I am teaching a course this fall called Arts in the Community. One of the course requirements is for students to assist in a community arts project. For the purpose of the course we use the definition “arts-based project intentionally designed to address a community issue.” A difficulty I (and they) run into in talking with arts organizations about this is a lack of understanding of what engagement really means. One of the most common first responses from arts organizations is that fundraisers, with some proceeds going to a “good cause,” demonstrate engagement. Don’t get me wrong, these are good things to do. But engagement, with rare exceptions, they are not. Such projects do little or nothing to develop effective inter-organizational relationships. There is generally no community issue being addressed (although the publicity around the fundraising may slightly heighten community awareness of the cause being supported), and there is generally no substantive engagement or mutuality that develops between the participating organizations. On the contrary, these projects can establish the beneficiary as a dependent. (Exceptions to this exist when the fundraisers grow out of a relationship between the two organizations and include programming and community dialogue about the cause being supported, but such examples are not common.) Fundraisers are mostly a marketing tool for the arts organization. More tickets are sold (or money raised when there is a split of the proceeds) as a result of public awareness that money raised will benefit a good cause. This is cause-related marketing–a worthwhile undertaking, to be sure, but not community engagement to any significant degree.
But that is about what engagement is not. Defining from a negative is tricky. (Of course, I spend a good deal of my life teaching and consulting in not-for-profit management. There’s a whole field defined in the negative!) Rather than define engagement yet, let’s begin with a test for its presence. Take a look at the content of the season brochure for your arts organization–the programming being produced for the public. If you cover up the name of the organization, the contact address, and other non-programmatic identifiers, can you tell where the organization is located? Or can you tell that it is located in some specific place. If not–that is, if it could be the program for any similar arts organization in any city in the country (the world?)–then there is little substantive engagement taking place.
It is telling that I so often need to explain what this simple test means. That is how tied to a particular model of programming (and mode of thinking about it) the arts world is. Try these questions on for size: Is there a thematic emphasis in any of the programming that highlights the needs or interests of the particular community? Is there indication of inter-organizational partnerships (particularly with non-arts organizations) in the selection or presentation of the arts programming? (Remember that fundraising alone does not count.) Is there evidence of programming that reflects awareness of the presence in the community of people from cultural backgrounds other than that out of which the organization’s dominant art form grew? In other words, can you tell from the programming that the arts organization has spent any time thinking about (and then responding to) its community?
Identifying and defining engagement is a different proposition from advocating for it. The latter is what most of my previous posts have been about. This is one of the first times I’ve begun to address the “What is it?” question. This is the topic (along with “How to do it”) that most energizes me. This post merely introduces the topic. There are many, many, many more miles to go here.
———————
For a good relevant example, the Museum of Vancouver (not solely an art museum, I admit) has a blog that is devoted to issues specific to Vancouver: e.g., housing, recycling, urban blight. Each specifically about the issue in Vancouver. It places MOV in the center of discussions about community issues and focuses the museum on the interests of the city. The blog’s stated purpose is to explore “the living history of Vancouver, examining contemporary concerns in relation to the past.” Not every item is about MOV’s art, history, or community programs, but many highlight relationships between community issues and those programs. What a great structural way to stay focused on the community.
Engage!
Doug
Graphic from the Piedmont Triad Initiative for Community Arts logo. Design by Carrie Dickey.
I like your test very much. I’m a musician, and can’t help noticing that classical music groups often seem to be addressing not the community in which they live, but the community of fellow classical music enthusiasts. Top-level groups appear to be more concerned about their reputations in the profession than their reputations in their place. As a result, publicity materials, programming, venues, and costumes look pretty similar no matter where the organizations are. Some symphony orchestras, for example, are like airports, hotels, and shopping malls: they look and act so much the same that you can’t tell what city you’re in. Your test makes all of this easy to notice.
Perhaps this happens because arts professionals gain status by impressing the profession. It might help to design ways to reward arts professionals for success in making and presenting work that is locally meaningful.