{"id":5203,"date":"2018-02-07T02:00:03","date_gmt":"2018-02-07T07:00:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/engage\/?p=5203"},"modified":"2018-02-05T11:05:56","modified_gmt":"2018-02-05T16:05:56","slug":"present-what-you-do","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/engage\/2018\/02\/present-what-you-do\/","title":{"rendered":"Present What You Do"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

This is part of a series, introduced in\u00a0Baby Steps<\/a><\/em>, about arts organizations\u2019 initial efforts in community engagement. For details about the premises upon which these posts are based, see below. The essence is that simple, inexpensive initial steps offer the best way to embark upon community engagement.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

Present What You Do: Connecting through Our Art
\n<\/b>The most important attribute of any arts organization is, of course, the art it presents. To many people, committing to community engagement raises images (and fears) of rapid, monumental, systemic change. While significant change may result eventually\u2013but only after the organization and the communities it is attempting to reach are both ready\u2013there is much that can be done with little or no change to currently offered programming.<\/span><\/p>\n

Ours is an event-driven, action-oriented industry. When we commit to a new way of thinking we want to <\/span>do<\/span><\/i>. But premature \u201cdoing\u201d\u2013programming without real knowledge of or input from a community\u2013can feel invasive to them. It can also be viewed as a simple ploy to sell tickets or secure grant funds. This will do nothing to build trust and develop relationships.<\/span><\/p>\n

Fortunately, the first step for most arts organizations should simply be imagining what currently scheduled performances or exhibitions might look like to communities they hope to reach. My overused example of <\/span>West Side Story<\/span><\/i> as tale of immigrant conflict and gang violence is a case in point. Most cities have issues with both. Being aware of the themes, background, or history of the works presented <\/span>and<\/span><\/i> of the interests of local communities can provide flashes of insight into ways to connect.<\/span><\/p>\n

Of course if those flashes involve communities with which no relationship currently exists, there is a very real danger that approaching them will appear self-serving. A public commitment to relationship building, respect, and mutual benefit could help to pave the way. (See here<\/a> for an example.) In addition, if there is no current relationship, there is no guarantee that the themes you identify will <\/span>actually<\/span><\/i> be meaningful to those communities. But making the effort, acknowledging the organization\u2019s need to learn, is probably better than nothing.<\/span><\/p>\n

Far better, of course, is having relationships and identifying themes that you know will be of significance to them. Relationship building, like pure scientific research, is intended to lay foundations upon which to build, not knowing what the end might be. And the relationship building should have higher success rates than pure research!<\/span><\/p>\n

Over time, as relationships develop, selection of works to present can be informed by what is know about the communities with which you are working. These selections, especially in the beginning, can and probably should be of work that would have been presented anyway. The timing of the presentation will simply be helpful in deepening the relationship.<\/span><\/p>\n

Only in the long term will it be beneficial to solicit community input on programming. <\/span>This should not be taking a poll of \u201cWhat they want.\u201d<\/i><\/b> Rather, knowing the issues that speak to them and that they would like to address, the arts organization can make suggestions about works that might serve those ends.<\/span><\/p>\n

As I have said elsewhere, when arts organization staff members find themselves curious about whether their presentation of:<\/span><\/p>\n