Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Instead of more data perhaps we should discuss why we keep ignoring the data we have?
Jumper: I finally had found some time this week to read Scott Walter’s excellent second post in his trilogy (all three now published) looking at the 1% vs 99% issues in the US arts and culture sector. A compelling string of comments follows this post, led by one of my other favorite bloggers, Clayton Lord, who argues two points: (1) Is it effective to turn against the ‘top’ arts organizations at a time when the arts generally are under attack? and (2) We need to collect more data to understand how to improve the system. Walters responds that the time for action has come and that collecting data has become, essentially, a way of postponing action. As much of a data geek as I have becomenow that I’m working on a dissertation (and as much as I would advocate for transparency and the collection of better data in the sector generally), I tend to agree with Scott Walters that data is probably not going to make the difference here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Part of me wonders if the issues raised in these blog conversation right now about the "1%" of arts organizations are indicative of other larger cultural and economic issues in America. Walters seems to think it's a problem with government and policy; the NEA is just as rigid and unsympathetic towards minorities and diverse cultural groups than any other office in Washington. In this post, Diane Ragsdale is trying to link it to data and arts organizations either respond (or don't) to data and whether the groups tallying the statistics have an obligation to act upon their findings. I see her point but I think it's something bigger something we see everyday that also exists in arts organizations: Americans, as consumers, love to live beyond their means.
How much of our economy is dependent (and how much of that hurts us) on debt? It is all based on debt. Credit cards, mortages, car loans, student loans, bank loans, bonds, it's a part of modern thinking: wealth is not only measured by what you have but by what is owed to you (or what you owe.) This gets a lot of us in trouble, individuals and entire businesses. Can't pay for something, need it, want it? Borrow. Sometimes borrowing can be a sound investment and sound fiduciary option. Or other times we just want the bigger TV. It exists on so many levels: the country is in massive debt, businesses are going under all the time, and I don't think I need to talk about consumer debt. There's something American about acquiring things you want even though you can't pay for them and may never pay for them.
Diane's example of company managers and executives not responding to the data about organizations building new buildings is no surprise. Yes, they may be ignoring the data but why are they? I think it's engraved in our minds that's its okay to take big financial risks or dip too much into the reserves.
I don't have to hide the fact that I think the Occupy movement is a sign of things to come, and indication that something is more rotten than we think in the United States. That's my personal political optimism. But I think we do need to look at it as part of the greater picture. Dissent happens in response to something. Things are not isolated. We need to look at whats happening in the arts the same way. What does the data tell us? It tells us two things. The first about the the arts in general. The second, I think, is about something larger but simpler: America's make bad business decisions.
Post a Comment