{"id":595,"date":"2004-11-19T08:42:31","date_gmt":"2004-11-19T16:42:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/artfulmanager\/wp\/2004\/11\/the_forest_and_the_trees\/"},"modified":"2004-11-19T08:42:31","modified_gmt":"2004-11-19T16:42:31","slug":"the_forest_and_the_trees","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/artfulmanager\/main\/the_forest_and_the_trees.php","title":{"rendered":"The forest and the trees"},"content":{"rendered":"

Arts consultant Adrian Ellis has a nice piece about the problem of perspective and scale<\/a> in arts and cultural management. He suggests, as most would agree, that arts managers are often so buried in the detail and daily demands of their work, they lose perspective on the patterns that might actually help them address causes<\/i> of strife rather than merely effects. He also suggests, as he did during a keynote here in Madison last month, that there is a fundamental imbalance between the demand for cultural activity (at least as provided by the nonprofit model) and the supply.<\/p>\n

\nAt the same time, the academics, service organizations, and others who could<\/i> be offering a wider perspective on the field, seem distracted by ‘making a case’ for the arts rather than really understanding their function in contemporary society:<\/p>\n


\nMeanwhile, our obsession with side-effects has left the heart of the issue neglected. The heart of the issue is: ‘What constitutes a vibrant cultural organization or community and what do we need to do to ensure we have one?’ rather than ‘Why do we need one?’ This means that relatively little attention is being paid to issues affecting the internal dynamics of the sector as opposed to its effects on other sectors.
\n<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\nAs candidates for the deeper issues at work, he offers this short list to start the conversation:<\/p>\n