There were some rich and juicy comments to my post of last week on ”Ecological mission vs. insular alliance.” Thanks to all who contributed (and can still contribute) to the conversation.
From the comments, and from other e-mail I received, it seemed that many interpreted my suggestion for ”softer boundaries” between arts organizations within a community as a call for outright mergers. That’s certainly a radical softening of organizational boundaries — to the point that they vanish altogether — but it’s not exactly what I had in mind. There’s a world of nuance and possibility between completely separate and self-preserving organizations and a monolitic merger into ”culture R us.” I’m more interested in that middle earth than in either extreme.
It just strikes me as odd that so many cultural nonprofits in a community have remarkably identical elements in their mission statements, and yet never speak to each other. Even if they have different missions, their individual success is a product of the ecology, not of some separate and insular activity.
As proof of that point, just recall any powerful, personal moment you’ve had in an arts experience — where you lost sense of yourself, of your place, of time even, because the moment was so engrossing. Much of that meaning flowed from the moment you were in, to be sure. But it came to you only because of a full range of previous experiences and life events — school music lessons, perhaps, or family celebrations surrounding the arts; a personal struggle or victory that was somehow captured and reflected back to you in the performance; a bundle of random emotions and recollections that suddenly came into focus. As John Dewey put it so beautfully back in the 1930s:
When a flash of lightening illumines a dark landscape, there is a momentary recognition of objects. But the recognition is not itself a mere point in time. It is the focal culmination of long, slow processes of maturation. It is the manifestation of the continuity of an ordered temporary experience in a sudden discrete instant of climax. It is as meaningless in isolation as would be the drama of Hamlet were it confined to a single line or word with no context. — John Dewey, Art as Experience, pp. 23-24.
Arts organizations are nothing without context, and that context includes the work of the organizations and individuals around us. Knowing this, we need not be as drastic as merging and consolidating (although, in some cases, perhaps we should). But we need to strive to be ever more connected and responsive to any ally we discover. Turf battles are contrary to that universe, as is insular thinking.
Trev says
Your argument reminds me of Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, which describes an individual’s evolution toward self-actualization and, ultimately, transcendence of the individual. According to Maslow, certain needs must be met in order for individuals to ascend the hierarchy, beginning with basics like nourishment and shelter, and continuing through safety, social support systems, esteem, etc.
Apply this to arts institutions, and it becomes clear that the basic needs can never be met. The audience is never big enough, the earned revenue is never sufficient, the funding situation is a constant struggle and the context is changing in ways that threaten to deprive many organizations of the support systems on which their legitimacy, and thus their esteem, depends.
How can we expect traditional arts institutions to transcend their insular concerns when they’re working so hard just to keep the doors open? Wouldn’t there have to be some basic level of stability in place before most organizations could look beyond their individual struggles long enough to reach out and connect meaningfully with others?
Our system seems to place arts institutions in a perpetual state of sub-actualization, a context within which artistic achievement may be possible, but social maturity can never be fully attained.
Andrew Taylor says
Trev,
Wonderfully put, and straight to my original point: that there’s a fundamental problem in the way we conceive of nonprofit arts and cultural infrastructure…that we tend to blame the individuals (and ourselves among them) for this perpetual disconnect of individual organizational need and ecological mission, when in essence, the game (as we define it now) is rigged.
I submit that many of the barriers of our infrastructure are entirely conceptual — shared ”common knowledge” that actually blocks our evolution — rather than actual structural constraint. That, to me, offers some hope for the future.
I guess I’m suggesting we begin from the top of Maslow’s hierarchy — transcendence — and then reconceive the foundations of the pyramid that will support our stated goal rather than blocking our way, or continually dragging us back into basic subsistance and self-preservation.
Jodi says
What intrigues me about this discussion is that we often view “partnership” as an all-or-nothing concept — if we are not merged or very closely linked, there is no value. I couldn’t disagree with this more. While most (not all) arts organizations find themselves so mired in the need for stability that the thought of yet another meeting makes managers twitch, the benefits from mere conversations among like-missioned non-profits are tremendous. You don’t have to come out of it with a new program, a new company, or even a new idea. There is huge power in simply sharing your existing ideas, and not reinventing the wheel.
David M-B says
In the private sector, partnership is often essential to success. Without ongoing partnerships with other firms, companies have to “grow their own” abilities (and likely be mediocre or worse in some areas) in order to pursue certain opportunities and markets. Partnering helps ensure that you can supply quality services across the board, which makes for happier customers and often as not more revenues as time goes by.
Arts organizations should see partnerships as opportunities, not threats. If nothing else, a “joint venture” between, say, a theatre, dance company, and orchestra, or between two quite different theatre companies, would be a pretty decent marketing opportunity.
Drew McManus says
“It just strikes me as odd that so many cultural nonprofits in a community have remarkably identical elements in their mission statements, and yet never speak to each other.”
Perhaps that’s a good indication that mission statements are given lip service more often than not…
Joe Patti says
I often also wondered why organizations with similar missions didn’t team up.
I wonder though if it is the money. One group starts up and gets donors to give them money. Another starts up and finds a separate group (with some overlap with the first) to provide financial support.
I imagine there could be a fear that a partnership will show donors the validity of the other organization’s existence and deprive the first of money?
Perhaps the board of one organization views the other as too pedestrian and fears an association will diminish the social prestige of being on the board.
Fear not though, there is hope! The Children’s Theatre of Charlotte (NC) and the Charlotte County Library recently joined forced in a manner I think is laudable and of great value to the community.
http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6286436.html
Dance Fiend says
I recommend looking to the “informal” or “unincorporated” arts for wonderful examples of resource sharing, fluid identities and boundaries, and creative partnership. There are plenty of people doing all kinds of creative work by piecing together resources and experiences across organizations, social networks, and venues. I also appreciate the point made by another commentator that arts businesses often rely on collaboration and networking. Our arts ecosystem isn’t only made up of non-profits, and this is a good thing.
While the strategies that work for “unincorporated” groups and for-profits won’t necessarily translate directly to non-profits, I believe there is value in mining their wisdom.
I agree completely with Andrew that structure can be hard to transcend. It is certainly to our benefit to deeply understand the choices and outcomes that different organizational structures tend to produce, and to remember that formal non-profits are not the only option.