my life. The same holds true for arts organization funding. There seems to be no room for other models (the non-profit model is antiquated and has lots of problems for what many people want to accomplish).
Here in the Pacific Northwest, it’s grants season. No time makes me more aware of how detached the funders are than when I have to look at these grants. The requirements (such as insurance, and the time put into actually writing the grant) often are more expensive than the average grant amount paid. Yes, if you do that math, you are actually losing money to apply (if you do things by the book).
If I were wealthy, I would set up a “liveable wage” grant. You don’t have to complete a certain project… based on the merit of your previous work, you are given a year’s liveable wage for wherever you live.
If the day comes when I start an organization with a non-profit mission, there’s no way it will have a non-profit structure.
Please stop talking about this, we’ve been talking for a decade or more… start ACTING on it.
– pissed in the Pacific Northwest
Community art is taken for granted and not appreciated for the work it takes in and outside of non- profits. People talk allot but somehow do not think about the skill and talent it takes to produce art and still be committed to a community. I think we need to keep talking and making it understood how crucial our art and expression is. There are so many unappreciated, untapped, creative people. I can’t think of a bigger waste. Non-profits that do art have a viable way of fundraising by virtue of their product. The community artist can not be all things in a non-profit. Without the needed recognition both the non-profit suffer as well as the
beleaguered artist.
At last a reality check on what makes art sustainable. At this stage looking at art funding and involvement that excludes all sectors is just not realistic.