Monday, October 24, 2011
Uncomfortable Thoughts: Is Shouting About Arts Funding Bad for the Arts?
Createquity.: Advocates for the arts might be better off doing their work under the radar than trying so hard to get a lot of media and public attention when fighting for public funding of the arts. Createquity readers get regular updates on public funding of the arts. So we all know this was an especially rough year for many state arts councils. But is this unique? Nope. We all have examples in our catalogue of “can-you-top-this” horror stories about arts advocacy experiences from over the years.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Yikes. This comment rings true in the scariest of ways. When you're living in the arts bubble, it's difficult to understand that people who are not so interested in the arts don't often have sympathy for their demise. Much like the Catholic League President who is quoted to prefer national funding for professional wrestling over the arts. To us, that seems relatively absurd. But it's true that it's difficult to see the usefulness of the arts when it isn't your life. This article is smart in saying that to procure funding, it is necessary to revoke the idea that art is a luxury. People need to be convinced that the arts have a concrete benefit to their own lives, that they can see.
This is something that is so easy to lose sight of. Being constantly surrounded by artists and advocates of the arts makes it all too simple to forget that not everyone will respond to this advocacy in the same way. I had to take myself out of the equation by thinking, "What if this were about advocacy for leash laws or no whites after labor day?" While it may seem so important to a small group, the issue making the front page every day will just becoming annoying to the rest of us. Of course, I do believe the lack of funding for the arts is absurd. I come from a place that spent a good amount of time struggling to make ends meet in order to continue introducing children and young adults to the arts. However, not everyone has had this experience, and the perspectives therefore vary. It is important to be respectful to others when getting your point across, as to not become overbearing and have your plans backfire on you.
I agree completely with both Reilly and Kassondra. Our view of the world and the actual amount that art effects it is entirely different from, say, a CS major here at CMU. Back home a local theatre just recently closed due to financial reasons. This theatre was a very strong advocate for bringing out generation into theatre and getting them excited about it. It is such a shame that a place like this is no longer in existence because of the simple fact that the majority of the general population have no ties to the arts, let alone the theatre, at all. What I remind myself constantly of is how lucky we are to be working with theatre everyday of our lives. I only wish the rest of the public could feel the same.
I hate that some people don't realize the good the arts can do in the community, especially where children are concerned. The arts are a great way to get kids off the street and doing something productive with their time. At my high school, arts education was really really big. I couldn't imagine growing up without it.
The other comments have covered the issue of the impact of arts on society, so I'd like to discuss the other side of this article - the proposal that a "stealth campaign" is better than a huge public outcry. I think this may have some grounding - putting things out in the public arena allows you to attract vocal supporters, but also very vehement detractors just as easily. Perhaps we should work on a lobbying approach - meet privately with politicians, or invite them to opening night performances and galas, and make the case for the arts with the rational facts that won't be twisted by the public media. In the general scheme of government funding, it's true that the arts aren't a big part. But we can make that an argument point - the general public thinks that a $250,000 annual budget is huge, but compared to other government funding, it's nothing. The politicians know that and make the decisions - if we show them the positives of the arts and show them how the pocket change for a science organization can make enormous intellectual and cultural (and increasingly, economic) impact on a community, we should take that directly to them rather than trying to rally support where the arguments will be shot down by a misinformed public.
I think that it all depends on the audience. In this kind of setting where a majority of our audience is elderly or other students, asking for money for a showcase fundraiser may not be the worse idea. However, amount a community that either, does not understand the business side of the arts, or a community that itself is trying to fundraise, it can be detrimental.
It is a very slippery slope that must be carefully navigated. And each decision must be made based on the specific audience is is being geared toward.
I completely agree with "Don't change minds, change perspective." Whether or not they're correct, people will defend themselves for fear of showing weakness. We all do it at times.
We are not going to be able to change the minds of those who don't support the arts. On the surface level they're right--arts are leisure for the rich. But if we are able to show them that the arts are not just that, then maybe we can help to change their minds.
Reilly makes a great point here that there is definitely a difference in perspective that prevents us from reaching out to the non artistic community for funding. I don't think that the approach of making art more luxurious will have an effect, though. When you think about it the primary audience for most theaters consists of the elderly and well off. To make theatre something that the youth of America, or the middle class as a whole, enjoy rather than viewing it as a luxury would be beneficial as it would increase customer base, revenue, and awareness all at once.
I think this article has some good points, but like everything in life, it depends on your set of circumstances. I believe there are times that need a great deal of loud shouting about the arts and art funding, but I also agree there are times that doing quieter work may be the answer. We're not going to be able to get all our money from one or the other, so we are going to need to employ every strategy we have available to us. We just may need to be more careful about how we let ourselves be seen by those outside our profession.
Like I have said in previous posts, financial limitations should be simply an inconvenience that artist aim to hurdle over. They should collect revenue the same way sports teams do... a fan base. By creating quality art and rich experiences, then accumulating a withstanding reputation... customers will come. Other markets such as the NFL have marketed themselves perfectly and sold themselves into every home in America. If the arts approached financial situations this way I feel like business would be a little more booming.
Makes total sense. Sometimes I have caught myself looking at arts-support campaigns and wondering why the organizers chose to frame their issues in such a way. To may people, art is bourgeois. Why sink resources into the stuck up arts industry? There are a lot of things in society that really need our support, our attention, and our resources. The prison systems, school systems, and many others all need our advocacy. Crying publicly over the arts certainly has a realistic chance of backfiring.
Post a Comment