I don’t know that there are many people who read this blog that don’t read Artful Manager, but just in case there are, I want to point you at his entry today. The Hennenius Group post he quotes is worth reading and seriously considering. (I don’t know how the heck I missed it.)

What Anthony Radich has to say is sure to be controversial. It seems counterintutive that a guy running an organization “dedicated to the creative advancement and preservation of the arts” would be suggesting the dissolution of arts organizations. In fact, if he were an elected politican, I’m sure there would already be television and print ads out there blaring that Anthony Radich wants to close your arts centers and we oughta chuck him out in November.

I don’t know what it says about arts folks (other than that they don’t read Barry’s blog) that two weeks after it was posted that there hasn’t been any real grumbling about Radich’s proposal to “euthanize nonprofit arts organizations”.

But that is the subject of another entry.

I’ve never made a secret of my belief that not all arts organizations have a right to exist and expect funding. I am against the “Field of Dreams” mentality. I have frequently felt more organizations should merge their resources and efforts. But I certainly recognize the dearth of organizations as well as evinced by my recent perplexion (is that a word?) at the lack of local professional arts organizations.

Contradictory, sure. But by some definitions, the ability to hold two contradictory thoughts in your head at the same time is a sign of enlightenment.

But that too is subject for another entry 😉

One section of what Radich said put me in mind of an entry I did two years ago. Quoth Radich:

Let’s pull some of the nonprofit arts programming off the arts-production line and free up funding and talent for reallocation to stronger efforts–especially to new efforts tilted toward engaging the public. Let’s return to the concept of offering seed money for organizations that, over a period of years, need to attract enough of an audience and develop enough of a stable financial base to survive and not structure them to live eternally on the dole. Let’s find a way to extinguish those very large groups that are out of audience-building momentum and running on inertia. Instead of locking arts funders into a cycle of limited choices, let’s free up some venture capital for new arts efforts that share the arts in new ways with the public

.

As I said, this whole argument reminded me of an entry I did on an Independent Sector proposal to change non-profit funding to a more focussed model. The proposal they make runs a little counter to Radich’s since he talks about getting organizations off the dole and the IS proposal essentially encourages foundations to deepen their commitment to support specific organizations. Radich also talks about funders having too few choices, but the IS document as well as the additional sources I cite in that entry seem to indicate funders have too shallow an investment in too many places.

Overall though the two are similar in suggesting offering comprehensive seed money to organizations to help them get off the ground. Both also use language that places funders in the position of venture captialists investing in the promotion of their agenda in return for rock solid accountability.

I wonder if some of the problems Radich sees with organizations being weak and played out might have its origin in the funding method encouraging people to stretch their resources in too many different directions until they aren’t viable any more.

Since Andrew Taylor posted Radich’s proposal, (and the Independent Sector one two years ago), I think I shall go over to his blog and ask him.