Posts filed under ‘Non-Profit Policy’
Innovation in Berlin, Sales in New York?
In the final days of my trip to Berlin, I visited residency programs, met with government officials, and, of course, continued to meet with artists. The word ‘innovative’ was pervasive throughout these interactions; both artists and arts spaces in Berlin seemed to revolve around fostering an innovative environment for creativity.
An Innovative Residency…
Künstlerhaus Bethanian is the largest of the residency programs that I visited on my trip. Künstlerhaus, headed by Christoph Tannert, supplies living space, studio space, and professional and emotional support for artists. Each artist is sponsored by an organization or individual that pays for any other expenses the artists may have (like food or production materials).
Christoph Tannert from Künstlerhaus Bethanian
In addition to the innovative sponsor system, Künstlerhaus provides what Tannert calls a utopian, process-oriented space. Artists have the time and space needed to produce work. Furthermore, Künstlerhaus provides a platform for artists to exhibit their work. The organization houses 25 international visual artists year-round. Each artist gets 100 square meters of his or her own space to show work. This space comes complete with individualized exhibit invitation cards for publicity.
I found it interesting and rather disappointing that Künstlerhaus Bethanian had no American artists in the residency. Tannert explained that many American organizations that he spoke to did not understand the concept of supporting artists without the expectation for a new body of work. I wondered, can the model presented by Künstlerhaus conform to America’s model of supporting artists?
An Innovative Workshop Program…
Tannert also told me that Künstlerhaus recently moved from an old hospital space in the same neighborhood. The former space now houses an organization called bbk berlin, which provides studio space and workshops for artists. bbk answers to the frequently asked question: where can recent art-school graduates access the space and materials that they need to create their work?
bbk provides inexpensive classes and workshops while giving artists the opportunity to use large-scale production materials that would otherwise be inaccessible (e.g. large silk screen racks and oversized printers and computers).
Supplies at bbk
Print Workshop at bbk
Innovative Exhibition Spaces…
Berlin’s artists (and art enthusiasts) also supply space for artists to show their work. One such space is the small, artist-run exhibition called SOX. Benedikt Terwiel and Alexander Wagner run SOX, a storefront display of rotating, site-specific projects. Because SOX operates as a storefront, it can be kept open without staffing costs. This innovative solution to reducing overhead costs results in a dynamic, versatile exhibition space that meets the needs of emerging artists.
Another unexpected arts space in Berlin is found inside of the U.S. Ambassador’s house. The Department of Cultural Affairs set up a new initiative to hang American artwork in the Ambassador’s house as a ‘gallery’ space and to invite cultural leaders to a reception to view the artworks. To see Ambassador Murphy inaugurate the new project, see the video below.
But what is the benefit of all this innovation? With all of this production and innovation in Berlin, where are the new jobs and art sales? On the last day of my trip, I went to the Berlin’s Senate Department for Cultural Industries. I spoke about the unique places I saw on my trip and my interest in the emphasis Berliners place on production and innovation.
I learned that while space and time are important for artists, some officials feel that too much attention is being placed on production and not enough on sales. Berlin’s art market is struggling, despite the flourishing arts community.
Usually the arts create jobs and improve the economy. In Berlin, however, artists are producing in the city and selling elsewhere. Even Berlin’s main art fair, Artforum Berlin, could not continue due to lack of funding. Though other fairs like Preview and ABC will continue, it is clear that the art market has taken a major hit.
While Berlin may excel at providing for individual artists, it seems that one of New York City’s strongest assets lies in its continually prosperous art market. A senate staffer told me that Berlin is trying to be more like New York City through initiatives like Gallery Weekend .
This insightful information was shocking news to me, as I was investigating why Berlin was more hospitable for artists, but it is clear that New York City and Berlin can learn from each other’s successes. Perhaps rather than note why Berlin is more hospitable to artists, we should strive to understand and better implement the benefits of both cities.
Even government support of the arts is polemical in Berlin, despite artist incentives like healthcare and retirement funding. The large exhibit that I saw at the beginning of my trip, Based in Berlin, was opposed by many Berlin-based artists for its unusually large budget. The exhibit cost 1.6 million Euros in total, leaving little money for other institutions. (To read more on this controversy, visit bbk’s open letter To Have and To Need)
I left Berlin inspired by the innovative arts spaces, the vibrant artists, and the passionate administrators. I also left with a deeper understanding of how Berlin supports artists in ways that New York City and other places in the United States do not. Armed with this knowledge, we can try to adapt some of Berlin’s unique ideas to our existing infrastructure to better support individual artists. What do you think?
Special thanks to all organizations which hosted NYFA on my trip: Based in Berlin, BerlinArtLink, Co-Verlag, Art Laboratory Berlin, Estherka Project, USArtsBerlin, Dock11/ Eden****, Kunstlerhaus Bethanian, American Academy in Berlin, Radial System V, and Deutsche Guggenheim.
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.
Thoughts on the Smithsonian Censorship Controversy (with some help from NYFA Fellow Andres Serrano)
Back in October, I mentioned the National Endowment for the Arts’ (NEA) so-called culture wars, involving two NYFA artists—Andres Serrano and Karen Finley. Now, the culture wars seem to be upon us again. And once again, a NYFA artist sits at the heart of the controversy.
In early December, the National Portrait Gallery (NPG) chose to censor a film by the late David Wojnarowicz, a 1990 NYFA video fellow. The film in question, A Fire in My Belly (1986-87), features an eleven-second scene of ants crawling over a crucifix. The video uses traditional imagery of human suffering, for example Christ on the cross, to create an elegy to AIDS victims.
The artwork seemingly adhered to the mission of the exhibit at the Smithsonian’s NPG entitled “Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture,” a survey of the representation of gay and lesbian identities in American art.
However, some members of congress, press people, and some of the religious right interpreted the clip as anti-Christian. To avoid any controversy, Smithsonian Secretary Wayne G. Clough hastily ordered the removal of the work from the exhibit. Clough recently defended his decision, explaining that he made the right choice for the exhibit and future of the museum, although he did wish he had taken more time.
Secretary Clough faced a huge backlash. Quickly, national organizations issued statements on their disagreement and disappointment with the Smithsonian’s choice to censor the video (the Andy Warhol Foundation stated that it would cease funding future Smithsonian exhibits if the video was not restored to the gallery). Galleries began to screen the Wojnarowicz film in solidarity with the deceased artist. And most recently, the Museum of Modern Art acquired the film into its collection.
I spoke with NYFA 1987 fellow Andres Serrano about his thoughts on the Smithsonian controversy. Like Wojnarowicz, Serrano met harsh criticism from the religious right; his work Piss Christ, 1987, was chastised for being blasphemous. Despite the aggressive and sometimes violent outbursts against Piss Christ, Serrano defended his artistic vision.
As a spokesperson for the right of freedom of expression, Serrano understands the gravity of the Smithsonian controversy. When I asked him if society is advancing the cause of censorship, Serrano replied, “[We’re moving] forwards and backwards at the same time.” Freedom of expression is not only limited to artists, he explained. In order to have freedom of expression, we must endure opinions that are unlike our own and may be negative.
However, Serrano said that organizations must believe in and defend the work that they exhibit and support.
Serrano’s work Piss Christ won Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art’s “Awards in the Visual Arts” competition, which is sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Arts. Instead of defending Serrano when criticism of the photograph arose, the NEA defended itself and abandoned the artist. It is unfortunate that like the NEA, the Smithsonian has chosen to turn its back on its artists.
Unlike the Smithsonian Institution, A.A. Bronson took action to show his disapproval of the NPG’s actions. Bronson requested that his work, Felix, June 5, 1994, be removed from the exhibition. Felix is a larger-than-life size postmortem portrait of Bronson’s dead lover after his struggle with AIDS.
According to his lawyer’s letter to the NPC and the Smithsonian Institute, the continued association of Bronson with the NPG would render him an accessory to censorship. The NPG refused to honor Bronson’s request and the artwork’s owners—the National Gallery of Canada (NGC)—will not take legal action.
Despite the troubles facing “Hide/Seek,” not all is lost. The Wojnarowicz artwork is getting more press than ever before, and we are continuing to examine the limitations of censorship. And perhaps most importantly, the controversy once again proves the powers of art—to inspire, to provoke, to call into action, to change one’s perspective, to think and to push beyond boundaries.
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.
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…
NEA’s Strategic Plan Framework
I recently received an e-mail from National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) on its Strategic Plan Framework for fiscal years 2012- 2016. Sunil Iyengar, Director of NEA’s Office of Research and Analysis, writes that NEA will consider public feedback on the new Strategic Plan Framework before it is formally adopted.
As the Executive Director of a non-profit in the U.S., I feel that it is important to understand the future plans of NEA. NEA is an independent agency of the federal government and the nation’s largest annual funder of the arts. Therefore, the choices of National Endowment for the Arts have the ability to impact NYFA’s future, whether directly through funding or indirectly through changes in its policies. I appreciate the opportunity to give my input as both an arts administrator and an American arts enthusiast. I also invite readers to use my blog as a forum for a smaller scale discussion on the Strategic Plan Framework.
The fiscal year 2012-2016 NEA Strategic Plan Framework identifies an Agency mission that emphasizes the advancement of artistic excellence, innovation, and creativity.
1. To Create Art that Meets the Highest Standards of Excellence;
2. To Engage the Public with Diverse and Excellent Art;
3. To Promote Public Knowledge and Understanding about the Contributions of the Arts;
4. To Enable the NEA Mission through Organizational Excellence.
(National Endowment for the Arts’ Strategic Plan Framework, FY 2012- 2016)
After reading further into the summary of NEA’s Framework, I was happy to see that NEA is planning on amplifying its mandate “to help create and sustain not only a climate encouraging freedom of thought, imagination, and inquiry but also the material conditions facilitating the release of this creative talent.” This directly adheres to NYFA’s mission of helping individual artists at crucial stages of their creative lives, and our endeavor to continue to improve professional development for artists (see my post NYFA Boot Camp). It is disappointing that NEA does not have Congressional support to bring back to the table grants for individual artists at this time. Though there are those in Congress who do believe in supporting artists directly, unfortunately they are in the minority. I do hope one day the majority of our elected officials in Washington will come to understand the enormous value of artists and how much they shape, inspire and help communities throughout the United States with works that reflect back to the populous who we are and what we stand for and where we are going. We must continue to educate and fight for attention.
I kept returning to the question, “What is artistic excellence?” when reading the summary. NEA used the phrase “excellence in art” repeatedly, but did not define the term. From the point of view of an artist reading the summary, I would be curious to know what constituted “excellence” and how my artwork fit into that definition.
NEA’s Framework also states that it “encompass[es] a fresh vision that is attuned to contemporary trends and issues facing the nation.” After reading Audience 2.0, an NEA publication, and reflecting on the changing technology of arts participation, I also wondered if the Framework fully addresses the new media in the arts? (To see my comments on Audience 2.0, refer to my blog post from August 5).
If you would like to give feedback on the NEA Strategic Plan Framework, whether adding to my questions or asking your own, visit the NEA website. The period for public feedback closes at 5:00 p.m. EST on August 19, 2010.
On a side note, I hope that my blog will give readers the same opportunity afforded to me by Mr. Inyengar—a chance to offer comments and ask questions on NYFA policies, goals, and programs.
Audience 2.0 Response
Below is a copy of my comment posted on the National Endowment for the Arts’ blog “Artworks” regarding their published research on the arts and media participation. I encourage readers to take a look at Audience 2.0, the NEAs’ publication, for themselves!
I felt that Audience 2.0 is a refreshing and much needed survey on the trends of new media and arts participation. I applaud the National Endowment for the Arts for undertaking such a large task and analyzing the data with insight. I particularly appreciated the multi-media approach of the full report, which used Adobe Flash and video clips. Using new media for a report on technology and the arts is particularly effective.
I was relieved to see that the report found that media allowed for new approaches for building audiences and sharing strengths with peers in the arts. The survey deduced that Arts participation through media encouraged live arts creation and live attendance, in addition to providing an alternative means to engage in the arts for those who face economic or geographic barriers.
As the Executive Director of New York Foundation for the Arts, which focuses on individual artists and emerging arts organizations, I came at this report from the perspective of how this information might affect that constituency. Audience 2.0 mentions a report by Mary Madden entitled Artists, Musicians, and the Internet (2004), which directly addresses the impact of the internet on artists rather than their audiences. I saw Madden concluded that the internet improves artists’ ability to reach audiences and strengthens the connections between artists, art communities, and audiences.
I would like to know if Audience 2.0 had gathered any more information about artists’ thoughts on the impact of the internet on their careers. Audience 2.0 touches on performers and artists, citing that those who engage with the arts in media are more likely to be artists or performers themselves, and vice-versa. The report will help artists to better understand how to reach their audience. On the other hand, I would like to see a report surveying artists and asking questions about the consequences of new media on their profession. This would aid arts administrators in better understanding the needs of working artists and creating programs to help them.
I am very interested in other opinions on an “Artist 2.0.” Please visit my blog at www.nyfablog.com to respond!
Non-Profit Art News Roundup
So as it turns out, in one weekend away from constantly checking my RSS feeds, bookmarked websites, and e-newsletters, the non-profits sector does not stop moving. Luckily I came to my desk this morning armed a full inbox, ready to get caught up on the latest arts and non-profits news. Since I can’t dissect every story pertaining to the NYFA blog, I have set up a post-weekend bulleted roundup of stories of interest.
- Rebecca Knight’s article in the Financial Times focuses on the rise of MBA courses geared toward teaching business students about the importance of philanthropy. I found it a pleasure to read and shall write to the course professor offering to have a candid conversation with her students so that they can ask their questions directly to a non-profit administrator.
- The New York Times offers a great inside scoop into the life of a dancer in New York and the troubles facing individual artists trying to make a living. The article by Claudia La Rocco outlines the day-to-day tasks of a freelance ballerina. As it turns out, it is a very small world. The dancer got a gig at the Rebecca Kelly Ballet, a company I know very well as I used to be a member of the Board. I appreciated the article because Ms. Gordon’s professional struggles reinforced the need for NYFA programming such as Artist Boot Camp, SOS, Fellowships, and NYFA Source. An excerpt:
A season spent shadowing Ms. Gordon revealed a city teeming with freelancers who scrap for every opportunity, endure dispiriting cattle-call auditions and struggle through injuries, often without health insurance. They must find and pay for technique classes themselves (as well as expenses like pointe shoes). And, of course, they have to cover the rent. (The New York Times)
- The National Endowment for the Arts has published its research on new media and the arts entitled Audience 2.0: How Technology Influences Arts Participation (full text, pdf). The full document contains a plethora of information on our media-filled era and the impact of new technology on the arts. Rocco Landesman, Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, encourages all who read the Endowment’s new publication to log onto the NEA’s Art Works blog and post their thoughts. I plan on posting my comments on Art Works and I hope that our readers do so as well. From the Preface:
One of the surprises in this report is that people who engage with art through media technologies attend live performances or arts exhibits at two to three times the rate of non-media arts participants. (Audience 2.0)
What if people who engaged with non-profits through media (…like blogs) became more active in the non-profit community? Some food for thought.
Recent Comments