Making it Happen

At its retreat in Vergennes a couple of weeks ago, the Vermont Arts Council spent some time with an artist who had participated in one of two Artist Marketing Workshops we organized this spring. Bonnie Baird of North Chittenden shared her experiences as a participant in our Rutland Workshop and for her—as for us—it signaled an important departure from “business as usual.”

A little background… A year ago we conducted a listening tour during which we asked our constituents what they needed from us that would allow them to continue to be creative. We assumed, of course, the answer would be “money,” and indeed it was. But after explaining that money would be, if anything, tighter in the immediate future (at least from state and federal sources), we pushed people for other ideas.

From artists we heard that they needed tools—marketing tools—so that they could make their businesses successful. With that, we set about designing an initiative that would not only introduce “business” skills and concepts to artists through a two-day workshop, but provide them with a forum in which they could take time to process what they learned, collaborate with colleagues, and develop a proposal for funding based on their experiences in the workshop and the specific needs they wanted to address. So far we have had two packed workshops for nearly 50 people from all over Vermont and Bonnie Baird bravely stepped in to represent what seemed to us to be the feelings of most of those who participated.

“I felt like we, as artists, were not alone in our struggles to be business people and that our state was willing to teach us better skills to stand on our own rather than just enabling us…I truly appreciated that respect.”

It is impossible for me to quote everything Bonnie said to us a few weeks ago. Suffice to say that it was the first time at an Arts Council Board meeting more than just a few eyes welled up with tears—tears that represented joy and pride and the spirit of accomplishment. Bonnie was feeding us with her words even as she was acknowledging the importance of what we were doing to help her feed herself. It was a very powerful encounter for all of us. And it’s especially nice to know that we have been able to provide seed-funding to all workshop participants who have since asked for support to implement some aspect of a plan they created based on what they learned in the workshop.

An unanticipated, but certainly no less valuable, outcome of this initiative is that we have helped generate a whole new statewide network of artists who have gotten to know each other well through this intensive two-day experience and who provide advice, assistance, and even connections to other resources to each other on a daily basis. While the specific skills that artists have sought and so far all received are important, I have a feeling that it is this network that will be the true valued legacy of this initiative.

From SoHo to Santa Fe, and from Port Townshend to Key West, there is no force on earth that can stand up to a group of artists that sets its collective mind on something. Artists’ impact might be scaled a little differently here in Vermont, but it is just as strongly felt and certainly no less valued.

I have a good friend here in Montpelier who was sick and tired of the local middle school’s lack of action in designing and building an upgraded outdoor play area. She volunteered to lead the parents’ committee charged with working with the administration on this project and in less than a year, the project was designed, spec’ed, permitted, and built.

I asked her how she did it so quickly (the dithering had been going on for years and—pause for full disclosure—my own wife is on the school board!). Her answer? “I got a bunch of my artist friends involved. Some designed the playground, well…you know the story. We just kept at it until it was done.” I laughed even harder when she closed by saying, “C’mon Alex, you of all people know that if you want to get something done you just have to get artists involved…!”

I have a feeling that there are quite a few residents of several dozen towns in Vermont who already know this to be true. I have an even stronger feeling that in a few years there will be many, many more. If you’re an artist and you want more information about our workshops you know where to find us.

They are, in the words of another participant from the Rutland Workshop, Kathy Cadow Parsonnet, “by far the most relevant, practical, and validating series of informational sessions and activities that I have encountered… [They] reinforce the message that Vermont takes ‘the creative economy’ seriously, and that it truly values the creative minds and energies of its artists.”

Cool stuff.

A Small Reminder

Earlier this week I was in Washington DC advocating for the National Endowment for the Arts. I also spent a day in the Russell Senate Office Building helping curator Janet Van Fleet install The Art of Action exhibition in the Russell Rotunda.

Later that same evening I listened to Mayor Joseph Riley of Charleston, SC exhort 517 arts advocates and their colleagues (about 1000 total) to create great, livable cities by investing in infrastructure that fits the character, history, and culture of the neighborhoods.

The following morning, we all headed back to the Hill to attend Sen. Leahy's traditional Tuesday coffee hour and attend the "opening" of the exhibit and then go on to spend some time with Sen. Sanders's and Rep. Welch's staff before heading back to the airport and home.

Let me just say one thing about this brief trip. We have, without question, the best Congressional delegation in the country. Granted, I tend to be a one-track pony where legislative issues are concerned, but I see again and again people from other states trudging from one office to another, urging their elected representatives, despite their often terrible voting record on the arts, to expand our country's tiny investments in the arts and culture. By contrast, I and my Vermont colleagues look forward with joy to meeting with our delegation to thank them for everything they do, year in and year out.

Are we lucky? Perhaps. I think our representatives in Washington actually DO represent the body politic in Vermont. Many of our towns have thriving arts centers; artists of all stripes and colors live throughout the length and breadth of our state. Vermonters have started to accept a variety of lifestyles; welcoming outsiders from overseas as well as those from other states. Our tourism infrastructure is dependent to a large degree on the health of our cultural sectors, and these, in turn are nurtured by the artists and creative entrepreneurs that are at their core.

It is an ecosystem that our US Congressional delegation completely understands and it's why, year after year, American's for the Arts' Congressional "Arts Report Card" exhibits As and A-pluses across the board. It's also partly why the National Endowment for the Arts's budget has increased significantly in the past three years, usually over the President's own recommendation.

So here is what I need everyone reading this to do. The next time you attend a program in your local town hall theater, visit a gallery, experience a jazz or chamber festival, or in any tangible way take advantage of Vermont's large and varied cultural offerings, drop a line to Senators Leahy and Sanders and Congressman Welch and thank them for their efforts.

They deserve it.

Keep the Change (Coming)

Crocuses are stabbing through the winter detritus in our yard. Mud is on the roads. Maple steam is escaping from small rustic buildings dottling the landscape. The Legislature plans to finish by the end of April (wow!).

Change is in the air.

Although I continue to come across artists and administrators who are angry or scared about their current economic condition, by far the majority of them have taken the current crisis as a starting point for exploring how to accomplish their work differently, more efficiently, and/or with greater impact. For example, I have had conversations with cultural representatives from three Vermont communities who are in various stages of consolidating a significant segment of their local cultural efforts to achieve administrative, marketing, and promotional synergies and savings.

This is the kind of change we need.

At our advocacy day on March 17th (huge thanks to all of you who came!) we heard from a variety of people about new ways to capture and use data, or better ways to position Vermont artistic products and services to broaden and deepen Vermont's audience as well as its brand identity.

Again, more change to consider.

Perhaps the most important thing artists and arts administrators could change, however, is how they approach marketing and promotion. In a very quick and totally unscientific, recent sampling of a few Vermont arts organizations I discovered two things: 1) many arts administrators don't really know what percentage of their annual operating budget they allocate to marketing and promotion. They could all form an estimate by calculating the number of events times the rough expenditures on advertising per event, but no one would commit to a firm figure without equivocating; and 2) most administrators having completed the calculation, guesstimated that they spent less than 3% of their total operating expenditures on marketing and promotion.

Here's a new way to look at marketing and promotion. Take an average of your total operating income for the last three years. Multiply that by 10%. There. That's your new budget line-item for marketing and promotion for your organization next year. That's what you are going to spend on a well-considered plan to fill your seats, to engage your audiences in new ways, to invite your legislators to come and speak at your opening night events, to showcase your organization as the center of community life that you know it to be.

"But that's too much! We've never spent more than 2% (it turns out, having now done the math). We need to spend that extra XX thousand dollars on artist fees/travel/dressing the hall/insurance/mindless debates about marketing/etc...."

Really?

What if you presented one or two fewer performances and took the money you would have spent up front on artist fees and really developed a marketing and promotional campaign that was designed to fill every seat in the house so full that you had to add an extra show? Wouldn't your board be happy? Wouldn't the artists be happy?

Our state department of Tourism and Marketing (VDTM) has a long history of marketing and promoting the Vermont Brand almost exclusively out of state. They also have a long history of partnering with private-sector partners and splitting the costs of out-of-state promotional campaigns to lure visitors here from Montreal, Boston, Albany (Capital District), New York, and Philadelphia.

We believe this is a huge opportunity to improve our own financial conditions as well as that of Vermont, which is dependent on tourism for 15% of its revenue.

Let's take aim at a realistic goal: let's get our boards to commit to spending 5% on marketing/promotion within the next two years, and 10% within five years. While you are doing that, we (the Arts Council) will:

• Develop out-of-state marketing campaigns with VDTM that showcase the multiple reasons to visit Vermont for its art (Vermont is a pretty wide open source for great copy!)
• Develop in-state marketing campaigns with our arts organizations, local chambers of commerce and others to reach not only the large number of Vermonters who only know what's going on in their own communities, but the large number of out-of-state visitors who stay with family and friends.
• Encourage arts organizations all over the state to join forces with each other and with us and mimic the very successful brand-oriented campaigns that the likes of the Ski Areas Association and Cabot Cheese have done with VDTM.
  

In addition to many of the other ideas we have put forward at Advocacy Day about information-gathering, accountability, and application-streamlining, putting a new focus on marketing and promotion may be turn out to be the most significant change for the Arts Council in a generation.

Like I said, change is in the air, and these are all big.

Breathe deeply.

The Emerald Mountain State

Even though The Wizard of Oz was not the first color motion picture, it made one heckuva colorful statement. Compared to the browns and grays of the sepia-toned Kansas that Dorothy left behind, Oz’s magic was made palpable by the rich tapestry of color that greeted her as she stepped out to meet the Munchkins for the first time. And oh my, who can forget that first glimpse of the Emerald City off in the distance...?

A few weeks ago the Douglas Administration recommended zeroing out the state's support for the Vermont Film Commission because (according to a well-placed administration official) "Tiger Team Analysis" showed that the "operational footprint of the Commission was negligible."

While some might wish to question the validity of this analysis and its conclusion, I would like to focus instead on why Vermont desperately needs a Film Commission—one that is properly funded and offers incentives to film-makers:

First, someone knowledgeable about film production issues needs to be available to answer the hundreds of inquiries that come into Vermont looking for locations, looking for artisans or trades-people (including writers, actors, sound engineers, costumers, designers, gaffers, best boys, etc.), or looking for on-site or post-production facilities they can use without trekking back and forth to New York or L.A.

Second, someone knowledgeable about film finance needs to be available to the Vermont legislature, the state economist, and the Governor to explain exactly how a film incentive, properly structured, can not only attract major productions to film in our state, but not necessarily cost the state a dime. Even more important, this person could also explain how to build an incredibly lucrative economic sector that has very little negative "footprint" on our proud, environmentally-conscious state.

Third, someone knowledgeable about film and new media needs to be available to link our robust cartoon sector (thank you White River Junction!) to the burgeoning industries of new media, technology, and video-gaming (thank you Marlboro and Champlain College!) which share so many of the same post-production people and technologies with the film industry.

The Administration thinks that someone in the tourism office (VDTM) can answer inquiries from the field. That may be true to a limited degree, but should VDTM's already vastly overworked staff be responsible for servicing a different industry when it is fully engaged in servicing its own? Seems like a too-tall order. Film, television, and media producers don't have a lot of time to spend and will happily hang up the phone and call Connecticut or Massachusetts or Canada if it will save them even five minutes.

As for the Incentives issue, the problem is quite simple. What is it worth to the State of Vermont to have, say, a Steven Spielberg film shot here? Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Canada offer a 25% incentive. Some economists say this is too much.

Only one state has determined that the direct income it receives from a film shoot is 16% of its tax incentive investment, based on a detailed analysis of all the direct salary, meals, sales and use tax revenue streams a production generates. (Thank you, Massachusetts, for doing this incredibly boring but necessary analysis--see page 17 where it says Mass. gets $.16 back on every dollar of tax incentive money it "spends.")

In Massachusetts, thus, a $6 million production shoot with the standard 25% incentive program will result in it"owing" foregone taxes worth $1.5 million, but reaping about $.24 million (.16 x $1.5 million). In this scenario, Massachusetts “loses” $1.26 million.

Or does it?

First of all, what value does Massachusetts place on the employment of all these people and organizations who work the shoot? What would the cost of their "un(der)employment" have been during that same period if the film hadn't been shot? What would have happened if someone from Connecticut had been hired to be a key grip on the shoot because no one knew where all the Massachusetts-based key grips could be found?

Even more important, media moguls are always pointing out the incredible value of "unpaid advertising" that happens when locations in the state are shown around the world on film or on television. (Related to this, did anyone stop to think that maybe the fact that Cider House Rules was shot partly in White River Junction might have something to do with that town's reputation as an art-friendly town--one whose creative economy is more than robust? What is the value the state places on that?)

How valuable would a Spielberg film shot in Vermont be to the long-term health of our state? I have no idea, but it has to be considerable. Heck, people still come to Vermont looking to meet Darryl...or was it his brother...?

As the Film Commission's own materials proclaim proudly:

"Film uses established resources and infrastructure without straining our school systems, highways, and community resources or putting development pressure on our cities and towns. It employs local artisans and local businesses, offering wages that are often higher than average for the state. It promotes the Vermont Brand to broad, worldwide audiences, a factor that contributes to our economy many times over in the form of tourism and related industries. Film, video, and new media are the clean, green industries of the future. The Film Commission's mission is to grow this new and vital industry, creating the kinds of jobs that will be critical to the state's economic success in the 21st Century."

It's not that the Film Commission has a "negligible footprint." It simply has been starved to death these past ten years.

So let’s try this. Let Vermont offer a 15% incentive (1% less than its expected return, based on the Massachusetts data). We might not compete with our neighbors, but we might get some who currently AREN’T coming to Vermont because we offer nothing at all.

If film is going to ever gain more than a sporadic toe-hold in Vermont; if it ever is going to make the effort to connect up to the video-gaming industry, and be at the vanguard of a new media and technology sector; it needs a magician or two right now to pull some levers (Sen. Illuzzi and Rep. Botzow, there is your cue!).

Far from being eliminated, the Film Commission should be empowered to help pull Vermont out of its sepia-toned economic tornado and restore it to its original Emerald-Mountain-State hues.

On Poetry and Politics

The finals of the 2010 Vermont Poetry Out Loud (POL) recital competition is this Saturday (March 6). With more than 30 schools participating we've had to change our format and add a semifinal round prior to the final round. It should be an incredible day up at the College of Fine Arts in Montpelier.

With the growing popularity of song and dance competition shows on television, Poetry Out Loud may be the closest many Vermont students get to tasting the the nervous energy (call it stage fright) that these shows are so good at turning into high drama (okay, "low drama"). Poetry Out Loud is a competition, with real benefits to the winners, and a great educational outcome for all who participate. And for family members who comprise most of the audience, it's pure theater.

In addition to a cash prize for him/herself and school, the winner of will attend the POL finals in Washington DC under the auspices of the National Endowment for the Arts and the Poetry Foundation. It's like the Scripps-Howard Spelling Bee, only more lyrical. But before the Vermont winner goes to Washington DC in late April, he/she has an earlier commitment...

...at our Annual Arts Advocacy Day on March 17th in Montpelier!

Advocacy is a tricky thing when times are as difficult as they are now. Much of my time is spent talking with (your) legislators about the arts in ways that are by now familiar to everyone who reads this blog.

But here's the real truth...

No one in Montpelier can talk to your legislators the way you can. You are the one with the meaningful story. You are the one with the child who had the incredible arts experience. You are the one who is the legislator's friend or the neighbor or relative. You are the one who presents local talent to the world for the first time, who entices visitors to spend time and money in your (legislators') community. You are the one composing the song, choreographing the dance, recreating the role, capturing the essence of the place in words or images or music in the district your legislators represent.

Your messages have far more meaning than mine because, frankly, yours is the vote that counts.

So, what is your story, and when was the last time you told it?

Talking to your legislators while they are home during the Town Meeting Day break is important. But please come to Montpelier as well--for three reasons that I can think of. A lot of people from all over the state come together in Montpelier, and it's a real morale-booster to see that you are not alone. We all learn from each other, and there are several dozen people who will listen to your pitch and help you refine it. And finally, your legislators will not only see that YOU think its important enough to make the trip, they will see other legislators getting the same treatment. It makes quite an impact.

So please come to Montpelier on the 17th. Let your legislators know you're coming (click HERE for their contact information), and stay to hear a poetry recitation from this year's state POL champ. It will be well worth the visit!

Eat the Peanut Butter!

We are receiving reports from various arts supporters that legislators and newspapers have received letters that target the Vermont Arts Council and a few other small agencies for elimination.

I have read a few of these letters and their basic argument is that, as with household budgets when there is less money available, Government should cut programs (like the Arts Council) until it is operating within its means.

To me this sounds like a contestant on The Biggest Loser being told to eliminate the tablespoon of peanut-butter from his diet instead of addressing his 10-chili-cheese-dog-a-day habit because the peanut butter has, pound for pound, more calories.

Eliminating the peanut butter will, like cutting the Arts Council budget, result in two sure things: the problem won't go away, and worse, without it we will suffer from the lack of some crucial nutrients which our bodies and our society can ill-afford to be without.

The Government is not the same as a Household

The basic flaw with the letters I have read is the assumption that Government functions like a household. Government is supposed to protect its interests and the citizenry (sometimes even from the citizenry itself!), negotiate with foreign countries on behalf of the people, and provide programs and services that are in the people's interest but for which there is no market incentive for investment (like schools and health-care, and teacher's and veteran's retirement programs, all of which are topics that are too big to discuss here!).

A head of household, however, tends to preserve and protect what is dear to him/her, even if it is at the expense of a neighbor or the community-at-large. Nowhere is this behavior more pronounced, its effects more devastatingly felt, than when people charged with acting in the public trust behave instead like individuals bent on preserving and protecting "what's theirs." This is essentially what happened in Washington and on Wall Street during the past five or six years during which regulations were either gutted or ignored. Speculators created high risk/high reward instruments that created fortunes for themselves overnight, and when everything went sour, turned to the Federal Government for a bail-out. So-called public servants protected their own assets at the expense of everyone else.

So here we sit in a recession/depression with private capital more or less dried up, unemployment at a 25-year high, and private enterprise at best, in a state of paralysis. It is very tempting to cut Government spending until we have once again reached the point where our revenue equals or exceeds our expenses; where our annual deficit disappears; where are accumulated national debt starts to decrease.

The problem is that if the Government does this, then unemployment will get much worse and inflation will skyrocket because there are fewer goods and services being produced. Depression in every possible meaning of the world will be the status quo on a scale not seen before...

It seems counter-intuitive to individuals dealing with their own household budgets to say that the best possible way to improve things is for the Government to spend more, but Government is the only player right now who has access to capital.

Government must invest borrowed capital in order to invest in private enterprise to create jobs and restore consumer and market confidence. It is these jobs, these industries that receive this investment that will, eventually, and not without great anxiety, allow us to move towards a recovery.

Arts=Jobs; Arts = Community

State Arts Agencies not only recognize and support vital cultural institutions and artist projects, we partner with a variety of private and public partners to showcase various attractions and festivals that cause huge numbers of visitors and entrepreneurs to come to our state. These visitors spend enormous sums in our shops, restaurants, and hotels. The entrepreneurs start businesses, employ people and contractors, and make positive demands on and contributions to our community's social fabric.

Arts agencies also serve as a catalyst that allows significant amounts of supplemental educational experiences to engage students in our schools, most of which is directly related to the schools' curriculum goals and all of which is directed towards specific performance goals for every student, not the least of which is developing skills for the 21st-century workforce that are highly prized--like collaborative decision-making, public speaking, and creative thinking.

The two most frequently cited reasons why a business chooses to locate in one community over another--all other factors like tax incentives and regulations being equal—are the quality of the schools and the quality of community life, both of which are highly dependent on a thriving arts sector.

Cutting Government’s small investment in the arts, far from improving our economic situation, will actually make if far worse. Not only will the cut place at risk 2000 jobs throughout the state, but the closing of perhaps dozens of our cultural institutions, and the drying up of arts education programs in our schools will make Vermont a significantly less attractive place for people to visit, to invest in new businesses, and to raise families.

So, please, don’t be fooled. Eat the peanut butter. It's good for you. The real threat is those chili-cheese-dogs.

100% Essential

We are lucky to have a President, a Congress, and in Vermont, a Governor and a State Legislature who generally agree that the arts matter. But one legacy of the "Culture Wars" is that many ill-informed media pundits continue to assert that the arts are a luxury. Now, with the economy in the shape it's in, I keep hearing that it is time for all "nonessential government expenditures" to be cut, including the arts.

Let's take a long look at why this would be a huge mistake.

On a macro level:
1) The arts are a huge part of our gross national product. Film, television, video games and music production are collectively considered one of the biggest sectors of our economy--certainly our biggest export. Imagine the artistic output that goes into a film like "Avatar." Now imagine that plot occurring on a planet that looked like the moon and not like the Amazon rainforest. Do you think Avatar would be the second best all-time ticket seller in the history of film? Not a chance.

Now ask yourself a simple question--where did all those artists and musicians and dancers and actors come from? Where were they trained? How did they learn to draw, to compose, to play, to develop plot lines, to use their imaginations to create whole universes outside our comprehension? If we turn off the spigot that fosters and encourages those artists during their childhood years, we will truly create a bleak future for ourselves.

2) The arts generate tourism. As far as I can tell, hardly anyone visited Bilbao, Spain until the Frank Gehry-designed Guggenheim opened in October of 1997. The same could be said of North Adams, Massachusetts. A depressed milltown opens up MassMOCA (Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art), and voila!--a tourism mecca is born. Mayor Rudy Giuliani of New York tried to cut all public funding for the arts in retaliation for a work put on display at the Brooklyn Museum that he found offensive. He changed his mind when he learned that the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the combined arts groups that comprise Lincoln Center alone generate more tax revenue for the city of New York than the combined professional sports teams operating out of Yankee and Shea stadiums, the Meadowlands, and Madison Square Garden.

On a micro level:
1) Artistic decisions--or aesthetic decisions if you prefer--govern our individual behaviors every day. From deciding what to wear, and what make, model, and color car to drive; to what makes us choose our favorite restaurants and stores, or our favorite neighborhoods when it's time to buy a house and raise our families, how something looks or sounds or complements our personal aesthetic is almost always what causes you to decide to buy or not buy. Who makes all this stuff? And why did you buy the blue sweater and not the green sweater? If life is all about function rather than form, then we would have all evolved to wear the same clothes, drive the same cars, and enjoy the same activities. But form matters, which means design matters, which means the arts matter.

2) The arts exist, in part, to improve the human condition. For many, this is achieved through an exploration of the emotional or psychological connections that art conveys to the viewer. But for others, this is achieved in very concrete terms--in communities that renovate a community performance space (Vergennes, Derby Line, White River Junction and others) which fosters other business to locate nearby; entices good teachers to apply for jobs at the local school; and to provide a sense of place--of community well-being.

Ask yourself, why do you live and work where you do? I remember once asking a friend in DC what it was like to live in Crystal City (a complex of apartment buildings adjacent to National Airport with all its amenities like shopping and dining built underground). As a DC bedroom community it was ideal. Convenient, easy access to everywhere by Metro, and completely weatherproof. The problem, she said, was that it had no soul. It was a man-made moonscape across the river from one of the country's most vibrant cities. If she could have afforded to, she would have moved to DC in a heartbeat.

Most people will agree that responding to Haiti's needs is an essential government expense. So is fixing our own infrastructure and our own economy. Our government needs to figure out how to fund job-creation, learn how to effectively deal with al-Qaeda, the Taliban and other extreme terrorist organizations without killing (and radicalizing) civilians. It needs to reorganize the delivery of affordable health care, and take care of its citizens who have the least capacity for caring for themselves. All of these are essential to restoring our government and our country to its position as a world leader.

Doing so, however, will take a lot of creative thought; a lot of anticipating the problems and rehearsing ways to get around them. It's going to take some creative vision to share what our world will look like after this exhausting and scary period is over. We're not going to do it by just listening to the economists and the militarists and the jihadists. We're going to have to listen the artists as well. They are the most creative problem-solvers and community builders among us.

So...essential? Absolutely! The arts matter now more than ever.