Let’s give credit to the Fine Arts Fund in Cincinnati. In the belief that funding for the arts — private and public — has hit a “plateau that has little to do with the current economy,” the group began a study of public attitudes toward the arts, trying to find out why people take little responsibility for financing them with public money.
The theory: if we change the message, maybe we can change their minds — but first we have to understand their minds. After a year of study, here are some of their findings:
- People view the arts as “entertainment,” and therefore “a matter of taste, not public responsibility” and as “an extra, not a necessity.”
- People expect to have “a mostly passive, consumer relationship with the arts.” The arts will be on offer, and they should succeed or fail in the marketplace, without the need for support.
- The arts are a low priority for most people, even when they value art.
To change all that, the group proses a new message that differentiates the arts from entertainment, stresses their public value, and includes all people in a region, not just city-dwellers. The message would center on the arts “ripple effect,” not simply the economic ripples (which, as I’ve said before, don’t stand up when compared with other economic investments) but the communal ripples. Among them is a “more connected population,” with diverse groups sharing experiences and learning new perspectives, and revitalized communitites that go “well beyond the limited dollar-and-cents economic argument.”
Is it enough? Is it correct? I think the approach has some merit. One thing I like about it is the idea that this problem requires new thinking, based on evidence, and that the report emphasizes that it recommends not a new slogan or image, but a new orientation toward communicating the value of the arts. How thoughtful.
You can read the 24-page report here.