{"id":200,"date":"2013-01-07T06:15:57","date_gmt":"2013-01-07T14:15:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/newbeans\/?p=200"},"modified":"2013-01-07T06:24:35","modified_gmt":"2013-01-07T14:24:35","slug":"margy-waller-on-whats-in-a-frame","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.artsjournal.com\/newbeans\/2013\/01\/margy-waller-on-whats-in-a-frame.html","title":{"rendered":"Margy Waller on What’s In a Frame"},"content":{"rendered":"

I’ve been reading <\/em>The Victory Lab<\/a> lately, an absolutely fascinating look at how elections are won and lost.\u00a0 And more than it’s about anything–even more than it’s about technological advancement–it’s about messaging, and framing, and rhetoric.\u00a0 Amidst many exciting, soaring scenarios about changing the landscape of public good will towards the arts that have flitted through my head while I read about the rise of modern politics, I’ve had this constant buzzing of “never gonna happen unless we change the song.”\u00a0 And to do that, we need to be singing from the same songbook.\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\n

Turns out, I’m not the most well-placed to get into the particulars on what that might mean, so I asked a good friend of mine, Margy Waller, to write about it for me.\u00a0 Margy, a senior fellow at the Topos Partnership<\/a> and the brains behind <\/em>The Arts Ripple Effect<\/a>, which you need to jump away from this blog to read if you haven’t\u00a0 yet, is one of the best brains in the business when it comes to framing and public opinion, in large part–I think–because she has spent most of her career <\/em>not talking about art.\u00a0 There’s a preciousness that seems to come from being so close to our product that makes us forget that ultimately this fight can’t be about <\/em>us, it has to be about <\/em>them.\u00a0 Whether it’s poverty, the environment or the arts, Waller and her partners\u00a0conduct\u00a0high quality research\u00a0with a laser eye focused on the goal of making art more relevant to more people as a way of leading a struggling sector to salvation.\u00a0 I’m on board, and I think you should be to.\u00a0 And so, enjoy.–Clay<\/em><\/p>\n

__________________________________<\/p>\n

\"reframing\"<\/a>More on (Re)Framing the Charitable Deduction<\/strong>
\nby Margy Waller<\/em><\/p>\n

In case you were thinking the debate about the charitable deduction ended at the cliff\u2019s edge\u2026.Nope, it did not.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s time to speak with one voice about the value of the arts as a public good.<\/strong><\/p>\n

If you have any doubts about how we\u2019re doing with the message, you can cringe your way through this cable news interview<\/a> with a former chairman of the New York state arts council about proposals to change the charitable deduction.<\/p>\n

(Note from Clay: No, really, click that link<\/a>.\u00a0 It, in itself, is the most visceral reminder of how much of a problem we really have in this arena that I’ve experienced, well, ever.\u00a0 Longest 4 minutes and 10 achingly bad seconds of my life.)<\/em><\/p>\n

Whether or not research supports the theory that a charitable deduction is critical to financial stability of nonprofit arts organizations, the way we share information about the value of the arts to public decision-makers matters in every public funding or policy discussion about the arts.<\/p>\n

This is nothing new — just possibly more urgent now that the charitable deduction is in play<\/a> with pending debates about the debt ceiling, funding cuts, and comprehensive tax reform.<\/p>\n

Why is there a continuing attack on arts funding and tax incentives? Small government proponents put the spotlight on the arts precisely because they\u00a0know<\/em> that the public reaction is along the lines of<\/a>: \u201cWhy should my tax dollars be spent on choices the elite and wealthy are making about their own entertainment?\u201d Or even more simply, \u201cWhat do I care about art? I don\u2019t go to art.\u201d<\/p>\n

And that\u2019s the problem. The way most people think about the arts (the dominant frame, in other words) works against us in the public dialogue.<\/p>\n

When it comes to a debate about the charitable deduction, it leaves us dangerously vulnerable to a charge that the arts don\u2019t fit into the definition of charity at all.<\/p>\n

The IRS says<\/a> that the \u201cpromotion of the arts and of culture is generally recognized as an educational activity.\u201d But, consider this finding reported in the Chronicle of Philanthropy<\/a>:<\/p>\n

A survey commissioned by Independent Sector found that government officials and other influential people in Washington have a positive perception of nonprofits as \u201corganizations that provide services to help others, provide an alternative to government, are motivated by the common good, and provide a vehicle for engaging communities, fostering altruism, and allowing the public to donate resources to benefit others.\u201d<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Would your arts organization\u2019s mission statement fit easily inside that view of nonprofits?<\/p>\n

The public\u2019s most common way of thinking <\/a>about the arts is as entertainment.<\/strong> This means they are thinking about how we each make individual choices to spend our time and money. The arts are seen as a nicety, not a necessity, in this category. It\u2019s really hard for people to think of entertainment as a public good, particularly as a way to spend (or forego in the case of the deduction) tax revenue. If \u201cthe arts\u201d equal entertainment and don\u2019t fit easily into a category people think of as charity, the public can be expected to wonder why the arts should benefit from preferential tax policy designed to encourage giving that will \u201chelp others.\u201d<\/p>\n

These widely held perceptions and the current legal definition of charity make the deduction for arts contributions particularly vulnerable under the law.<\/p>\n

Some lawmakers and policy advocates have long argued<\/a> that contributions to nonprofits serving the most needy in society (generally defined by their income level) are the most desirable gifts and should provide a larger tax benefit to encourage donors. So far, this argument has succeeded only at the state and local level. But it came up during the fiscal cliff negotiations<\/a> and there\u2019s every reason to think it will come up again soon<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Recent framing science research<\/a> by Topos Partnership provides a way to build support for the arts as a matter of public concern — and it\u2019s not by throwing out a lot of numbers about \u201creturn on investment\u201d using a traditional dollars and cents argument. (The public doesn\u2019t believe those arguments now, if they ever did.)<\/p>\n

What is the value statement that works? This one:<\/p>\n

The arts have a surprising ripple effect of benefits in our communities. <\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The research identifies two specific benefits that people already believe in and value:<\/p>\n