Posts filed under ‘Arts Administration’
Lobbying at Arts Day, from an Arts Administrator
This post is guest blogged by Norma Munn, Chairperson of New York City Arts Coalition, on her experience at 2011 Arts Day in Albany. The article is written as a companion piece to artist Eric Corriel’s last post on the topic, to show an Artist and an Arts Administrator’s perspective. New York City Arts Coalition is a NYFA Fiscally Sponsored Project.
Arts Day in Albany is the kick off to several weeks of intense advocacy to support adequate funding for the State Council on the Arts, or more often these past three years to push for restoration of proposed cuts from the previous Gov. Paterson and now the current Gov. Cuomo.
This year several dozen artists and arts administrators left NYC at the early hour of 7 AM to spend several hours meeting with Assembly and Senate members from all over the City. The arts were first on the scene with our numbers from the budget, and first to make the case for restoration of the Governor’s proposed cuts, which he had recommended one week earlier. Many offices were still trying to figure out what was really in the budget, so our showing up with information was helpful to them.
We met with 74 of the 94 City legislators. While many offices were cautious, there were a lot of very positive responses, with many legislators saying they would support the modest restoration of $2.8 million we requested. The remaining 20 legislators were left material about our request (and a few of those were encountered in hallways, corridors, and stairwells by the arts advocates, who made their appeal on the spot – no hiding from determined arts folks!).
This year is tough, but the voices of artists, in conjunction with the arts administrators, was a significant part of this early success. The framework of economic data, jobs created, taxes paid, etc. is important, but it is merely the framework for advocacy. The personal voice of those who make and present art is critical.
Much remains to be done and the time is very short. Leadership in the Assembly (Speaker Sheldon Silver) and the Senate (Senator Dean Skelos) has agreed that the two houses will start their conference committees on March 15. Over the next three weeks, arts advocates will have to press their case, follow-up with supporters, and reach out to those who remain uncommitted to this restoration.
Local visits and personal letters are always the most effective, but you can contact the Governor and/or your state legislator through email via the statewide website www.artsNYS.org, which also has details about the budget, charts showing what has happened to NYSCA over several years, an advocacy handbook, and some arguments to bolster our case.
Lobbying at Arts Day, from an Artist
This post is guest blogged by Eric Corriel, 2009 Digital/Electronic Arts NYFA Fellow, recipient of a 2010 Fiscally Sponsored Artist Project, and a 2010 Mentor for the Immigrant Artist Mentoring Program. Stay tuned to see a partner post written from an Arts Administrator’s point of view…
“I’m a lobbyist!” I remember thinking as I navigated the corridors of the Capitol building in Albany, feeling like I was one of the office-minions scurrying around in Terry Gilliam’s film, Brazil. “This is gonna be awesome!”
As part of NYFA’s Arts Day coalition, we had a case to make to New York State legislators and it was simple enough: Governor Cuomo plans on implementing a 10% cut, state-wide, in operating expenses for state-funded organizations. Okay. Fine. We can share the sacrifice just like everyone else. What we can’t stomach is the additional 10% cut to NYSCA’s (New York State Council for the Arts) Aid to Localities budget, which is pretty much tantamount to a 10% cut in its grant funding abilities. All other state-funded agencies received a 2% cut to their Localities budget. So, on behalf of NYSCA, we’re just asking for the same cut as everyone else, instead of 8% more than everyone else.
My lobbying team consisted of four people: two arts administrators, one from BRIC Arts Media Brooklyn and the other from Dance NYC, as well as a ballet dancer from the New York City Ballet, and myself, a 2009 NYFA Fellow. We met mostly with chiefs of staff and aides, though in one case, for about 6 minutes, a state senator. Each meeting would follow roughly the same formula: we’d say that on behalf of NYSCA, we’re okay with sharing the pain – the 10% cut – we’re cool with that. The person we’re meeting with would nod as if to say “Good, ’cause you better be…” Then we’d say, “now about this other 10% cut to the Aid to Localities budget…” and our interlocutor would say “what other 10% cut?” So we explained what needed to be explained and then he/she would say, “oh”.
At the end of the day we were lobbying for $2.8 million dollars to be restored to NYSCA’s budget, which in Albany-ese is like asking for a grain of sand to be put back on a beach. As to be expected, the economic atmosphere is grim and nobody wanted to be in the business of promising anything when it comes to money. We asked for a frank assessment of our proposal and we got candid answers about how “it’s not gonna be easy”. But to say the campaign was ineffective would be as wrong as it would be premature. The fact is that many of those we met with were previously unaware of the additional 8% taken from NYSCA’s budget. And this awareness, coupled with the knowledge of the arts as a proven and indisputable economic driver for New York State, puts them in a position to act with resolve, if they so choose. I left with the feeling that we certainly made inroads and that with the proper followup with the right people, this money could be won back. As an ordinary citizen in a peaceful democratic society, that’s probably the most one can hope to accomplish in one day in Albany.
Art as Asset
So far in my blog, I have focused on professional development for artists and arts professionals, issues of sustainability, and cultural advocacy, among other topics. I have not yet examined the institutions that are connected to these areas of concern, one of those being the non-profit museum. Museums allow art to be appreciated by the general public and to be protected and saved for the future. However, with recent scandals and attempted sales, the permanent ownership status of museum artwork has been called into question. As with all other topics, I would like to analyze this issue from an individual artist’s perspective. How and why do museum policies and practices affect the individual artist?
The current controversy surrounding museum policies revolve around deaccessioning. Deaccessioning means the sale of an artwork by a museum. However, a museum selling an art object faces more obstacles than, for example, a gallery selling an artwork. A museum accepts an artwork into its collection with the understanding that the object will be held in the public trust for perpetuity. Museums must carefully choose which objects to be sold from a collection, because the sale of an artwork to another institution or individual could restrict public use.
Organizations like the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) have provided guidelines for member museums on ethical and best practices for museums when planning to deaccession a work. These guidelines dictate what criteria museums should use when deciding which works to remove from their collections, how to go about doing so, and where the money from the sale will be spent. The AAMD’s guidelines are governed by two principles: first, the decision to deaccession must be made solely to improve the collection of the museum, and second, the proceeds from the sale must be used only to purchase other works of art.
Recently, museums like the National Academy of Design and Brandeis University’s Rose Museum have attempted to deaccession works from their collection in order to cover operating costs. (For more information about the recent deaccessioning scandals, check out these blogs: The Deaccessioning Blog, The Art Law Blog, and CultureGrrl). The reasoning behind this would be: how can a museum support its mission if there is no museum at all, due to lack of funds? Wouldn’t it be better for the museum to lose a couple of artworks from the collection and stay open, rather than to close?
Janet Landay, Executive Director of the AAMD, says the question is not black or white. In a conversation with her, Landay explained that museums should first explore every possible alternative, like cutting back on programming or staying open for fewer hours; in all but the most dire cases, there is an alternative to selling art to cover operating expenses. She added that AAMD welcomes requests for assistance from institutions facing this choice to help find alternative solutions. But deaccessioning artwork to cover museum costs leads down a slippery slope. If one museum resorts to this, then the flood gates could open to other museums selling off bits of their collections as well. Not only that, but also selling artwork does not solve a museum’s financial problem in the long-term. Although the money may tide the museum over for a while, it most likely will not be long before it needs to sell another work to keep afloat.
Most recently, a ruling in the Fisk University deaccessioning case seem to defy the precedent not to deaccession works to cover operating costs. On November 4, County Chancellor Lyle ruled that Fisk University can sell a half-share in its Stieglitz Collection to the planned Crystal Bridges Museum for $30 million, in order to fend off bankruptcy. While $10 million of the $30 million can go to the viability of the university, the remaining $20 million must be used to create a Nashville endowment for the collection. This will ensure that if the University were to close, the collection would be safe. It is likely that the court’s decision will be appealed, so stay tuned for further developments.
What does this have to do with artists? Landay sympathized with my comment that many individual and emerging artists have not felt a strong connection to museums. They don’t see museums as a place for their art, or they see museums as stale and at odds with contemporary art. Landay said that in fact many museums are working with artists in their communities and see them as an important group of constituents. For example, the Museum of Modern Art’s contemporary arts space PS1, now a museum, began as studio space for artists in Queens and has continued the tradition of promoting experimental art and emerging artists.
Donating an artwork or works is one way an artist can create a connection with a museum. An artist donating a work of art to a museum should do so in confidence that it will be protected and cared for in perpetuity. Museums, because of their duty to hold artwork in the public trust, cannot view their collections as a fungible asset. The objects in their collections are intrinsically valued as works of art, not as commodities. An artist should feel assured that his or her work held in a museum collection will be cared for and available for public access.
This guarantee was challenged in the 2007 case of the Maier Museum at Randolph College in Lynchburg, VA. The museum chose to sell its first acquisition, a 1912 George Bellow’s painting. In a 2007 museum newsletter, T. Moody Campbell, the professor who arranged the purchase of the Bellow’s work, comments:
Mr. Bellows’ response was immediate and generous. He said that most artists, he being one of them, were less concerned about the price of their pictures than they were about having them in a place where they would be appreciated.
Lee Rosenbaum of CultureGrrl writes, “Had he foreseen the trustees’ vote of Oct. 1, 2007, Bellows might have acted otherwise.” As more and more museums move to deaccession works, will artists be less willing to sell their works to museums? Will artists lose their trust in the safety of their works at museums?
There is a difference between the value a museum places on an artwork and the value an artist places on his or her work. In earlier blog posts, I have emphasized the importance of the concept of “Artist as Entrepreneur,” or the artist as a business person. An artist surviving on his or her craft alone must be able to market him or herself and sell artwork, valuing it both artistically and monetarily. Unlike museums, artists must view their work as an asset as well as an art object. How can we, as artists and arts administrators, reconcile this divide? How can we regard art from one standpoint only as art, and from another as money? Should museums be allowed to sell their work if artists can? Does it make more sense for museums to close rather than sell their work? Is there a real connection between emerging and individual artists and museums? I would like to invite all readers to comment in response to these and other issues relating to the individual and emerging artist and museum policies.
Fellowship Application Hints
NYFA recently hosted a mock fellowship panel for Master of Fine Arts students at Virginia Commonwealth University. Jon Cancro, Business Event Coordinator at NYFA, set up the projectors in our office’s large conference room, put on a pot of coffee, and seated the chairs around the slide screen— prepping the room as though NYFA fellow panelists were about to select the next round of grantees. Instead, 20 MFA students entered the room. The mock panel allowed the students to go through a faux grant panel process as though they were the panelists, deciding which students’ application presentations worked and which did not.
After reviewing my notes from the mock panel process, I noticed five recurring points. For artists, hopefully this list will help improve applications. For administrators, my post will be the start of a list of helpful hints for artists that constituents, readers, and I will compile and discuss on the NYFA blog.
- Remember applications are reviewed in the real world. Projectors break, screen color fades, and files have trouble opening. Things happen that are out of the applicants’ control. The best way to guard your application from unforeseen difficulties is to…
- Talk to the foundations you are applying to. Understand how each foundation handles its application review process. Foundations want to help artists to get funding and are usually willing to speak with grant applicants. You should format your application correctly to make it as easy as possible to view your application and to minimize the possibility of viewing errors. Ask: How will the applications be viewed? What is the panelists’ procedure? Use these answers to structure your application.
- Make sense of your Artist Statement. Some people suggest getting a smart sixth grader to review your artist statement. Use one ten dollar word, and keep the rest simple. The statement should be grammatically correct with no spelling errors. Try to read it out loud, and then edit it.
- Depth not breadth. Learn how to edit down your body of work to show a cohesive application—applicants need not show their entire oeuvre to display their versatility and artistic prowess.
- Stay true to your vision. The applicant needs to balance his or her artistic vision with the attributes of a successful applicant. Sometimes, even panelists disagree on the best practices for grant applications (for example, individuals in the mock panel disagreed over the effectiveness of composite slides or videos). Do not compromise your vision, but make sure that vision comes across as clearly as possible in your application.
Do these application hints make sense? Would you add, edit, or remove one? What has worked for you as an artist or what have you seen work as an administrator?
Artists Communities, Funding, and Inspiration
This post is guest blogged by Rebecca Wohl, NYFA.
How do we advance today’s artists in our new economy? The 2010 Alliance of Artists Communities Conference, held in Providence from October 20th through October 23rd, centered on this question. While the conference stressed the importance of artists’ communities and residencies, the keynote addresses and breakout panel discussions also spoke about more general issues, like relationships between artists and their communities and the financial problems faced by artists.
Funding is one major issue that artists deal with today: where and how do they get it? Of course, grants are one way for artists to support themselves and their craft. One of the afternoon breakout sessions of the conference focused specifically on the so-called “Culture Wars,” the turbulent history of the National Endowment for the Art’s individual artist grant program. The panel featured Barbara Schaffer Bacon, Animating Democracy at Americans for the Arts; Howard Ben Tré, artist, Wayne Lawson, Ohio Arts Council; and Hunter O’Hanian, Alliance of Artist Communities (moderator).
The panelists and attendees looked to the past in order to develop and discuss new ways to be stronger advocates for individual artist support in the future. A short history of the NEA individual artist grant: Established in 1965, the NEA is a public agency dedicated to supporting excellence in the arts, both new and established; bringing the arts to all Americans; and providing leadership in arts education (NEA website). Until 1994, the NEA gave unrestricted grants to artists. Unrestricted grants were given to artists based on their previously completed work and contributions to culture and their community, as opposed to project-based grants, for which funds go to specific projects to be completed.
To the chagrin of many, a series of controversial artists were directly funded by the NEA in 1994. (Two artists involved in the NEA culture wars were actually NYFA fellows: Karen Finely, who was part of the NEA Four, and Andres Serrano, who was chastised for his work Piss Christ). Congress took action to restrict government funding to individual artists, and as a result, most artists, excluding literary artists; jazz musicians; opera singers; and folk artists, are no longer eligible for direct NEA funding. Sixteen years after Congress’ motion, the majority of artists are still not able to receive direct funding from the NEA. Direct awards to individuals are made by the NEA only through Literature Fellowships, NEA Jazz Masters Fellowships, NEA Opera Honors, and NEA National Heritage Fellowships in the Folk & Traditional Arts.
What kind of message does the government send by directly funding only certain artistic disciplines? Does the government acquiesce to the Heritage Foundation’s Ten Good Reasons to Eliminate Funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (which include Reason #2: The NEA Is Welfare for Cultural Elitists and Reason #5: The NEA Will Continue to Fund Pornography)? The NEA funds the arts indirectly by supporting organizations which, in turn, grant money to artists. Is this system effective? Do the government’s limitations on supporting the arts deter other organizations from supporting them? Do the Culture Wars of the 1980’s and 90’s in fact continue to affect where and how artists can find funding?
Once the panel discussion finished, the attendees and panelists began to tackle some of these questions together. The panelists all agreed that we must facilitate a national conversation on government support for the arts. Panelist Barbara Schaffer Bacon advised that organizations begin to work with the College Art Association (CAA) to target students to become involved in arts advocacy.
Another suggestion, which resonated throughout the conference, was that artists must organize themselves through their own self-interest and to work together as a group. Whether working to restore eliminated government funding, to engage the arts and the environment, or to build a culture of abundance (all of which were topics for breakout discussions during the conference), artists must promote themselves and their importance to culture and the community. While people support the arts, they do not know how to support artists. Artists must break down what the panel called the “aura of preciosity” that surrounds artists. They should tell stories of their work and creative process to allow the individual artist to connect with the community. Through connecting to the community level, artists can teach the public and government officials the best ways to support the individual artist.
The conference itself used this tactic—visual artist Anna Schuleit and choreographer Elizabeth Streb (four-time NYFA fellow), among others, delivered keynote addresses that gave insight into their artistic process, discussed their work, and told stories of their economic hardships. The conference attendees were moved by their speeches and work and were inspired to find new, creative ways to support the individual artist.
Is this a good way to continue to advocate for the individual artist? Are there other ways to connect the artist to the community? Should we be advocating for government funding of the arts? These are only some of the questions that artists, the general public, and hopefully our readers will begin to discuss.
NYC’s 1% for Culture Campaign
True, the country is, and has been, facing an economic downturn. The harsh reality is that cities are tightening their belts and cutting spending. In light of this, New York City’s “1% for Culture Campaign” might come as a surprise to some. The recently launched grassroots campaign seeks to increase the percentage of New York City’s municipal budget dedicated to non-profit cultural organizations to a full 1 percent, thereby demonstrating the value of cultural non-profits to New York City.
If you are not familiar with the cultural non-profits in New York City, you may ask why the city should increase funding to the arts. (One percent of the city budget would be an increase from the much smaller figure of 0.23 percent that the city spent on cultural non-profits this past fiscal year.) If you are familiar with the non-profit culture sector, you know that the 934 cultural institutions are essential to both the economy and the identity of New York City.
Aside from the educational and stimulating experiences that these institutions provide, they also have a major economic impact on the city. Some figures: cultural institutions draw approximately 47 million tourists, generate about 30 billion dollars in revenue, and create over 40,000 jobs in New York City alone. By bolstering the cultural non-profit organizations in New York , the city would also support the economy. The trouble is that by raising the percent of the city’s non-profit budget, other sectors would have to lose a corresponding percentage. It is my hope that all economic sectors will ultimately benefit from the support of the non-profit culture sector.
Other cities are also addressing their financial support of the non-profit culture sector. Some, like Indianapolis, are not planning on changing the amount of money spent on non-profits, even though cuts will be made in other departments. Although this is not a raise in the budget percentage, the steady funding for culture indicates the value of the cultural sector to the city and its officials. On the other hand, cities like Cincinnati have voted to completely cut arts funding from the city budget.
Does Indianapolis’ consistent funding plan make sense? Do you agree with Cincinatti’s action? Or do you sympathize with the 1 Percent for Culture Campaign (if so, sign the 1 Percent for Culture petition)? To find out more about the 1 Percent for Culture Campaign, check out these articles from Crain’s New York Business and campaign sponsor Wildlife Conservation Society. Let me know your thoughts on this. Perhaps I will even bring some comments to the next campaign meeting…
Recent Comments