James Undercofler
In keeping with the annual spate of Top Ten lists, I offer here a Top Ten list of work items for the arts sector for 2011 that can also be found on my blog at http://www.artsjournal.com.
Item #1. Develop a better argument for the arts as a priority in community planning and decision making. Let's acknowledge that the economic development argument is riddled with holes. And, especially in light of the Great Recession, it's tired, and bordering on silly. I'm impressed here in Philadelphia that the Greater Philadelphia Cultural Alliance is grappling headlong with this challenge with their "Grow" initiative. Yes, they still maintain the economic development element, but they cast it inside a larger series of messages. At the very least, it's an example of an organization working to craft a strategy with concomitant techniques to assert the power of the arts into wider and deeper community processes.
The intrinsic value argument has merit, and may, through new iterations, find its proper footing and effectiveness. This may be where we need to work from, on Item #1. We arts practitioners have been lousy at expressing this position, using language that brands us as members of a political fringe. We have quickly veered off into utilitarian or constructivist positions, making us appear even weaker.
Item #2. Let's develop better use of the language within our field. Our weakness here feeds our
weakness in presenting a more effective argument for the arts (Work Task #1). Our needs in this area are numerous.
One, we tend to misunderstand, and confuse the "languages" of marketing, development and simple
descriptive narrative. "Market talk" has infused both of the other areas. Foundation proposals read like marketing promotions and simple narrative often wanders incomprehensively between "market talk,"foundation narrative and simple prose. Those who read these reports don't know which end is up. As a field, let's come to understand that there is a difference among these 3 areas, that we need to learn what they are, and practice them.
Two, -- and this is related to the paragraph above, we frequently make assertions that are of our own opinion, that cannot be substantiated. We allow (perhaps without knowing it) our world view to dominate our language, both written and spoken. We often sound preachy. Much of what we say and write can be substantiated through the many research organizations associated with our field (Foundation Center; Urban Institute; the many divisions of the U.S. government, like the Census Bureau, etc.). The use of assertions that are substantiated will deeply and positively affect our work.
Three, when we are acting as advocates, we speak to audiences from all backgrounds. Within a week, an arts leader will speak to politicians, (wealthy) board members, community leaders, and artists within h/her own organization, colleagues within and outside h/her field. Each of these "audiences" will respond to messages better if the messages are delivered in the language of the receiver. Here I don't suggest a complete translation, but an understanding and sensitivity to the language of the receiver. Developing this ability requires that we listen very carefully to those within each of the areas mentioned above, then dissect the nuances of verbal exchange, and finally practice inclusion of elements of the styles.
Around 35 years ago I took a course in teacher evaluation that I was required to take for certification to become a school administration. One of the first exercises we were given was to list adjectives we knew to express "excellent." We would be writing teacher evaluations, and our professor wanted us to be able to use a variety of nuances in expressing excellent teaching. Our results to this exercise were shocking, as our limited vocabulary was painfully exposed to us. I believe that this limited vocabulary, and the ability to use it in multiple venues is a major challenge for our field.
Item #3. Let's make a commitment to creating and nurturing cooperative ventures, not just within our inner circles, or our comfort zones, but those that stretch us artistically and those that make our entities more efficient.
Face it: we're very, very conservative and unimaginative when it comes to artistic cooperative ventures. Our first thoughts are to cooperate with those like us (I'm resisting a number of poignant examples). These can be fun, but don't stretch us artistically. But perhaps way more important, it doesn't stretch us administratively. My experience is that cooperative artistic ventures are generally moved forward, nurtured and executed by administrators. They tend to resist complex ventures because they take time and extended skills in communications and organization. Please let's stretch ourselves artistically. Not only are the possibilities exciting to imagine; but also as a field, in general, we're beginning to look ordinary and boring.
The potential for organizational cooperative ventures is overwhelming. Yes, this thought has been beaten to death already, but beaten to death by those who don't want to find efficiencies because they fear loss of control. We're an embarrassment organizationally when we compare ourselves with the commercial sector. When profit is the driving force, enterprises look for any efficiency that will improve their bottom line. Why doesn't this same zeal drive our possibilities for cooperative efficiencies? Let's get out of our boxes and find these money-savers.
Funders love cooperative ventures and have encouraged them, but they are beginning to suspect that the not-for-profit arts sector talks a good line, but doesn't deliver. 2011 is the year to get serious about cooperative ventures: both those artistic and those organizational!
Item #4. This one will be no surprise to readers of this blog. Let's really work on exploring and then considering organizational designs other than the 501c3. Yes, the 501c3 offers a number of seductive characteristics, but it is also expensive to operate, cumbersome administratively and has the potential to become insular.
Organizational design, as well as administrative design should be built to best move a mission forward. Current arts innovators don't even think that there may be alternative organizational and administrative models. They immediately assume that forming a 501c3 is the answer to their needs.
The argument to form a 501c3 seems to always center or revert to the tax deductibility of donations. Tax deductibility appears to become increasingly important as the size of gift increases. For organizations seeking small and medium-sized gifts, tax deductibility is of minor consequence. Check out (www.kickstarter.com) to experience an alternative to "traditional" giving!
So, for new arts ventures: STOP and think before immediately forming a 501c3. Check out alternatives (many outlined in my former blog entries), and then make a decision. For existing arts ventures: THINK about it. Maybe you are losing the game because of your organizational design.
Item #5. Number 5 is short and sweet, like Five Golden Rings!
Let's practice what we preach. Let's approach our work with creativity, and with an appetite for risk. Although my interpretation of his work may be over-simplified, Robert Persig, in his iconic work, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (and later in Lila), asserted that unless we are moving forward, unless we are dynamic in our approach to life, we are moving backward and declining, that there is no stasis, or even place.
His philosophy speaks clearly to those of us in the arts. If we are not exploring new ideas, stretching ourselves creatively and going out on limbs, we are not serving our art form, or ourselves well. We are sitting on our hands, and as such, sliding backward.
This work task is accomplished by asking ourselves, every time we are in a decision-making
situation, "am I looking at this through the eyes of an artist?"
Item #6. Let's break down, get rid of the artificial barriers between not-for-profit arts and commercial arts. This artificial designation does us no good, as it causes internal sector strife, and confusion and misunderstanding among the public.
There's plenty of really cheesy not-for-profit art, and plenty of high quality commercial art. Examples surely pop into your head as you think about this. That a dichotomy emerged out of the "501c3 movement" is still hard to understand: that not-for-profit = quality art (or even worse, "high art") and that commercial art = low quality art. It's easy to reduce this equation. If it sells, it must be bad and vice versa.
So, knowing that the premise is fatally flawed, and that maintaining it is unhealthy to our field, let's actively work to break down barriers this coming year.
But how?
Open your eyes and attend several of the "other" side's work. Interact with your "opponent." Seek opportunities to speak to the issue. Find partnerships that make sense artistically and financially. And perhaps high on the scale would be creating new ventures that optimize the advantages of both organizational models. Check out World Cafe Live in Philadelphia, where Hal Real, their creator, has constructed a commercial/not-for-profit combo of www.worldcafelive.com and www.liveconnections.org.
Item #7. Who makes iconography decisions in your arts organization? If you are the leader, it better be you. I have recently advised a number of student research papers that examine alignment between mission, program and iconography, and I'm appalled by the lack of synchronization. It makes be wonder, no suspect, that the iconography has a (false) life of its own; or that it's the organizations' wishes being expressed, not their actual operation.
What we have been finding is some of the usual embarrassments of tokenism and cultural
misrepresentation. In this latter group, when artists' agents were asked why the misrepresentation, their answers were that this is what the public expects (!). That there is still tokenism makes me wonder who is in charge.
What I found most surprising, however, wasn't the lack of alignment or the tokenism and cultural misrepresentation, but the profound lack of imagination and artistry.
Let's in 2011 find a process within arts organizations that insures that iconography flows directly from the heart of each organization, and that in doing so it honors all citizens and produces artistic and fresh images.
Item #8. I spoke to this task in 2 recent blog entries, to concern about the effects of government support. Let's make it a priority to re-examine our positions vis a vis government involvement. We've really got to, as we're on a slippery slope now. We shape our artistic output to please legislators and we prattle endlessly about the constructive benefits of the arts (economic development, tourism, brain development, etc.). We're hooked, guys, and we'll do anything for our next fix.
The mostly-dysfunctional 501c3 comes from the government. We're hooked on tax deductibility;
although it's being shown that most mid-sized and smaller donors don't care (they take the standard deduction, or find that the amount "saved" is too small to matter). So we over-burden our entire field with an organizational model that is unwieldy and expensive. I will challenge myself to calculate what could be saved in a more efficient model v. the donations brought in because of tax-deductibility.
Professional arts advocates appear helpless to stop the giant communications corporations from taking control of media, and devaluing artistic intellectual property ownership. Yes, government is not benign. It is aggressive and we need to not only reconsider existing laws and appropriations, but also actions that have a negative effect on artistic freedom and output. We must rethink our equation with government. I become more alarmed about it every time I think about it.
Item #9. For years, and I mean years, I prided myself on my being able to stay on top of advances in technology. I saw it as an amazing tool to advance communications, increase efficiency, and provide creative possibilities for education in the arts. I thought I had a complete concept of the potential of contemporary technology. But what I didn't "get" was how it would become so central, such a control point in daily lives. Somehow its hardware and software have married and produced something entirely new, a medium unto itself.
By and large arts leaders, administrators and artists themselves are way behind in their understanding of technology and all of its workings and potential. There even seems to be a correlation between primitive technology use and application with those arts organizations that produce historical European-rooted art, and vice versa. And what these former organizations need more than anything else right now is to wake up and get with the technological revolution.
Just as I was about to join Facebook (long overdue) one of my students told me that it was already passé. Probably not true in actuality, but for him, a future that bolts into a zone beyond Facebook is already imaginable and as such, possible. I tell this anecdote to emphasize how rapidly, how dynamic contemporary technological developments are; and because I want to make a strong point.
We older-than-35 art leaders must pay increased amounts of attention and hands-on time to learning, using and playing with all the many techo-toys and apps in 2011 OR lose the game! The potential and possibilities for the arts, all the arts, is enormous, for increasing our reach and impact, and for creating honest and genuine revenue streams.
Item #10. What a revelation it has been to experience the vast arts world, after my most recent 14 professional years totally immersed in the field of music (not all classical at Eastman). During these years, because of the press of senior management and seductive insularity, my arts exposure was 90% music, 10% other (and rarely self-selected). Escaping this situation has allowed me to experience a wide variety of art, in different genres and forms. And in doing this I have changed the way I think and approach matters.
For 2011, let's make sure we experience others' art performances, exhibitions and presentations. Let's get out of the self-imposed rut. And let's make our choices by ourselves, relying on our own instincts, and doing our own research, and buying our own tickets (yes, paying for them). Furthermore, buy a piece of visual art created by a living artist. One can do this, as prices can be very affordable.
Could it be that many of the traits of the arts leader and arts not-for-profit organizational model that I rail about are the result of insularity: of only experiencing one's own art done by those whom we know in venues we are familiar with? One has to believe that this is a significant contributing factor, and one so pleasantly and easily addressed!
No comments:
Post a Comment