A recent post
by Brooklyn Philharmonic CEO Richard Dare set the nonprofit arts world all
abuzz. It gave a lot of statistics about
the number of orchestras that are failing and the general fragility of the
non-profit art sector—in short, the kind of alarm-ringing I, for one, have
heard since the early 1970s when I began my career in the arts.
The interesting thing is that Dare is right. He’s right if you define the arts as they are
traditionally considered: those art forms handed down to us from, mostly,
Europe. Classical music, fine arts,
theater, dance—these are the art forms that many of us have labored for years
to sustain, to bring to the farthest corners of our nation, to extol as the
epitome of creativity. And to a large
degree, we have generally accomplished our goals. Orchestras, opera companies, theaters,
museums and galleries no longer exist just in large major metropolitan
areas. They are everywhere. Maybe, just maybe, we have been too
successful…
Seventy-three percent, according to Dare, of all
orchestras are running deficits, 18 percent are barely breaking even, and less
than 10% are showing small net incomes.
It certainly looks like a sector at risk. Dare uses the right statistics but I think he
misses a few important points. First,
looking at the growth of this classical artistic sector in the past 40 years
one has to wonder, what has taken so long for there to be a shake-out? Second, Dare goes on to suggest that, based
on these statistics, the problem with our sector must be the very model on
which it is based (the non-profit business model). Good grief.
A sector has some massive issues, therefore the problem is with the
business model? Really? Would he apply the same logic to the
for-profit sector when, say, a tech bubble or a real estate bubble bursts and
sends the entire economy into a tail-spin for four or five years? Jeez…should we ditch capitalism?
I don’t think so.
From what I have observed (so my view is not at all
scientific), the solution for the arts sector involves actively exploring four
paths: Expanding the definition of what
we mean by “art;” Being real to your community; Embracing change; and Serving a
greater good.
Expanding the definition of art
Politically speaking, most
discussions about art are about the marginal utility of supporting “the arts”
and they frequently result in a diatribe against the “elitism” that pervades the arts. Why should anyone with a ton of money get a
tax deduction for supporting something that only his or her equally well-heeled
friends get to enjoy? The fact is that
since the 1960s the arts ESPECIALLY in this country have evolved very quickly away from this Euro-centric view, and
continually embrace the creative expressions of many other cultures. Whether it is a blending of expressions
(hip-hop/modern dance) or totally new expressions (new, that is, to someone
brought up in a western classical tradition), the non-profit sector has found
room for all of it. And those that are
really embracing the new art forms seem to be holding or even increasing
audience share. At least as far as I can
tell…
Being real to your community
I once got a call from someone
who wanted to open up a new ballet studio in a small town (pop. 12,000-ish)
that already had two working dance studios, a dynamic cultural scene (theaters,
galleries, etc.) and an even more robust outdoor recreation program for its
school-aged children. When I asked if
she had done any kind of market analysis to see what the barriers might be to
her desire to open up a studio, she said it didn’t matter. No one was teaching the kind of dance she
intended to teach.
I tried to advise her to start
with one of the already-existing dance studios, to offer a few classes to build
a reputation, and only THEN to establish a separate corporate identity. She wouldn’t listen. Her naiveté points out the importance of context. Her community is a real place with real
people and real limitations for what she wanted to achieve.
We don’t expect a
village like Island Pond (in Vermont’s Northeast Kingdom) to mount a production
with anywhere near the same values as one might find in Burlington or
Montreal. But does that mean the
artistic experience for a performance in Island Pond, especially for the
audience, is of any less value than that of an audience in Burlington? No, not at all.
Not all organizations can be Mass MoCA. But now that Mass MoCA exists, plenty of other
communities want to imitate it. But they
can’t. Their expectations are, “all we
need is your money, and we can take care of the rest.” But they don’t understand that the roots of
Mass MoCA were put in place nearly
15 years before it opened; more if you consider Mass MoCA’s operating
environment to include the entire brand identity of the Berkshires.
The point is, the minute a
non-profit arts organization stops behaving like a crucial piece of its own
local community, it starts to become irrelevant. The real trick is to make sure you know who your community is.
Embracing change
I read that the Metropolitan Opera’s
annual budget last year was close to $400 million. More startling than the sheer magnitude of
that dollar figure was learning that what had put them into the black for the
year was not a particular donation or sponsorship, but the “profit” they made
on their digital broadcasts to theaters all over the country. As one venerable member of the Vermont Arts
Council’s board said, “I’ve been to the opera all my life and I love it. But until I went to one of these digital
broadcasts, I had NEVER felt like I was onstage with the performers. It was stunning; a whole new experience.”
Hey, if the Metropolitan Opera
can do it, so can the rest of us. No,
I’m not talking about digital broadcasts, I’m talking about embracing
change. I remember the fights the opera
world had in the 1980s when the New York City Opera used supertitles for the
first time. (“Sacrilege!” they all cried.)
I still hear the debates between respected artists over whether the
public should support only “absolute artistic excellence” or “relative artistic
excellence.” What a load of b.s. Seriously.
Everyone agrees that William
Shakespeare is still the greatest playwright that ever lived. But does a theater company ALWAYS have to
resort to putting up “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” when money gets tight? Do ballet companies ALWAYS have to perform
the “Nutcracker” at Christmas? I’m a
huge believer in Michael
Kaiser’s exhortations to embrace new productions and market and promote
them well. Change is good for the brain
and for the soul. Done right, it is also
very good for the bottom line…
Serving a greater good
“But we’re artists. We don’t do things that way.” How often do communities hear this from their
cultural leaders? I have been arguing
for years that one of the best indicators of the well-being of a community is
the degree to which its artistic community is engaged, not (just) in
art-making, but in serving on school boards, planning commissions, select
boards, mayors’ advisory councils.
Most arts organizations have
long since learned that today’s student-matinee attendees are tomorrow’s
audiences. But how many have taken that
a step further and looked for ways to participate in or create programs that
reduce recidivism, or improve the quality of life for PTSD or brain-injured
patients at the local VA hospital? How
many of established outposts in the poorest neighborhoods to bring a ray of
light and hope to some of the most underserved of our citizens?
The answer is, actually, quite a
few. From the Bronx to Chicago’s West
Side, to the Barrios of LA, there are dozens of arts-based organizations
inviting people of all socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds to share their
cultural expressions. No, they don’t
pretend to be the Met. They don’t have
to. They are providing meaningful
connections and bridges between and among people who are in desperate need of a
creative outlet and nurturing. Trust me,
even if the rest of the nonprofit world dies off, these organizations will
thrive.
So, what’s going to happen next?
I think we are seeing a huge
shake-out in the nonprofit sector. It’s
been a long time coming. There will be
winners and losers. There will be
mergers and acquisitions. There will be
bruised egos and probably a few “pewter parachutes” (not enough money for
gold!). But the model itself is quite
strong. It’s what we do with it that
matters. Just like in the for-profit
sector.
Posts
