{"id":583,"date":"2015-07-06T14:46:22","date_gmt":"2015-07-06T12:46:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/jumper\/?p=583"},"modified":"2015-07-06T20:19:30","modified_gmt":"2015-07-06T18:19:30","slug":"valuable-data-questionable-field-recommendations-a-response-to-irvines-latest-report-on-arts-participation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/jumper\/2015\/07\/valuable-data-questionable-field-recommendations-a-response-to-irvines-latest-report-on-arts-participation\/","title":{"rendered":"Valuable data, questionable field recommendations. (A response to Irvine’s latest report on arts participation.)"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"risk<\/a>A few years ago I had a meeting with a PhD advisor in the US to talk through the proposed chapter breakdown for my dissertation. When\u00c2\u00a0discussing the key components of my\u00c2\u00a0final chapter I conveyed that it would include a major section covering policy implications and recommendations for arts organizations, artists, and funders. My advisor\u00c2\u00a0smiled a bit and said, “Well, let’s see if you earn that section, first.” It was a good lesson. Whenever I come across a\u00c2\u00a0passage in a research study that begins, “The evidence suggests that arts organizations should, could, might \u00e2\u20ac\u00a6” my antenna goes up and I ask whether the recommendations are merited, or whether liberties have been taken.<\/p>\n

I share this anecdote because I recently reviewed\u00c2\u00a0the findings from a very good study commissioned by the Irvine Foundation\u00e2\u20ac\u201dThe Cultural Lives of Californians<\/a>, undertaken by\u00c2\u00a0the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago.\u00c2\u00a0While the report itself is chock-full of both data and provocative questions that I imagine could be of great value to arts organizations who are sincere about such things as broadening, deepening and diversifying audiences (the motto brought to us by Wallace and Rand back in the day), the Irvine Foundation\u00c2\u00a0seems to be overreaching with its follow-on recommendations for arts organizations.<\/p>\n

A brief exposition:<\/strong><\/p>\n

A few years ago the Irvine Foundation (located in California) made a dramatic shift in its arts grantmaking strategy. As executive director of the LA County Arts Commission, Laura Zucker, once put it, “Irvine’s constituency seems to have shifted from\u00c2\u00a0<\/em>arts organizations\u00c2\u00a0<\/em>to\u00c2\u00a0<\/em>people in the community not being served by arts organizations.” *<\/p>\n

Irvine’s current aim is to promote engagement in the arts for all Californians. Here’s the text that appeared in 2011 when it announced its plans:<\/p>\n

Under the new strategy, the foundation will work to boost participation among low-income and ethnically diverse populations that have traditionally been underserved by arts nonprofits; support programs that expand how Californians actively participate in the arts, including the use of digital technology to produce or curate art; and use diverse, non-traditional spaces, especially in regions with few arts-specific venues.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In support of this democratic ideal the Foundation launched in 2013 a new Exploring Engagement Fund to support projects that “aim to engage new and diverse populations by adding\u00c2\u00a0active participation<\/em>\u00c2\u00a0opportunities and\/or incorporating the use of\u00c2\u00a0nontraditional arts spaces<\/em>” (emphases added). While some\u00c2\u00a0nonprofit professional arts organizations in its portfolio met this news with enthusiasm, evidently uptake on the new program was slow. Many\u00c2\u00a0of the Foundation’s historic arts grantees seemed\u00c2\u00a0unwilling to follow the carrot.<\/p>\n

I addressed this resistance a couple years ago in two blog posts (here<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0and\u00c2\u00a0also here<\/a>). \u00c2\u00a0My view, in a nutshell, was (and still is) this: While the Irvine Foundation may have been justified in pursuing a brave new strategy, its grantees were also justified in rebuffing it. I wrote:<\/p>\n

Irvine appears to be interested in bringing about a kind of diversity (i.e., change) in the arts sector we don’t often talk about:\u00c2\u00a0aesthetic\u00c2\u00a0diversity. … However well-researched and justified, Irvine must recognize (and I think it does) that its strategy is out of line with the missions of a majority of professional arts organizations, which were formed to present work by professionals for audiences that come to appreciate that work, not make it. …\u00c2\u00a0Irvine needs to recognize that it is endeavoring to coax organizations into uncharted territory. It wants to coerce a change that many cannot make, or do not want to make.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

On The Cultural Lives of Californians<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

So here we are two years later and Irvine has released the findings from its latest study, which investigated differences in \u00c2\u00a0arts and culture participation behaviors across California’s diverse population. It probably goes without saying that many of those surveyed\u00c2\u00a0are not<\/em> patrons of traditional fine arts organizations. Researchers\u00c2\u00a0sought to understand (1) what counts as culture, (2) where culture happens, (3) its value to people, and (4) the role of technology in the cultural lives of Californians.<\/p>\n

One outcome of the study is an\u00c2\u00a0expanded concept of arts participation–one that reflects seven types of behavior researchers\u00c2\u00a0encountered: art-making<\/em>, arts-going, arts-learning<\/em>, media-based consumption<\/em>, supporting arts and culture<\/em> (i.e., volunteering time, money or resources), using social media<\/em>, and the nebulous category\u00c2\u00a0additional activities<\/em>. \u00c2\u00a0Irvine\u00c2\u00a0is not alone in expanding the aperture on arts participation. The NEA has made a similar shift\u00c2\u00a0in its periodic survey of public participation in the arts (discussed in this\u00c2\u00a0NEA blog post<\/a>\u00c2\u00a0written\u00c2\u00a0by director of research Sunil Iyengar).<\/p>\n

So, what’s the headline of Irvine’s latest report?\u00c2\u00a0Well, it\u00c2\u00a0seems to be a good news\/bad news\u00c2\u00a0message.<\/p>\n

First, the report “reframes” the broken-record lament\u00c2\u00a0that arts participation is in decline by advancing\u00c2\u00a0the much more optimistic perspective\u00c2\u00a0that if the definitions of ‘art’ and ‘participation’ are expanded to encompass such things as\u00c2\u00a0salsa dancing at the community center, singing at church, knitting at home, watching a YouTube video demonstrating how to knit, writing\u00c2\u00a0fan fiction, posting a comment to Facebook about an artist, or taking a photograph and posting it on Instagram–then, actually,\u00c2\u00a0significantly\u00c2\u00a0<\/em>more people participate in the arts and culture than previously acknowledged.<\/p>\n

(That this might not be encouraging news for orchestras whose audiences for concerts are in decline seems to be a perspective the report doesn’t want to indulge.)<\/p>\n

However,\u00c2\u00a0the report is not simply a pep\u00c2\u00a0rally\u00c2\u00a0to drum up enthusiam for the breadth and diversity of cultural participation in California. The bad news? While\u00c2\u00a0the levels and varieties of arts and cultural participation overall are “encouraging, there is significant disparity between different groups of Californians.”<\/p>\n

It strikes me that, to a great extent, Irvine is trying to grapple with this disparity and, in particular, trying to harness the energies of nonprofit professional arts organizations to solve this problem.\u00c2\u00a0To that end, the report includes several sets of provocative questions\u00e2\u20ac\u201dall versions of, “So how might a professional arts organization help improve this situation?”<\/p>\n