Why the Arts Don't Pay for Themselves
One of the questions I receive most often whenever I write about the arts is, "Why can't the arts pay for themselves? Why are public or private contributions required?" (These questions are frequently asked in far more colorful language.)
There is a simple answer rooted in two economic problems that affect all arts organizations.
The first, and most problematic, is that arts organizations have a very difficult time achieving productivity improvements. Most every other industry improves worker productivity annually. This is crucial because productivity improvements mitigate the impact of inflation.
But arts organizations have a difficult time improving the productivity of their performers, typically the largest expense item for an arts organization. Orchestras do not play Beethoven's Ninth Symphony faster every year. We do not have fewer performers in Hamlet than when it was written hundreds of years ago. A Balanchine ballet that required 32 dancers in the 1950s still requires 32 dancers today.
As a result, costs go up more quickly in the arts than in other industries because we do not accommodate some of the impact of inflation with productivity improvements.
This problem with escalating costs is compounded by the second economic problem faced by arts groups: once a theater or gallery is selected, one has literally set in concrete the real earned income potential for the organization; one simply cannot sell more tickets than one has seats.
This means that expenses continue to rise while real earned income is held steady. This creates an income gap that continues to grow over time.
How can we fill that gap? The primary approach has been to raise ticket prices. The problem is that we have raised prices so high that we have disenfranchised too many potential arts patrons. When people say the arts are irrelevant, I have to disagree; the arts are simply too expensive. Whenever we have free performances at the Kennedy Center the performances are filled -- especially for symphony and ballet.
Price increases have become a bigger problem given the emergence of so many inexpensive electronic substitutes. For the price of two of the best seats to the Metropolitan Opera one can now buy a computer and watch Maria Callas and Joan Sutherland on YouTube for free.
Another approach to filling the income gap has been to start auxiliary businesses, though few if any arts organizations have been successful balancing the books with unrelated business income.
The only other choice open to not-for-profit arts groups is to raise money -- from government and private donors. In this country, unlike the rest of the world, the vast preponderance of money contributed to arts groups comes from private sources -- individuals, corporations and foundations. Our Puritanical heritage still influences the degree of federal government support for the arts; the notion that music and dance were evil meant that the federal government did not directly support artistic endeavors in a substantial way.
The rising importance of contributed funds is a result of the increasing size of the income gap. It is a problem that will not go away and requires more and more sophisticated management of arts groups.
That is why I started the Kennedy Center Arts Management Institute and why I have lobbied for two decades for more funding for arts management education in this nation. We spend so much training young singers, dancers, musicians and actors and spend so very little training the people who will employ them -- and who face a growing income gap that simply won't go away.
Johann Hari: From Now on, Equality Needs to Be Our Organizing Principle
At the end of the failed age of market fundamentalism, the long-suppressed democratic cry for equality is emerging once again.
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
Michael,
Didn't you write/post just about the same thing awhile back via your Kennedy Center blog?
Thanks,
Chris Guerre
Great points, Mr. Kaiser with three minor suggestions:
1) The arts DO pay for themselves, but via multiple marketplaces, including consumer and philanthropic.
2) The productivity issue, proposed by Baumol and Bowen back in the 1960s, proved to be only partially true, and its impact is most pronounced in traditional, professional, labor-intensive forms like opera, ballet, symphony, and major theater...not in other forms.
3) There are many arts administration training programs in higher education and elsewhere that very actively encourage entrepreneurial and innovative management efforts in the arts. Many of those programs can be found here: http://www.artsadministration.org/
More thoughts on my blog (of course):
http://www.artsjournal.com/artfulmanager/main/broad-strokes-about-business-m.php
"Nationally, the nonprofit arts and culture industry generates $166.2 billion in economic activity every year—$63.1 billion in spending by organizations and an additional $103.1 billion in event-related spending by their audiences." Add this little tidbit: "5.7 million full-time equivalent jobs". Quote taken from Americans For The Arts site.
Me thinks this miserable excuse for an administrator needs to find another profession.
This equation with arts and 'worker productivity' which is code for downsizing is absolutely ridiculous.
That an arts administrator doesn't understand that great art is the supreme exemplar of the pinnacle
of true productivity is abysmal. Kaisers cry has been "More funding for arts management education"
is pitiful. There should be more of an understanding through education beginning in schools about
the necessity of arts, and a country that understands that everyone in whatever they do should be
some kind of artist---instead of an automoton. Why is it that people will spend whatever it costs to
attend sports events? Because they grew up with them from day one, lived them, had romances
through them, understand them and are accustomed to them. This is not the case with the arts in
this country. We have to have it be mandatory in schools again. We don't really understand what
art is and means anymore---outside of fame and money. This notion of the corporate model being
the ideal is sickening---artists should emulate AIG, BofA, and all the other corps that are hugely
funded by the government? Please. I think Kaiser has found his 'niche', a twenty year niche
of complacent complaining.
After a lifetime as an obscure actor-writer-director, much of it spent doing uncompensated scut work for other artists and institutions I admire during the precious hours left over after working at my lowly Day Job, I find it still possible to be shocked at the salary of Arts Administrators like Mr. Kaiser. Could the reforms to our economy please include a cap on compensation at non-profits? Only those who love the arts-- and charity, and healing-- for their own sake should be in charge of them! How can a man who "earns"-- subtracts from public resources that otherwise would be available for art-making ( or healing or relieving poverty) --- a million dollars a year understand and respect those he is supposed to serve? Not the rich and celebrated from whom he seeks funds and status, but the ordinary souls who need what art is and does to live full and examined lives. Let us have dollar-a-year Public Servants running our tax-free organizations, not careerists! The financial sacrifice they will make is but an echo of the sacrifices ordinary people make every day to create sweetness and light for their fellow humans.
Thanks dude. So glad that I worked hard to earn a music degree and an arts admin. degree to have a fellow artist like yourself stab me in the back. I have worked my entire career in the non-profit arts, and have not earned a living wage ever. So thanks. Thanks for belittling all my work and telling me that my bills and my student loan payments and my rent don't matter. That my hard work and my love and support of the arts are worth $1. I think I've made enough enough financial sacrifice in my life, and I have a feeling there are millions of other arts workers out there who feel the same way. We deserve to make a decent salary, and we suffer more and more when people like you make this non-issue an issue.
I'm with you GLHorton.
Thank you for hanging in there over the years.
Did you consider different ways of getting your art to people who appreciate it? Your post makes me think of a (fictional) musician who never realized he could record his music and sell it that way, in addition to live performances. Too simple?
On the contrary Mr. Kaiser, the portion the budget going to the actual artists is not the problem.
Now I'm not talking total dollars. I'm talking what is paid per artist versus per administrator. Average it out. Most of it goes toward the Administration, Building or Rental expense and those bottom feeding Consultants who always go through the same inane hoops to justify paying the non-artists.
The artists are the ones doing without...they are the ones granting you steady employment.
As a former professional chorus member, I really wish that "Singers" were NOT differentiated from "Musicians". The correct term would be "Instrumentalists" perhaps as both singers and instrumentalists fall under the umbrella of musicians. Singers are absolutely musicians and go through the same schooling, and professional training (lessons and such) as any instrumentalist. To hear that, especially from a fellow artist who should know better, is always particularly jarring. And perhaps one of the reasons that even among the arts, choral groups suffer greatly from a lack of funding.
Actually, as a person who has trained and performed at professional levels as both a vocalist and an instrumentalist (and at more than one institution), I disagree. Vocalists do not receive the same level of musicianship training as instrumentalists. I do not think that this means choruses should get less funding- rather, I believe that we need to revisit the way we train vocalists to bridge the musicuanship gap.
What? At the top two music schools (of which I earned my degrees), I assure you that the same theory classes were required by both singers and instrumentalists. The same history classes... the same piano classes... the same basic music classes except for those pertaining to their focus, were required. And as a "working" professional solo singer, I will put my musicianship against any instrumentalist any day of the week. What you said is absolutely absurd. Perhaps we should revisit and build a bridge from your arrogance to reality.
I have to disagree with you. I have a M.M. in voice, and I'll gladly put up my training against any instrumentalist's on music theory, music history, sightreading (including the ability to understand texts in six different languages and pronounce them all correctly), technical requirements of the instruments, knowledge of repertoire, musical execution, general history pertaining to music (such as how the introduction of reinforced concrete affected the development, composition and performance of music), plus historically-appropriate costuming and acting skills.
Here is another very strange article from Mr. Kaiser. This time he invokes the notion of "our puritanical heritage," seemingly to dismiss any suggestion that public funding for the arts should increase. End of discussion. Now lets talk about arts organizations developing "ancillary businesses," or how to perform a ballet with fewer dancers.
In theory, with a new, young Democratic president, this is the time to put the arts back in focus as a national priority. The problem is that pop culture, now more than ever, drowns out the serious arts. So the President has all of Michael Jackson's songs on his iPod -- but probably nothing by Cecil Taylor or Elliot Carter.
Both the performing and "non-performing" arts in America are at a time of crisis. Their audiences are aging and not being replaced. Funding is dwindling on all levels. The recession/depression is cutting back private and corporate donations. The federal government needs to step in and keep the arts -- orchestras, ballets, theater companies, museums, arts education programs, artist-in-residence programs -- on life support until things improve. And the media need to do their job as well. INCLUDING the Huffington Post, which -- outrageously, in my opinion -- has no arts coverage whatsoever, except when "celebrities" and/or nudity is involved.
Genuine support for the arts is outright alien to a large portion of the population. My mother-in-law was shocked to find out we're billeting performers in our home for the Minnesota Fringe Festival. To me, letting a couple of actors sleep in our house for a week costs us nothing and saves them a small fortune in hotel bills (almost certainly more than they'd make performing). But to her, it means strangers are in the house and valuables must be locked up.
A lot of educated middle-class people think of art as something worth supporting - but only at the big and grand scale. A major museum, the biggest theatre in town, those get money. And as such, those organizations tend to be conservative and cautious in their tastes, so as not to cause controversy that cuts into their funding. But living, breathing creative arts is mostly a small thing - no contemporary painter is Picasso, no contemporary playwright is Tennessee Williams. It doesn't mean their art is inferior, it just means it isn't a household name. And small arts organizations need volunteers as much or more than money! So get out there and work a ticket booth, or serve as an usher, or host travelling artists in your home, or maintain their computer networks - anything to help the small fish.
Mr. Kaiser's analysis is altogether too shallow. The arts are not more expensive than previously, it's just that most people have less money than before. What percentage of the nation's resources are held by the top 1% again? Take a look at churches for a comparison: 100 years ago, communities built big expensive buildings that the modern congregations cannot even afford to maintain. Any enterprise that is not committed to siphoning ever larger shares of the available wealth is destined for failure. It's not a pretty picture for our civilization.
Most people in America don't benefit from the millions spent every year protecting the assets of the wealthiest Americans, including trials for people who steal from them and police enforcing the law in their neighborhoods (gated communities notwithstanding). I think this is a waste of money. Once you have or make above a certain amount of money, you should no longer get protection from the government. Why should you? What are you, a bum? You can afford your own protection!
Obviously, I'm being (mostly) sarcastic. But a cohesive society is a society that accepts its shared obligations for its shared benefit. That includes things like roads, a reliable legal system, (IMO) healthcare, regulation and standards, national defense and a bunch of other things. Anyone who thinks that everything society needs can best be gained through for-profit ventures is either lying or doesn't know what they're talking about...
An important aspect that can drive up costs without realizing significant financial return are the many, many different education programs that arts groups provide at very low (or no) cost to children in communities all over the countries. Especially as short-sighted school boards have dramatically cut funding for arts programs of every sort, those that are offered by non-profit arts organizations are often the only opportunity many children have to be exposed to the classics, dance, theatre, symphonic performances, etc.
There's more to life than money. Indeed, the most important things in life have nothing whatsoever to do with money. Far more important is it to have a robust, educated populace that's capable of critical thinking than to guarantee a minimum 50% profit margin on every bloody public or private expenditure. Arts programs are a key aspect to a well-rounded community with a high quality of life.
And yet investment in arts education produces a lower dropout rate, a lower crime rate, better community health, etc. These programs do realize a significant financial return if you look at the broader picture.
Investment in arts education is extremely important with regard to the success of today's youth. Arts education allows youth to develop critical thinking, creative expression and basic learning skills through creativity and innovation. Organizations like the Performing Arts Workshop offer arts education workshops to at-risk youth in local schools and communities, giving these students the education they need and deserve. Go to their website : www.performingartsworkshop.org to find more information on the benefits of arts education.
Very thought-provoking post. Thanks for sharing your ideas. When I was part of a non-profit theater a few years back, our biggest problem was not putting on the show. It was getting people into the seats (even though our ticket prices never changed). You are correct that there are so many alternative sources of entertainment but I hope people will realize that, as a mentor of mine once said, "nothing moves the heart like live theater."
There are many funding alternatives that you left out of your post, although I am glad to see you raising the issue. What about the arts organizations having endowments? Some people would contribute to an endowment who wouldn't contribute to the arts organization on an annual basis. What about having more performances? More performances = more money. More gift shops in concert halls to help bring in more money.
Arts patrons are a well-educated, high-income group. And artists have an excellent reputation. Arts organizations could use that to their advantage. Their are scores of marketing/endorsement opportunities for arts organizations.
What about cutting expenses? Many arts organizations feel that they have to have the fanciest building in town and then they often undergo expensive renovations. How about 2 or 3 different cities sharing the same orchestra or dance group? Expenses could go down considerably without sacrificing quality.
I think the arts organizations are better off without federal funding. It just gives grandstanding conservative politicians control over how you operate, instead of the freedom that arts organizations need to flourish. With the money, there are too many strings. The arts are better off having real musicians playing strings in the orchestra, not having federal politicians and bureaucrats pulling the strings.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
