|
||
Arts in Crisis
American arts organizations are threatened, but it is not the economy that poses the largest threat.
It is the decision-making of boards and staffs in response to economic challenges that has much greater long-term implications for the health of our arts ecology.
While arts funding only fell 6% last year, many arts organizations are making drastic cuts to their programming. Many have canceled performances, eliminated educational programming, shortened seasons, or closed altogether. Others are "dumbing down" their product; there is a widespread call to make programming more accessible (read boring). Still more are cutting their marketing dramatically; after all, they argue, who will notice if we spend less on communicating our (reduced) programming?
These approaches to dealing with the current recession all assume that cost is the underlying problem of the arts; conventional wisdom suggests that an arts organization can "save its way to health."
But this is wrong, dangerously wrong.
Arts organizations across the world have a revenue problem, not a cost problem. We are a remarkably efficient industry, doing more with less. But we do not yet know how to create the revenue streams we need to do our work in a consistent manner.
And what creates revenue for an arts organization? Good art supported by strong marketing. Arts organizations that consistently do good work and are aggressive about their marketing are the ones which succeed, both programmatically and financially.
Cutting programming and marketing, the current favored strategy, therefore, ensures that future revenue will fall. This initiates a viscous cycle; less art and marketing yielding less revenue leading to more cuts in programming and marketing, less revenue, etc. etc.
Taken to its conclusion, an arts organization simply gets too small to matter.
This is why our arts are in crisis today. We can survive the current economic downturn if we keep our programming vital and work harder than ever to convey our message. Those arts organizations who compete well will survive and recover when the economy recovers. Those that continue to cut away at their programming are likely to become irrelevant.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Art organizations, like most government organizations, need to get more creative. Just throwing money to arts organizations cannot solve this puzzle. What we need is a strategy where decision makers are creative. During this era, marked by these economic crossroads, such a strategy is even more important. Thanks for this piece.
Mr. Kaiser's assessment of how to better shape the arts from the artistic standpoint, rather than the economical, opens many doors. As a society, we have relied on old systems of creating arts for the public. One fine program was the Affiliate Artists program two decades ago. We were sent throughout communities, which brought in many audience members to the culminating concerts in recital and with orchestra. We have to make ourselves more affordable, deflate the monstrous fees, and offer repertoire which is not dumbed down, but combined in new and interesting ways that make our art more accessible to all ages. We now live in the iPod generation, and we must ensure that our audiences grow rather than shrink, and present ourselves and our programs in ways that attract them. Since I created the first live internet concert in 1997, and the first largest consortium of orchestras to commission a new concerto in 1998 (which made it affordable to fund new music by many orchestras), I would like to see online performances happen by making our concert halls internet capable, thus increasing revenue for the organizations, as opposed to relying solely on the ticket sales of the available seats. True, we cannot replicate the 'live' experience, but we can make it available to people who live too far from the events they might like to witness. Just my own thoughts of how to use today's technology to bring the arts closer to people in a way they can relate.
Michael Kaiser's splendid call to arms needs to be balanced by the economic reality facing arts organizations. The "last year" to which he refers during which arts funding fell 6% is presumably 2008 over 2007 - and the recession only began to bite towards the end of 2008. The dramatic falls in the value of endowment are affecting the budgets for 2009 and subsequent years. Contributed income is dropping. Attendances are under pressure. While boards and directors should be held to account to ensure that "the economy" is not used as a blanket excuse for feeble decisions and inadequate fundraising, there is in most cases no alternative to cost cuts. In doing the cuts, yes, organizations should be judicious and strive to protect the programs and the marketing of those programs, but boards and directors have a duty to stay out of operating deficit unless their institutions have genuine rainy-day reserves.
I am on the board of a rural non-profit arts organization in Michigan. There is no pay check, the hours are long and the concerns over money are huge. I agree that programming is key to our survival and that the more people we can include through marketing of what we do, the better our programs and events will do. The problem is how to market with no money. There is a small group of supporters that attend our programs but we feel we need to extend our reach. It really is a Catch 22.
Here are some things that have worked pretty well for my community theater:
E-MAIL: free & has infinite reach. We ask patrons to sign up w/ the promise that their e-mail address wil absolutely go no further than our theater (we don't sell them!) & that we will send them regular updates on whats going on at our theater & occasional special offers on ticket pricing (2-for-one on traditionally slower Friday nights, or $5 off w/ a donation for our local food bank...)
Flyers: relatively cheap to print & easily distributed by cast & crew to friends & family, posted in the windows of local businesses, schools, etc... Also can be e-mailed & forwarded to infinity!
MySpace page for the show
Partnership with other local theaters: We have 4 or 5 in our county who all mention current productions at the other theaters in their programs & pre-show announcements & encourage attendance
Preview shows at our local mall: Performing a few numbers from an upcoming musical on a Saturday afternoon while passing out flyers will generate some interest (& the mall, or whatever public venue, should be happy to have some free entertainment)
Contact your local radio stations & offer them several pairs of tickets to give away. We have also had our children's choir from a couple of shows perform on-air
On the production side: I have successfully traded ad space in our program for goods from local businesses
Good Luck!
The bloggers below take Mr. Kaiser's lead by lumping everything in together. His expertise and experience are in "classical" performing arts: ballet, opera, orchestras, chamber music. This is very different from pop stars on tour, music in movies, or rural arts programs. Serious performing arts (and, in other ways, "nonperforming arts" -- literature, visual art) are in big trouble in the U.S. because they are failing to attract a young audience. Here in Los Angeles I am sure that more people visit the Disney Concert Hall as a tourist attraction than attend concerts there. The average age at most performing arts events appears to be sixty plus. So the programmers attempt to go pop, which is a synonym for what Mr. Kaiser calls "dumbing down." (You can decide which expression is the euphemism.) The results are generally not good. So we have young artists performing for geriatric audiences. Arts education, from elementary school on up, is obviously failing to the extent that it exists, and necessary to the extent that it does not. The goal of arts education should be to communicate the following message: Art is pleasurable, and has non-ephemeral content which may well be meaningful for your life. And the better the art, the more pleasure you are likely to get. The sixty-plus crowd who sleep through performing arts events don't seem to get much pleasure out of anything.
Not to disagree, but to agree and extend your point. The pleasurable aspects of art are not what merits public support and in fact, there is a lot of worthy art that is downright disturbing.
Our secular society doesn't have a strong enough of a spiritual core to understand the essential value of the arts. By confusing and equating the separation of church and state with a separation of the heart and mind we are unable to say more than art may be meaningful for your life. A pretty vapid assertion given that the arts are the lens that gives us a unique and critical view of existential realities. But our national character is unable to appreciate values outside of our capitalistic world view. So the Arts remain an option far down on the list as entertainment and ornamentation. "It's good for the kids" is a fall back position that at least maintains an anemic arts education system because, as a culture, we only half believe it.
The Arts in america succeed in spite of all this because artists, understanding its intrinsic value, continue to make art whether they are supported or not.
The "serious" arts are not failing to attract a young audience. Rather, young audiences are being shielded from exposure to the "serious" arts because of the dumbing-down of our educational system, and the insistence that every kind of art has to pay its own way. My own expertise is in opera and French Baroque music, and as soon as people hear it, most of them are delighted with the experience. A few need to be eased into it, which they would not have to be if they had learned about it in the schools. Studies prove that people appreciate the arts more when they have facts and context about it.
The sixty-plus crowd, asleep or not, is likely to receive significant health benefits from the performance.
[Senator Harry Reid] noted that Congress had never before "directly addressed the question of music" as preventive medicine and as "a therapeutic tool for those suffering from Alzheimer's disease and related dementias, strokes and depression."
According to a survey by Americans for the Arts, arts organizations pay out almost 3 times more for staff and administration than they do to artist practitioners. As Mr. Kaiser notes the amount spent on programming is falling, yet is the same true for the amount spent on administration? I have seen too many careerist administrators expanding their salaries and staff while giving short shrift to programming. The problem is structural and not a public one so much as an internal one within the institutions.
Many arts nonprofits is exist to provide well-paying, easy jobs for the haute bourgeoisie. I don't accept the premise of the article that the arts are in crisis; anyone who wants to practice can become an artist, and there are more people doing it now than ever.
That particular figure from the Americans for the Arts survey cannot be taken so simply; "artist" does not equate to "programming," which is what nonprofit arts organizations provide. A lot of the programming costs are labeled administrative---including production costs and marketing. Furthermore, personnel costs have to be factored into programming because it's the full-time staff that coordinates and facilitates both the artists and the audience. The money spent on administration and personnel in the nonprofit arts is not merely overhead, it goes to create the programming. Money that goes toward education and outreach (most of which would be labeled "administrative" by the AFTA survey) goes to cultivating relationships with the community and enhancing audience members' experience in the arts. A lot of this work has been cut by the economic climate. Even money that goes toward building maintenance influences programming; how big of an audience does art presented in a crumbling building attract? These things aren't strictly "programming" in the sense that an artist is being presented to an audience, but they ("administrative costs") cannot be separated out so easily.
I'm not sure where you have seen inflated salaries in arts organizations. It's generally not a highly-paid nor an easy field, and is full of both artists and administrators who choose to work in the arts because they are passionate about what they do.
As a student of arts management and someone who has worked as an arts administrator for the past 8 years, I must agree with EnRoute37.
The budgeting reality is that the majority of arts organizations are great sticklers to the 20/80 rule. They spend no more than 20% of their budgets on Administrative and Overhead costs and 80% of their budgets on programming. What the AFTA chart fails to explain is that since arts organizations are primarily service organizations (presenting art or educational programming), a great portion of salaries actually go towards programming, not admin.
Mr. Kaiser is right on target when he states that arts organizations need to preserve their programming, marketing and risk taking. However while many orgs may be cutting these aspects of their business, they are also cutting their administrative costs. For many small organizations, there are few administrative costs to cut as they are already working on shoe-string budgets giving employees little pay or benefits (see Kathleen Frascatore), or not having employees at all and running as pure volunteer organizations.
As lovers of the arts we must remember that the economic impact of the arts and the intrinsic values of the arts are not mutually exclusive, so that we can create well rounded arguments for our advocacy efforts toward both the public and private sectors.
The arts is 6% of the GDP of the USA (according to the US Department of Labor and the SEC). It's not just film and popular music . . . what you don't realize is the extent to which art permeates every corner of our lives. It's precisely because it's so invisible that people take it for granted.
Music is heard in nearly every television episode, film and commercial. Every product you buy has behind it a graphic designer for the logo. Every public space has architects and landscapers. Every album you buy has an art director for the cover, costumers, photographers, set designers, graphic artists, etc. All those musicians, artists, etc. have to cut their teeth somewhere, and most of them do it at non-profit arts centers. In addition, the kind of "art . . . nobody wants to pay for" is the most valuable because that's the kind of art that teaches the artists the most.
The music industry alone provides employment for 250,000 people. This does not include the ranchers who sell horse hair for stringed instrument bows; the manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of equipment to record and reproduce sound; the farmers who grow wood for musical instruments; etc. One in three Americans has held in his or her lifetime a job in an industry dependent on the music industry: legal, publishing, printing, marketing, internet, wholesale and retail sales, distribution, facilities management . . .
This "arts as economic impact" argument has been going on for decades, and DOESN'T WORK. Do I think it has value? Yes, but this stance is not going to get us anywhere so we need to move on.
On a whole though, this article is just wrong. 6% does not tell the whole story. As people before me metnioned, you need to remember than many organizations fill their income gap with endowment draws, and most of those have decreased by 35%. Also, economic downturns within arts organization's tend to trail the overall economy; meaning that next year will be a major test for arts organizations across the country.
Yes, we exist to provide a public good, but we also need to make sure that we run our organizations so that they can continue into the future. Many organizations have not done that, and are now closed because of it. How is that providing a public good?
Our arts, as commercial product, is the most successful export we send around the world. American film and American popular music make billions for their copyright holders so long as the public can be persuaded to pay for them.
The arts you would champion, insofar as they exist as a function of government funding, are a wonderful opportunity for folks good at writing grants to get money to produce art that otherwise nobody wants to pay for. Sorry if just now the gravy train turns up at your station short on gravy.
I was forced to leave my position last week as Executive Director of a successful rural arts organization. Under my 5-year tenure programs flourished, but staffing cuts this year, due to budget cuts, meant that in the past 7 months, I was running a half-million/9-county organization with one other staff person.
My position grew to include all bookkeeping and accounting, budgeting, graphic design and public relations, gallery management for three galleries, grants administration, human resources, fundraising, special events, arts education, a film series and facilities management. I was working 70-80 hours every week, made $40,000 a year, with no benefits.
When I went to my board to express my frustration and ask how we could work together to find a solution, they gave me a list of MORE work to do, thus covering themselves when I left - which they knew was inevitable given the ridiculous workload and lack of compensation. On top of everything, they owe me $3,800 for additional work I did in the wake of a staff resignation. They now refuse to pay it, even though the work was done, because they aren't sure they'll end the year in the black. Meantime, they missed their fundraising goals by 50%.
Yes, yes, yes, the work was wonderful and the mission was and is important. But the children of arts administrators need to eat too.
Mr Kaiser cites the statistic that Arts funding only fell 6% last year. I'm not going to question his expertise, but I think it's a misleading statistic. First of all, any cut is harmful considering the rising cost of....everything. Cuts often result in layoffs, salary freezes, loss of benefits and the like. 6% doesn't sound like much, but the arts in general have been underfunded and subject to cuts for years. His column, and some of the comments here sound to me like a call for art organizations to stop whining and get more efficient. Trim the fat! Cut these bloated "bougeoise" salaries! Reminds me of conservatives who don't want to pay the taxes it requires to fund proper public education and blame it on "wasteful spending" in the schools. Most people that work in the arts are woefully underpaid and understaffed and aren't doing it for the money, like Mrs. Frascatore they do it because they're passionate about art.
I am curious, jhNY, why we are to believe that something is only valuable or necessary if someone is willing to pay for it?
Not every industry or sector should be held to the same capitalist standards as corporate, for-profit entities. The non-commercial arts aren't and never have been in the business of producing widgets. Unlike their commercial peers in the sector, nonprofit arts organizations don't trade in CDs, DVDs or concessions. They produce educational and inspirational experiences, improve quality of life and increase the corporate viability of communities. These "products" have extraordinary value, even if you can't quantify their worth in $$.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
