The folks at the Fine Arts Fund in Cincinnati were clearly getting tired of the standard public conversation about arts and culture, particularly as it relates to the public responsibility to support the arts. So, they decided to look deeply, listen deeply, and reframe the way they were going to talk about it. Better yet, they decided to share that process with the world through their new report, The Arts Ripple Effect: A Research-Based Strategy to Build Shared Responsibility for the Arts. Said they:
After a year of investigation into the topic, this research finds that public responsibility for the arts is undermined by deeply entrenched perceptions that have nothing to do with government and everything to do with understanding of the arts. Members of the public typically have positive feelings toward the arts, some quite strong, but how they think about the arts is shaped by a number of common default patterns that obscure a sense of public responsibility in this area.
Among those ‘default patterns’ are the assumption that the arts are a private matter about individual experience and expression, that the arts are ‘goods’ to be consumed and therefore subject to the same marketplace rules as any other product (the winners sustain themselves), that the arts provide a passive experience that is ‘delivered’ to the community, and that the arts are a lower priority.
In response, the report suggests a different message as the foundation of public arts discourse. In a nutshell:
The arts create ”ripple effects” of benefits throughout our community. Among these, two seem particularly resonant:
- A vibrant, thriving economy, where neighborhoods are more lively, communities are revitalized, tourists and residents are attracted, and so on.
- A more connected population, where diverse groups share common experiences, hear new perspectives, understand each other better, and such.
There are lots of connections between this report’s approach and the earlier work of Alan Brown (where he reframed the Architecture of Value back in 2006, and suggested a ripple effect emanating from the personal engagement with artistic experience that flows out to social and civic value). But there’s plenty of room for bigger, broader, and more public conversation about how the arts engage our community life, and how we talk about that engagement with those who don’t see it.
Good thoughts. I think Richard Florida got there earlier, in his comments on culture in The Rise of the Creative Class. He talks about creative people being attracted to cities where there’s a vibrant streetlife/nightlife, and a strong local band scene. He explicitly sidesteps the arts in this, by the way, or at least the arts as formally defined. Starts the discussion by saying the people he writes about absolutely don’t care about the symphony, opera, or ballet. And while he talks some about arts attractions — production of an unusual 18th century play, as one strong street attraction — most of what he mentions is in the realm of pop culture. Though highly artistic. This is a dilemma for the arts. How to be as vibrant on the community level as popular culture?
I found it most interesting that people consider the arts as goods to be consumed and goods that can succeed or fail as determined by market forces or demand.
Does this perhaps explain why NY Phil patrons leave the hall when the orchestra dares to perform Berg? Is it a preconceived notion that “contemporary” music has never been a market success, and thus it must be bad?
I’m reminded of a book on socio-linguistics I read a few years ago. If I remember correctly, one of the positions was that there really is no “bad” language. Rather, it’s about context: class, age, geography etc.
Somehow, I have a feeling that concept also applies to art. What is good, what is bad? What is deemed successful, what is not successful?
And the report states that “In today’s more democratic, inclusive, and culturally diverse environment, the elevation narrative is basically irrelevant, and no new narrative has
really taken its place.”
So all that talk about “high” art and lifting spirits is not believed by the public.
So if we put this in the context of something like El Sistema, which many orchestras around the world are trying to emulate, we might have to adjust our thinking.
Perhaps, vastly generalizing, the Western-world emulators see it as a program that lifts poor kids out of the gutter by the touch of this high art (while creating new audiences).
I think we should see it more as a program for social change. Replace music by another art or activity and it could be replicated (like the Albany Park Theater Project in my neighborhood).
As I wrote in another comment, maybe it’s a case of “ask not what your audience can do for you, ask what you can do for your audience”?
I hope I made at least some sense in this rambling bit.
As someone who loves the arts, I personally believe many of the “failed” messages that this report discusses. However, I am not the person arts organizations need to convince. This report provides us an effective way in which to discuss the importance of art in our communities. Ultimately we are looking for what works, and if a “ripple effect” argument is going to help gain private and public support for Cincinnati arts organizations, I urge all the local organizations to consider using it in up-coming campaigns.
The town I grew up in, Fayetteville, AR, is built around our vibrant arts community. Art provides a means for bringing people together and sparking a discussion. It brings different people, cities, and even states together to share in the experience. In one way the arts are a “good” to be bought and sold, but it is also more than that. The businesses need to reconsider the way they are marketing themselves. What we consider “the arts” is what most people think of as “high art” — the symphonies, opera, and ballet companies. The arts as a business should look to make their “art product” accessible to everyone. Communities should take responsibility to support and fund the arts in order to survive.
Also included in the “default patterns” is the idea that the arts often come across as elitist and inaccessible. Rather than enticing new spectators or participants, arts organizations often remain in their own fan base (for example, symphony for music lover, ballet for the dance enthusiasts). These types of arts should merge and carry throughout other types such as galleries. It is an arts organization’s job to aid in this by being flexible and creative.
Here is another point in which the artist hand and business techniques can merge, as they should. An arts organization, with business-like ruthlessness and an artist’s creativity, needs to find the key to attracting those who might find an art experience “complicated” or “boring.” The arts should become approachable. The arts organizations should become inventive rather than remaining the same as they have always been.