When I started this little blog excercise, I made a decision to keep it focused very narrowly - only thoughts and impressions of live performances that I've seen. I have intentionally avoided posting anything about arts management - which is a significant portion of how I earn a living.
I'm going to bend my rules a bit for this quickie: Today's Post has a nice article by Phillip Kennicot about the lecture at the Kennedy Center last Monday, presented by Americans for the Arts as part of their Arts Advocacy Day activities. He really put his finger on the "big questions" facing the arts in America - but I think failed to make one important distinction: Who is the audience for this arts advocacy message?
Americans for the Arts has been very effective lobbying congress regarding arts funding - and has found similar success at the state and local level around the country based on a strategy of using an "instrumental" approach: meaning they talk up the economic impact of investing in the arts, and the benefits of arts education -- as opposed to talking up the "intrinsic" value of the arts (like how the arts provides an opportunity for transformational personal experiences - you know, the powerful stuff... I'm sure everyone can name some artworks that have changed and/or shaped their lives: a book, a play, a poem, painting, an album that you couldn't live without, etc). This strategy is working in the legislative arena.
Over the last few years, the Wallace Foundation and others have dumped lots of money into a study dealing with arts advocacy - it's simply referred to as the "Rand Study" by those in the know... it was conducted and published by the Rand Corporation. This study claims that existing arts advocacy efforts are missing an important component: namely the intrinsic value of the arts. Here's where things get a little dicey. Americans for the Arts have proven that nuts and bolts tangible benefits make a compelling case for legislators - so they're sticking with that (and rightly so, I think). However, there's certainly a need to have a broader public conversation about the value of the arts -- especially these intrinsic values.
Some efforts are underway in this area... a national initiative called LiNC (Leveraging Investments in Creativity) has been formed to address the needs of individual artists - as indicated in a large national study that was originally under the same name. (That study used to be online here, but it's gone missing?) There's a local initiative as part of this project, being housed at the Community Foundation, called the "Creative Communities Initiative." I have mixed feelings about how that's progressing... but can't really talk about it because I'm on the steering committee and we are, I think, under some vague confidentiality agreement -- so I'm not really sure I'm supposed to mention that it exists? Well, they're having a public event in April so I think I can at least say that and not be breaking any rules...
Anyway, blah blah blah... just wanted to point out the Kennicot piece in the Post really...
Here in DC, since there's no voting representation in congress, we spend Arts Advocacy Day at the Wilson building lobbying the City Council. Strange that this local advocacy effort is missing some key players... did anyone spot any staff members of the Cultural Alliance? I don't think so... and I won't name other names here in public... but there are a few other notable local arts leaders who were absent.
Ok, no more arts management rants on this blog.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Arts Advocacy Day
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Three thoughts: I have long been bothered by the argument that the arts are not valuable in and of themselves, but rather as a support, or conduit to some other study or effect. The argument says that the arts are not equal to other pursuits of study--are not an important end in itself. Certainly economics is a powerful argument, and effective, but it is not the only argument and it seems to have pushed all others to the edge. Second the question and to an extent, the data are both flawed. No one can really make a definitive connection between the arts and higher SAT scores, for example. There has been no credible long-time study tracking of kids from pre-school through hich school. Maybe lots of anectedotal stories--and the so-called meta-analysis--but no hard facts. If the original data is flawed, the outcome is flawed. We who care about the arts should insist on a kind of generation-long study that supports other fields--like the Framingham Heart Study. The economic data is also muddy. One key study defines the economic impact of so-called 'creative' businesses, as identified from Dun and Bradstreet. Problem is those are all--or most--for profit businesses. Most, if not nearly all, not-for-profit arts groups are excluded. Are the arts really claiming a link between the local arts council or theater group and Hollywood Studios (the movie bank-buster 300?!) Even Hollywood admits it is really (almost all) about the money. Richard Florida in his influential, Rise of the Creative Class, included scientific, health, social and other pursuits as creative. But the arts leadership apparently excludes those pursuits in its defintion of creative industries. Gee I thought the arts were about ideas.
Post a Comment