I’ve been blabbing a lot about the ecology of arts and cultural activity in communities — whether it’s overbuilt or imbalanced, how we can juggle established nonprofits and small, often unincorporated, initiatives.
There’s good stuff on this perspective from an older report by the Center for and Urban Future. Author Mark Stern celebrates the transformative power of small, community-based arts organizations in the mix…and raises concerns about the on-going efforts of funders, board members, and others to make them grow. Says Stern:
When small community cultural providers are pushed onto the treadmill, however, they quickly deplete any resources they have for other activities, and inevitably must run harder. As they spend more time worrying about their fiscal health, they are frequently forced to spend less time responding to the needs of their neighborhoods.If you’re a community artist who has spent his or her life working in a church basement, for example, the lure of a new space can be overwhelming. But once in the new space, you’re less likely to give an unknown playwright a chance to stage her play; better to put on a crowd-pleaser that will fill the seats. And if you’re worried about making your mortgage payments, you’re less willing to provide free space to a youth group or town watch that needs performance or meeting space.
He also suggests that the measures we use for these small organizations need to be different than the norm:
Second, recognize that the major way in which small community cultural providers contribute to the economic development of neighborhoods and cities has nothing to do with them as businesses. Community arts organizations are “successes” when they stimulate broader civic engagement, expand residents’ sense of collective efficacy, and strengthen the bridges between neighborhoods. These activities are not only good in themselves, but they lay the groundwork for community revitalization.
More grist for the mill.
