Midway through Arts Achievement Day this past week (March 25, 2009), word filtered out of the Vermont State House that Governor Douglas would veto a gay marriage bill if it landed on his desk.
Remembering back to the Civil Unions debates earlier this decade, I quickly realized that no amount of quality arts activity taking place in the State House would penetrate the wall of news that the Governor’s press conference would generate. Sure enough, in Thursday’s paper, I searched in vain for even one reference to the dozens of artists, students, advocates, and arts supporters who put on such a creative show at the State House a day earlier.
So…bowing to the inevitable, I have come to understand one key thing:
This year, one way or the other, it’s all going to be about gay marriage--or civil marriage if you prefer.
2009 is not going to be “the year that Vermont turned the economy around (or didn’t).” It won’t be “the year that the legislature finally passed (or didn’t) a motion picture incentive bill that offers a transferable tax credit to those making a film in Vermont.” It won’t be “the year that the legislature increased (or didn’t) the Arts Council’s state appropriation to a level that matches that of the National Endowment for the Arts.”
Nope. This is going to be “the year that gay marriage passed the Vermont House and was signed into law by the Governor (or wasn’t).”
I am forbidden by law to advocate for a particular position regarding pending legislation since I am the director of an independent 501(c)(3) organization that also serves as the official Vermont State Arts Agency. I am, however, allowed to offer fair and balanced opportunities to all people to educate themselves about issues of note.
Trust me, no matter how you feel about it, this is an issue of note.
Many of you have already made up your mind one way or the other on gay marriage. This post, however, is directed to those of you who have NOT made up your mind about whether you support or oppose gay marriage.
Go to the website for those advocating for traditional marriage: Take It To The People.
Then go to the website for those advocating for gay marriage rights: Freedom to Marry.
Still haven’t made up your mind? Go back and do it again, and yet again if you have to. I truly don’t care what your position ends up being. I just don’t want you or your children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren to feel any regret that you didn’t take a position and communicate it to your legislators when you had the chance.
As to where I personally stand on this issue, feel free to draw your own conclusions.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
Perspective Anyone?
I don't remember too many details from Fine Arts 13, my undergraduate survey course on the History and Appreciation of Western Classical Art. But I remember vividly the Venus of Willendorf, a squat fertility figure dating back many thousands of years, and I remember a lot of classical statuary, Roman architecture, and the Moorish influence in Spain in the late Middle Ages. But mostly I remember the profound feeling of relief that came over me when, as we started in on the Italian Renaissance in the early 15th Century, artists (Brunelleschi comes to mind) started to use perspective as a principle tool for organizing three-dimensional images on a two-dimensional canvas.
Ahhhh. Perspective. Something we all need. Something we rarely enjoy.
In art, of course, perspective is often something that professional artists love to play with. I have a couple of coffee-table books and many ties in my closet with images taken from the works of M. C. Escher. They provide hours of amusement for my children and me as we trace the passage of someone walking up the underside of a staircase and emerging through a door sideways. It's a little disconcerting but also a useful tool to explore how different points of view result in different outcomes.
Of late I have been reminded how a little more training in the use of perspective might have been useful during the past couple of months on the economic front. I've already raved about the ridiculousness of the US Senate getting all crazy about $50 million of the stimulus bill going to support efforts by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). $50 million, for those of you who missed my post, is about 63/10,000ths of 1% of the total $789 billion stimulus package. Kind of puts things in perspective, doesn't it?
But then I remembered something important. The Senate used to get all crazy over the NEA's $172 million budget back in the early 1990s. As a percentage of the Federal Budget, the NEA's budget was even smaller than its current portion of the stimulus package.
Fast forward a bit to this week. Perspective again becomes an important issue.
The general public is understandably outraged that AIG bosses received $160 million in retention (NOT performance) bonuses even as that sad-sack corporation was receiving $170 billion in tax-payer funds to--what's the phrase?--"cover its nut."
Now I don't have exact figures here, but it seems to me that, as justified as this outrage over bonuses is, it pales in comparison to the tens of billions of dollars that AIG is spending on, are you sitting down?, paying large international banking firms for having taken unconscionably bad investment positions in derivative swaps (or whatever they're called).
So, let's run a few numbers and get some new perspective on this AIG mess.
For ease of computation, I'm going to assume that AIG has paid out $50 billion to about a dozen banks all over the world to compensate them, dollar for dollar, the amount that they lost on derivative swappage.
What would have happened if, as frequently happens during a bankruptcy proceeding, AIG had said to these banks, "look, you're about to drive us out of business. But we're about to get some tax money. We'd like to offer you $0.90 on the dollar, since the alternative might just be for us to declare bankruptcy in which case you might get less than $0.10 on the dollar. Would $0.90 be okay?"
Assuming the banks said yes (and how could they refuse? THEY were the ones who made the bad investments to begin with!) tax payers could have saved $5 billion.
So here you have the poor schlubs who are busy "winding AIG down" getting retention bonuses (if they didn't, NO ONE would work for AIG), and getting beat up by the press, the Congress, and the American Public. Their collective bonuses represent just 3.2% of the money that could have been saved if only AIG had offered 90 cents on the dollar. But no one but me seems to be in a dither about it.
See what perspective does to you? It reveals a whole new side to a situation that makes you madder than you were before.
Perspective also reminds you that $160 million is frequently the cause of a lot of gnashing of teeth and flailing of limbs in political circles. We're in the Arts, after all, and we have that perspective down cold.
If this hasn't made you mad enough yet, then consider this.
The $50 million that caused such a furor in the Senate several weeks ago is exactly 1% of the $5 billion that might have been "saved" had AIG done the right thing.
Doesn't this make you want to pick up and head to Montpelier on Wednesday for Arts Achievement Day or to Washington DC next week for Arts Advocacy Day? At least there you'll be among people who share your perspective...
Ahhhh. Perspective. Something we all need. Something we rarely enjoy.
In art, of course, perspective is often something that professional artists love to play with. I have a couple of coffee-table books and many ties in my closet with images taken from the works of M. C. Escher. They provide hours of amusement for my children and me as we trace the passage of someone walking up the underside of a staircase and emerging through a door sideways. It's a little disconcerting but also a useful tool to explore how different points of view result in different outcomes.
Of late I have been reminded how a little more training in the use of perspective might have been useful during the past couple of months on the economic front. I've already raved about the ridiculousness of the US Senate getting all crazy about $50 million of the stimulus bill going to support efforts by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). $50 million, for those of you who missed my post, is about 63/10,000ths of 1% of the total $789 billion stimulus package. Kind of puts things in perspective, doesn't it?
But then I remembered something important. The Senate used to get all crazy over the NEA's $172 million budget back in the early 1990s. As a percentage of the Federal Budget, the NEA's budget was even smaller than its current portion of the stimulus package.
Fast forward a bit to this week. Perspective again becomes an important issue.
The general public is understandably outraged that AIG bosses received $160 million in retention (NOT performance) bonuses even as that sad-sack corporation was receiving $170 billion in tax-payer funds to--what's the phrase?--"cover its nut."
Now I don't have exact figures here, but it seems to me that, as justified as this outrage over bonuses is, it pales in comparison to the tens of billions of dollars that AIG is spending on, are you sitting down?, paying large international banking firms for having taken unconscionably bad investment positions in derivative swaps (or whatever they're called).
So, let's run a few numbers and get some new perspective on this AIG mess.
For ease of computation, I'm going to assume that AIG has paid out $50 billion to about a dozen banks all over the world to compensate them, dollar for dollar, the amount that they lost on derivative swappage.
What would have happened if, as frequently happens during a bankruptcy proceeding, AIG had said to these banks, "look, you're about to drive us out of business. But we're about to get some tax money. We'd like to offer you $0.90 on the dollar, since the alternative might just be for us to declare bankruptcy in which case you might get less than $0.10 on the dollar. Would $0.90 be okay?"
Assuming the banks said yes (and how could they refuse? THEY were the ones who made the bad investments to begin with!) tax payers could have saved $5 billion.
So here you have the poor schlubs who are busy "winding AIG down" getting retention bonuses (if they didn't, NO ONE would work for AIG), and getting beat up by the press, the Congress, and the American Public. Their collective bonuses represent just 3.2% of the money that could have been saved if only AIG had offered 90 cents on the dollar. But no one but me seems to be in a dither about it.
See what perspective does to you? It reveals a whole new side to a situation that makes you madder than you were before.
Perspective also reminds you that $160 million is frequently the cause of a lot of gnashing of teeth and flailing of limbs in political circles. We're in the Arts, after all, and we have that perspective down cold.
If this hasn't made you mad enough yet, then consider this.
The $50 million that caused such a furor in the Senate several weeks ago is exactly 1% of the $5 billion that might have been "saved" had AIG done the right thing.
Doesn't this make you want to pick up and head to Montpelier on Wednesday for Arts Achievement Day or to Washington DC next week for Arts Advocacy Day? At least there you'll be among people who share your perspective...
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Stimulus, Round 2
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) is now law, and not surprisingly, the Arts Sector is "first out of the gate." Because of conservative reactions to having the Arts included at all in the Stimulus Bill, the National Endowment for the Arts is not only acting incredibly efficiently, but they have developed clear and consistent language for us to use in describing how we all are to use whatever we receive from their (63/10,000ths of 1%) share of the total $789 billion stimulus package.
Thus, funding for the Arts from ARRA, by way of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is "to help preserve jobs in the non-profit Arts field." This means that if you represent an arts organization and are eligble to apply for some of the NEA's funds, your application must address how funds will be used to retain or restore jobs.
While there may be dozens, if not hundreds of ways for your organization to tap funds from ARRA through non-arts sources (by going through your local chamber of commerce, downtown program, planning commission, select-board, state senator or house-member, or US Congressional Representative), there are only three ways to access the $50 million that was set aside for the NEA.
The first is to apply for funds directly to the NEA. To be eligible you must have received a grant from the NEA within the last four years (a grant whose number begins with an "06-" or later). According to the NEA, there are only eighteen Vermont organizations who are so eligible. The deadline for applications to NEFA is April 2; approval by the National Council on June 28th, and notification shortly thereafter.
Th second is to apply for funds from the New England Foundation for the Arts (NEFA), the NEA's regional arts partner. As of this writing, NEFA's program and deadlines are still under development, but their application deadline will probably be no earlier than late April, and approval probably not until early to mid-June. They are still working out the specifics of their eligibility requirements, but it is sure to include organizations that already have an existing program relationship with NEFA through the New England States Touring (NEST) program, or the National Dance Project, etc. NEFA will, of course, be issuing its own guidelines and application forms soon (in concert with the other New England States), so stay tuned. Total funds available for New England Arts Organizations is expected to be between $250,000 and $300,000.
The third is to apply for support from the Vermont Arts Council, the NEA's state arts partner. Though our plans still have to receive final approval from our Trustees, we expect our "Art Jobs Program" (a title that NEFA and the New England States have decided to call our collective effort to push ARRA Funds out to the field) to have a deadline of May 8, 2009, with grant notification by July 31, 2009. Funds may be used between August 1, 2009 and August 30, 2010, with final reports required no later than September 30, 2010. Grant amounts will be $5,000 for organizations with annual budgets under $150,000 and up to $10,000 for organizations with annual budgets of $150,000 or more. Total funds available is expected to be not more than $250,000.
Although any Vermont 501(c)(3) arts organization may apply for funds, we expect to place a priority on applications that serve underserved communities, are for educational purposes, and/or retain the services of those who provide marketing and outreach for their organizations. Furthermore, we expect to put a priority on applications from organizations that regularly collaborate with other organizations and thus broaden their reach and expand their audience while at the same time sharing costs.
Here is the kicker. For those of you reading this who are eligible for all three funding streams, you may apply to all three, but you will only get a grant from one. Thus, if you apply for support from the NEA, you should also apply for support from NEFA and from the Arts Council. That way, if you don't receive NEA funding, you will not have missed either the NEFA or Arts Council deadline in the meantime. The good news is that we are working diligently to craft application forms and narrative questions that closely follow the NEA's forms. Filling out all three will not be that much more work.
There is a lot of activity at the Council right now related to the Stimulus Bill. But that's not all we're working on...
Perhaps the most urgent thing for you to take action on right now (aside from gearing up for a stimulating application to the NEA, NEFA, or the Arts Council), is to call your state legislators and urge them to become part of our soon-to-be-formed "Legislative Arts Caucus." E-mail and snail-mail invitations to an organizational breakfast at the Council next Friday (the 20th) are on their way to your legislators this week. Click here to contact your state legislators by email.
There's a lot more related to Arts Achievement Day (March 25th), the Listening Tour to which we have added one more stop (this Friday, March 13, 4 pm, at the Center for Cartoon Studies in White River Junction), and our ongoing programs and services, that I could share with you. But in the interest of time and space, I'll stop here.
Thus, funding for the Arts from ARRA, by way of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is "to help preserve jobs in the non-profit Arts field." This means that if you represent an arts organization and are eligble to apply for some of the NEA's funds, your application must address how funds will be used to retain or restore jobs.
While there may be dozens, if not hundreds of ways for your organization to tap funds from ARRA through non-arts sources (by going through your local chamber of commerce, downtown program, planning commission, select-board, state senator or house-member, or US Congressional Representative), there are only three ways to access the $50 million that was set aside for the NEA.
The first is to apply for funds directly to the NEA. To be eligible you must have received a grant from the NEA within the last four years (a grant whose number begins with an "06-" or later). According to the NEA, there are only eighteen Vermont organizations who are so eligible. The deadline for applications to NEFA is April 2; approval by the National Council on June 28th, and notification shortly thereafter.
Th second is to apply for funds from the New England Foundation for the Arts (NEFA), the NEA's regional arts partner. As of this writing, NEFA's program and deadlines are still under development, but their application deadline will probably be no earlier than late April, and approval probably not until early to mid-June. They are still working out the specifics of their eligibility requirements, but it is sure to include organizations that already have an existing program relationship with NEFA through the New England States Touring (NEST) program, or the National Dance Project, etc. NEFA will, of course, be issuing its own guidelines and application forms soon (in concert with the other New England States), so stay tuned. Total funds available for New England Arts Organizations is expected to be between $250,000 and $300,000.
The third is to apply for support from the Vermont Arts Council, the NEA's state arts partner. Though our plans still have to receive final approval from our Trustees, we expect our "Art Jobs Program" (a title that NEFA and the New England States have decided to call our collective effort to push ARRA Funds out to the field) to have a deadline of May 8, 2009, with grant notification by July 31, 2009. Funds may be used between August 1, 2009 and August 30, 2010, with final reports required no later than September 30, 2010. Grant amounts will be $5,000 for organizations with annual budgets under $150,000 and up to $10,000 for organizations with annual budgets of $150,000 or more. Total funds available is expected to be not more than $250,000.
Although any Vermont 501(c)(3) arts organization may apply for funds, we expect to place a priority on applications that serve underserved communities, are for educational purposes, and/or retain the services of those who provide marketing and outreach for their organizations. Furthermore, we expect to put a priority on applications from organizations that regularly collaborate with other organizations and thus broaden their reach and expand their audience while at the same time sharing costs.
Here is the kicker. For those of you reading this who are eligible for all three funding streams, you may apply to all three, but you will only get a grant from one. Thus, if you apply for support from the NEA, you should also apply for support from NEFA and from the Arts Council. That way, if you don't receive NEA funding, you will not have missed either the NEFA or Arts Council deadline in the meantime. The good news is that we are working diligently to craft application forms and narrative questions that closely follow the NEA's forms. Filling out all three will not be that much more work.
There is a lot of activity at the Council right now related to the Stimulus Bill. But that's not all we're working on...
Perhaps the most urgent thing for you to take action on right now (aside from gearing up for a stimulating application to the NEA, NEFA, or the Arts Council), is to call your state legislators and urge them to become part of our soon-to-be-formed "Legislative Arts Caucus." E-mail and snail-mail invitations to an organizational breakfast at the Council next Friday (the 20th) are on their way to your legislators this week. Click here to contact your state legislators by email.
There's a lot more related to Arts Achievement Day (March 25th), the Listening Tour to which we have added one more stop (this Friday, March 13, 4 pm, at the Center for Cartoon Studies in White River Junction), and our ongoing programs and services, that I could share with you. But in the interest of time and space, I'll stop here.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Participate, Donate, Advocate, STIMULATE…
Every time I go anywhere these days I’m asked about the Arts and the Stimulus Bill. The Senate voted to exclude the Arts from the Stimulus Bill, but the House successfully put the Arts back in during Conference Committee negotiations. President Obama signed it last week in
What’s the money for, and when/how will it be distributed?
Here’s what we know:
1) The Stimulus Bill that includes $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) which, for those of you who like this kind of statistic, is slightly less than 64 ten-thousandths of one per cent of the total Stimulus Bill!
2) There are essentially three pools of “Stimulus Bill Funds” that will be available to serve the Arts in
· The portion of the NEA funds (expected to be 40% of the $50 million) that will be divided among the 57 states and regions. For
· The remaining 60% of the NEA funds (less about 5% for overhead)—or about $29 million—will be available through competitive grant programs administered by the NEA.
· An as-yet undetermined amount of additional Stimulus Funds going directly to the State to stimulate employment in a variety of fields—not just the Arts. This is the largest chunk of money and will probably be managed by a combination of the Governor, Administration, and Legislature. For large cultural facilities projects (and there are a few that I am aware of), you should be in touch with your local planning commission, local legislators, and community economic development offices for guidance on how to tap into these funds.
Here’s what we’re pretty sure of:
1) The earliest I have heard from anyone that one can expect money from the NEA to start being distributed is June 15, 2009. The reason for this is they have to decide what kinds of programs, services, and activities are fundable under the Bill. Specifically, the Stimulus Bill is supposed to be about infrastructure improvements that retain employment. This is, as one might imagine, subject to a great deal of interpretation by the powers-that-be in
2) Though not definite yet, the 40% of the NEA funding coming to
Here’s what we don’t know:
1) We don’t know any definite dollar amounts or dates of distribution of the funds.
2) We don’t know any definitions of terms or what, if any, restrictions are being placed on the use of the funds.
3) We don’t know the time frame within which funds must be expended, and reported out on.
4) We don’t know when we’ll find out all the answers to these unknowns—although, a spokesperson for the NEA has suggested that their guidelines are expected to start appearing as early as mid- to late-March.
All I know is that there is a lot of need out there. The sooner we can resolve the unknowns and get the dollars flowing, the better off we will all be. Until then, hang tight and we’ll keep you apprised of any developments as they occur.
Monday, February 9, 2009
The Importance of Doing One's Ditty
As a kid we used to sing familiar tunes that contained alternative lyrics. One of my favorite ditties was a take-off on the Seven Dwarfs' * "Whistle While You Work" which contained disparaging references to Hitler and Mussolini. Another was one my grandmother used to sing while out sailing off the coast of Maine. [* This is not a mistake. It's Dwarfs not Dwarves.]
"Be kind to your web-footed friends...for a duck may be somebody's mo-o-o-ther"
Senator Coburn, this one's for you. Enough with the insults. Your amendment to S.1 that exempts a bunch of perfectly respectable folks from ever seeing one penny of the so-called stimulus money passed the Senate overwhelmingly. Congratulations to you and your 73 short-sighted colleagues (happily, NONE of which hailed from Vermont--no surprise there). You have successfully insulted some very articulate constituents.
Specifically exempted from the Senate version of the Stimulus Bill, thanks to the infamous Coburn Amendment, are casinos or other gambling establishments, aquariums, zoos, golf courses, swimming pools, stadiums, community parks, museums, theaters, art centers, and highway beautification projects.
I guess we are to understand that people who work for these establishments--call them America's entertainment industry if you wish--don't matter much to you Senator. We aren't as "good" as people who work in, what, the building trades? the auto industry? Banking and finance? Or is it just that our jobs aren't as good? You know...the jobs that a lot of us hold down in Vegas, at hotel resorts, on Broadway, in the local arts presenting organization which, by the way the last time I checked was putting food on MY table and MY tax dollars in the US Treasury?
Senator, it's a stimulus bill right? It's supposed to keep Americans who have a job, working; and provide new opportunities to Americans who don't have a job. Are you suggesting that my job in the Arts (along with my fellow 6000 employees in the Vermont arts sector) isn't worthy enough to even have a shot at participating in the stimulus bill...?
I could get all fussy on you, Senator, about the fact that I pay taxes and I drive cars and I buy food and I raise children and I pay taxes. But I'll leave it to all my working artist and arts administrative friends and associates who all pay their taxes and drive their cars and buy their food and raise their children and pay their taxes to carry the fussiness to your sorry doorstep.
Did I mention we all pay taxes?
You see, Senator, I don't believe it is in the best interests of getting America back on track from eight years of disastrous leadership from YOUR party to discriminate against entire sectors of the economy. I feel this way for a couple of reasons. One, none of us working at our jobs in the fields your amendment names, is really very different from the people who you feel somehow are more worthy of receiving the fruits of this stimulus bill money. So why pick on us? What are you afraid of?
Two, this kind of discrimination is really counterproductive, especially in light of the fact that America needs all of its creative ingenuity to get itself out of this mess we are stuck in. In one brilliantly executed, bone-headed maneuver you have disengaged one of America's most creative sectors from participating in this important national discussion: How do we lift ourselves out of this swamp you and yours have dropped us in?
Thanks. Thanks a lot. From all of us. Again.
And speaking of swamps...
"Be kind to your friends in the swamp...where the weather is cold and damp."
On second thought...swamps are amazing places when you think about them. They are incredibly fertile places, teeming with all sorts of (sometimes alien) life, and occasionally giving off really noxious fumes. As a metaphor, the swamp fits us all perfectly--us who, according to you, should be denied access to stimulus funding.
Artists (indeed ALL creative people) thrive in a swamp. We depend on each other for sustenance, for energy, for life. Sure we can live with the stink, because the stink is what keeps away people who threaten our lifestyle. People like, um, YOU, Senator!
Okay, enough of that...
If it hasn't occurred to those (few) of you who do me the honor of reading these biweekly rants that--as usual--we're likely to be once again on our own, hear it here first. We're likely to be on our own again.
But let's turn this into a good thing. Heck artists in lower Manhattan turned neighborhood after neighborhood around with very little assistance from the likes of Senator Coburn. Artists never abandoned such lovely destinations as Bridgeport, CT in the 80's when Bridgeport rivaled the South Bronx for Dante's Divine Circle of Hell Award for residential lifestyles. We can probably do pretty well without stimulus money.
But oh, the missed opportunity...
The missed opportunity.
"So you might think this is the end...well it is."
"Be kind to your web-footed friends...for a duck may be somebody's mo-o-o-ther"
Senator Coburn, this one's for you. Enough with the insults. Your amendment to S.1 that exempts a bunch of perfectly respectable folks from ever seeing one penny of the so-called stimulus money passed the Senate overwhelmingly. Congratulations to you and your 73 short-sighted colleagues (happily, NONE of which hailed from Vermont--no surprise there). You have successfully insulted some very articulate constituents.
Specifically exempted from the Senate version of the Stimulus Bill, thanks to the infamous Coburn Amendment, are casinos or other gambling establishments, aquariums, zoos, golf courses, swimming pools, stadiums, community parks, museums, theaters, art centers, and highway beautification projects.
I guess we are to understand that people who work for these establishments--call them America's entertainment industry if you wish--don't matter much to you Senator. We aren't as "good" as people who work in, what, the building trades? the auto industry? Banking and finance? Or is it just that our jobs aren't as good? You know...the jobs that a lot of us hold down in Vegas, at hotel resorts, on Broadway, in the local arts presenting organization which, by the way the last time I checked was putting food on MY table and MY tax dollars in the US Treasury?
Senator, it's a stimulus bill right? It's supposed to keep Americans who have a job, working; and provide new opportunities to Americans who don't have a job. Are you suggesting that my job in the Arts (along with my fellow 6000 employees in the Vermont arts sector) isn't worthy enough to even have a shot at participating in the stimulus bill...?
I could get all fussy on you, Senator, about the fact that I pay taxes and I drive cars and I buy food and I raise children and I pay taxes. But I'll leave it to all my working artist and arts administrative friends and associates who all pay their taxes and drive their cars and buy their food and raise their children and pay their taxes to carry the fussiness to your sorry doorstep.
Did I mention we all pay taxes?
You see, Senator, I don't believe it is in the best interests of getting America back on track from eight years of disastrous leadership from YOUR party to discriminate against entire sectors of the economy. I feel this way for a couple of reasons. One, none of us working at our jobs in the fields your amendment names, is really very different from the people who you feel somehow are more worthy of receiving the fruits of this stimulus bill money. So why pick on us? What are you afraid of?
Two, this kind of discrimination is really counterproductive, especially in light of the fact that America needs all of its creative ingenuity to get itself out of this mess we are stuck in. In one brilliantly executed, bone-headed maneuver you have disengaged one of America's most creative sectors from participating in this important national discussion: How do we lift ourselves out of this swamp you and yours have dropped us in?
Thanks. Thanks a lot. From all of us. Again.
And speaking of swamps...
"Be kind to your friends in the swamp...where the weather is cold and damp."
On second thought...swamps are amazing places when you think about them. They are incredibly fertile places, teeming with all sorts of (sometimes alien) life, and occasionally giving off really noxious fumes. As a metaphor, the swamp fits us all perfectly--us who, according to you, should be denied access to stimulus funding.
Artists (indeed ALL creative people) thrive in a swamp. We depend on each other for sustenance, for energy, for life. Sure we can live with the stink, because the stink is what keeps away people who threaten our lifestyle. People like, um, YOU, Senator!
Okay, enough of that...
If it hasn't occurred to those (few) of you who do me the honor of reading these biweekly rants that--as usual--we're likely to be once again on our own, hear it here first. We're likely to be on our own again.
But let's turn this into a good thing. Heck artists in lower Manhattan turned neighborhood after neighborhood around with very little assistance from the likes of Senator Coburn. Artists never abandoned such lovely destinations as Bridgeport, CT in the 80's when Bridgeport rivaled the South Bronx for Dante's Divine Circle of Hell Award for residential lifestyles. We can probably do pretty well without stimulus money.
But oh, the missed opportunity...
The missed opportunity.
"So you might think this is the end...well it is."
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
When Times Get Tough, the Tough Start Sharing
Slipped in under the large headlines in today's Times-Argus about IBM's layoffs, was a shaded box informing the world that Frog Hollow was closing down its Middlebury operations and selling its building. A few months ago the Chaffee Arts Center in Rutland announced it would close for the winter, citing high fuel costs and limited operating income as the reason for suspending its operations until this coming spring.
The stresses and strains of the economy have a very different kind of impact on the not-for-profit sector. In the private sector, when times get bad, operations are cut, staff is cut, business go out of business or get sold or taken over by other businesses. The competition is fierce, the rules are pretty straightforward (eat or be eaten comes to mind) and the strong survive .
But in the n-f-p world, the organization's mission tends to overrule fiscal realities and the behaviors of boards often contradict their knowledge and experience as business people. The real question is, is this a good thing?
The answer is maybe yes, maybe no. Here's the problem. For a mission-driven organization, profitability often runs a distant second to emotional content as the driving force behind what sustains an organization. Huge accumulated debt, low salaries and the accompanying staff "churn" (high turnover rate), undercapitalization, and characteristically low investment in marketing and promotion are all symptoms of a not-for-profit ripe for disaster.
When times are good, these issues can usually be dealt with in a variety of ways that keeps the organization functional. But when times are like they are now, n-f-ps that tend to operate on the proverbial shoestring are at serious risk. How can boards overcome their own tendencies to ignore financial realities?
The fact is, some can't. And so those organizations end up flaming out and raising disproportionately large amounts of anxiety among their peers across the sector. Onion River Arts Council gone? Crossroads Arts Council gone? Gasp! Chaffee closing for the winter? Frog Hollow no longer in their Middlebury location? Horrors! It can't be!
Well there are things we can do as a sector and as individual organizations. Here are a few I've been preaching lately:
Merge/Collaborate
Explore with another agency sharing some of your basic administrative costs, like a shared administrative office space. Develop relationships with local senior centers and social service providers how your work might benefit their constituents, and vice versa.
Increase your marketing/p.r. budget
This sounds counter-intuitive in hard economic times, but if you don't value your own programs and services enough to make them known to people in your community, then you can't expect anyone else to either. Look at it this way...your programs may be even MORE valuable to your local constituency than ever before and you are the only one capable of forcefully driving home that point. You may have to do fewer programs, but if people value them more as a result--this could be a good thing.
Invest in staff
Since the economy is forcing you to consider how to do business differently you may need to spend some time and money helping your staff become more expert in managing new ideas, new relationships, and new technologies. Technical support/professional development grants are still quite available if you spend a little time looking for them (hint: the Arts Council, the Community Foundation, and the dept. of labor are good places to start).
Learn to say No
It always feels bad to say no to a great idea. But if you don't have the money or the personnel, you have to learn to say "hold on to that idea. We can't do it now, but we should revisit it when we have more resources."
Focus on Impacts (especially those that matter to your supporters)
To do this, you have to really know what matters to your supporters. Ask them. Pick up the phone right now. All it will take is maybe 5 conversations before you have some really good ideas and some direction. This will lead to healthy changes and new behaviors.
Make a "profit" and put half of it away into a 12-month CD
Don't settle for breaking even. Earn a little money for your organization every year. Take half of your net income and put it in a 12 month CD. Do this every year, and within five years you'll start to notice that you actually are starting to have a nice little operating reserve.
And if you REALLY don't know how to position yourself for the coming economic storm, please join us at one of our listening tour stops in the next six weeks. I guarantee you there will be a lot of great ideas to be shared among your peers.
The stresses and strains of the economy have a very different kind of impact on the not-for-profit sector. In the private sector, when times get bad, operations are cut, staff is cut, business go out of business or get sold or taken over by other businesses. The competition is fierce, the rules are pretty straightforward (eat or be eaten comes to mind) and the strong survive .
But in the n-f-p world, the organization's mission tends to overrule fiscal realities and the behaviors of boards often contradict their knowledge and experience as business people. The real question is, is this a good thing?
The answer is maybe yes, maybe no. Here's the problem. For a mission-driven organization, profitability often runs a distant second to emotional content as the driving force behind what sustains an organization. Huge accumulated debt, low salaries and the accompanying staff "churn" (high turnover rate), undercapitalization, and characteristically low investment in marketing and promotion are all symptoms of a not-for-profit ripe for disaster.
When times are good, these issues can usually be dealt with in a variety of ways that keeps the organization functional. But when times are like they are now, n-f-ps that tend to operate on the proverbial shoestring are at serious risk. How can boards overcome their own tendencies to ignore financial realities?
The fact is, some can't. And so those organizations end up flaming out and raising disproportionately large amounts of anxiety among their peers across the sector. Onion River Arts Council gone? Crossroads Arts Council gone? Gasp! Chaffee closing for the winter? Frog Hollow no longer in their Middlebury location? Horrors! It can't be!
Well there are things we can do as a sector and as individual organizations. Here are a few I've been preaching lately:
Merge/Collaborate
Explore with another agency sharing some of your basic administrative costs, like a shared administrative office space. Develop relationships with local senior centers and social service providers how your work might benefit their constituents, and vice versa.
Increase your marketing/p.r. budget
This sounds counter-intuitive in hard economic times, but if you don't value your own programs and services enough to make them known to people in your community, then you can't expect anyone else to either. Look at it this way...your programs may be even MORE valuable to your local constituency than ever before and you are the only one capable of forcefully driving home that point. You may have to do fewer programs, but if people value them more as a result--this could be a good thing.
Invest in staff
Since the economy is forcing you to consider how to do business differently you may need to spend some time and money helping your staff become more expert in managing new ideas, new relationships, and new technologies. Technical support/professional development grants are still quite available if you spend a little time looking for them (hint: the Arts Council, the Community Foundation, and the dept. of labor are good places to start).
Learn to say No
It always feels bad to say no to a great idea. But if you don't have the money or the personnel, you have to learn to say "hold on to that idea. We can't do it now, but we should revisit it when we have more resources."
Focus on Impacts (especially those that matter to your supporters)
To do this, you have to really know what matters to your supporters. Ask them. Pick up the phone right now. All it will take is maybe 5 conversations before you have some really good ideas and some direction. This will lead to healthy changes and new behaviors.
Make a "profit" and put half of it away into a 12-month CD
Don't settle for breaking even. Earn a little money for your organization every year. Take half of your net income and put it in a 12 month CD. Do this every year, and within five years you'll start to notice that you actually are starting to have a nice little operating reserve.
And if you REALLY don't know how to position yourself for the coming economic storm, please join us at one of our listening tour stops in the next six weeks. I guarantee you there will be a lot of great ideas to be shared among your peers.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Protest, censorship, civil disobedience and the arts
It is a happy accident that in the same week that Barack Obama is sworn in as President, the Arts Council kicks off its NEA/Big Read project, and the final 10 artists for the Orton/Arts Council "Art of Action" project are selected. The first activity needs no more explanation than to say that it is the culmination of the centuries'-long journey, sparked by much protest and civil unrest, towards a collective enlightment by the white establishment here in the United States. The second event is a national project focusing here in Vermont on Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, a fantastic novel about censorship and one person's journey towards enlightenment. The third is a project whose purpose is to engage the Vermonters in a broad and provocative "discussion" of Vermont's future through art.
The Obama Inauguration needs no more commentary by me than I made in an earlier post in November 11 (see "Election Reflection" below). Ray Bradbury wrote his novel in the context of the Nazi purges of Jewish culture in World War II and the post-WWII Cold War during which Stalin burned hundreds of thousands of books. The Communist witch hunts of the 1950s--an era that saw thousands of artists lose their livelihoods to vague and unsubstantiated claims of communism and anti-Americanism also fed Bradbury's concern about what happens to a society when it stops reading, stops caring about its culture and history.
How timely is it, then, that we return to this classic work and reflect on the role of civil disobedience and on the role of the arts in reflecting the essence of mankind's spiritual journey through life--even as we celebrate the election of our first black US president? I think it's perhaps more than a remarkable coincidence.
There must always be a place for public funding for the arts not just for projects that serve a greater "community" good or that increase public access to art and culture, but for projects and art work that is fundamentally controversial and focused on what we are NOT paying attention to in our popular culture. Why?
Everyone who has an income pays taxes. Everyone. Not just people like me and others who think and believe like me, but people who come from other countries and other cultures. Whether you're straight or gay, smart or dumb, interesting or boring, educated or ignorant, tall or short--if you have an income and you pay taxes you have (at least in concept) the right to have your artistic and cultural views reflected in what is supported by our public arts agencies.
Granted, this rarely ever happens anymore. We haven't had a really good controversy in publicly funded institutions since the Chris Ofili episode at the Brooklyn Museum (remember? Mother Mary and elephant dung were key ingredients) some 10 years or so ago. As I recall, it put Mayor "What's so special about being a community organizer?" Giuliani on the map for all of about five minutes until he realized that his office could ill afford to pull the plug on supporting cultural institutions--but that's another story altogether.
Why is this happening? What subliminal current is coursing beneath society's feet and causing us to stand up and elect an African American President, to select a work by Bradbury protesting the burning of books, and to create a project in which the arts is used to provoke civil action?
What spiritus mundi like Yeat's rough beast is slouching its way towards Washington on January 20th, towards Burlington on January 24th, and towards Montpelier on January 29th, to be born, and why? Perhaps it is time to reclaim the turf that was taken away from us by the Congress elected in 1994, and by the NEA cuts in 1995; turf on which the arts built sometimes astonishing and sometimes astonishingly offensive (to me!) works that reflected the best and the worst of American culture.
So is it a happy accident that these three activities are facing off in a short, 10-day period? Or is it the result of some collective, pent-up outrage finally being released?
The Obama Inauguration needs no more commentary by me than I made in an earlier post in November 11 (see "Election Reflection" below). Ray Bradbury wrote his novel in the context of the Nazi purges of Jewish culture in World War II and the post-WWII Cold War during which Stalin burned hundreds of thousands of books. The Communist witch hunts of the 1950s--an era that saw thousands of artists lose their livelihoods to vague and unsubstantiated claims of communism and anti-Americanism also fed Bradbury's concern about what happens to a society when it stops reading, stops caring about its culture and history.
How timely is it, then, that we return to this classic work and reflect on the role of civil disobedience and on the role of the arts in reflecting the essence of mankind's spiritual journey through life--even as we celebrate the election of our first black US president? I think it's perhaps more than a remarkable coincidence.
There must always be a place for public funding for the arts not just for projects that serve a greater "community" good or that increase public access to art and culture, but for projects and art work that is fundamentally controversial and focused on what we are NOT paying attention to in our popular culture. Why?
Everyone who has an income pays taxes. Everyone. Not just people like me and others who think and believe like me, but people who come from other countries and other cultures. Whether you're straight or gay, smart or dumb, interesting or boring, educated or ignorant, tall or short--if you have an income and you pay taxes you have (at least in concept) the right to have your artistic and cultural views reflected in what is supported by our public arts agencies.
Granted, this rarely ever happens anymore. We haven't had a really good controversy in publicly funded institutions since the Chris Ofili episode at the Brooklyn Museum (remember? Mother Mary and elephant dung were key ingredients) some 10 years or so ago. As I recall, it put Mayor "What's so special about being a community organizer?" Giuliani on the map for all of about five minutes until he realized that his office could ill afford to pull the plug on supporting cultural institutions--but that's another story altogether.
Why is this happening? What subliminal current is coursing beneath society's feet and causing us to stand up and elect an African American President, to select a work by Bradbury protesting the burning of books, and to create a project in which the arts is used to provoke civil action?
What spiritus mundi like Yeat's rough beast is slouching its way towards Washington on January 20th, towards Burlington on January 24th, and towards Montpelier on January 29th, to be born, and why? Perhaps it is time to reclaim the turf that was taken away from us by the Congress elected in 1994, and by the NEA cuts in 1995; turf on which the arts built sometimes astonishing and sometimes astonishingly offensive (to me!) works that reflected the best and the worst of American culture.
So is it a happy accident that these three activities are facing off in a short, 10-day period? Or is it the result of some collective, pent-up outrage finally being released?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
