There was a post by KCET columnist Corbett Barklie last fall that has had me thinking and wondering if there hasn’t been enough conversation about this topic.
In short, Barklie feels that arts organizations are sacrificing a focus on the intrinsic value of art in the pursuit of “social service” related activities. (my emphasis)
Arts groups exist to interpret the past, elucidate the present, and imagine the future. To borrow from Dewitt H. Parker’s The Principles of Aesthetics, “The intrinsic value of art must be unique, for it is the value of a unique activity — the free expression of experience in a form delightful and permanent, mediating communication.”
Nonprofit arts groups and the artists that run them are not reactionary entities. They are visionary entities.
You may be thinking, “But what about art groups who work in schools? Artists who work in hospitals?” In my opinion, those are arts service organizations — a rarely made but critical distinction. Arts service organizations exist to create and provide ancillary programs that help fulfill the missions of social service nonprofits such as schools, community centers, hospitals, etc…
[…]
Because no distinction has been made between arts groups and arts service organizations, the general arts and arts policy conversation (set by funders and designated leaders) is getting more and more muddled. And artists who exist in organizations that are only concerned with artistic excellence are beginning to feel marginalized.
[…]
Unless and until arts groups find their voice of disagreement and set aside fear of funding or political ramifications long enough to speak up for themselves, the conversation will continue to focus less and less on challenges facing arts groups that are committed solely to artistic excellence. Eventually these arts groups will fade from view completely.
My first thought was, but isn’t an educational component the way it is supposed to be? Most non-profit organizations are organized under the aegis of the education part of 501 (c) 3. In a time when there is less arts education in schools, isn’t it in our best long term interest to be providing educational services? But then again, by Barklie’s definition, I have been working for arts service organizations for the last 20 odd years so this is the normal for me.
So my question to my larger audience; is it as Barklie suggests (and most recently echoed by Diane Ragsdale), have funders and others lead the arts in this direction?
After all, at one time, art was presented for arts sake and there wasn’t any efforts to supplement the efforts of education and health care.
Is this an improvement or a dilution of our effort? It can be argued that pursuing education programs helps put arts organizations in touch with their and constituencies, helping to remove ivory tower mentality and acculturate the community.
But there is also the issue of diverting resources from the core competency and mission of the company. For profit businesses aren’t expected to do this. Many get immense tax breaks with no expectation that they serve the public good.
Is it the new normal that arts organizations must split their focus in order to maintain their existence? Is there an egotism inherent to believing you should be able to pursue the intrinsic value of art alone?
Shaping oneself as an arts service organization seems about the only option for garnering foundation funding and mollifying governmental entities who want something more than pursuit of artistic excellence as a justification for being.
Thoughts?
I think education is a key part. I wrote on a similar topic last week (www.nicolelabonde.com “What Makes a Theatre Experience Ideal? I Think Revenue Has to be Part of It.”). When we provide arts education, we create not just artists, but arts appreciators. Creative and critical thinkers who approach art work with more than just “I liked it” v. “I didn’t like it”. We teach them to value the work that goes into a creative piece (regardless of outcome). We teach them to see abstract themes, to value creativity and communication, and to discover the breadth of “the arts”. If we don’t include arts education in our mission of arts creation, who will be left to appreciate our work?
I have been involved in raising money for the arts for 25 years and for almost that entire period, there has been a shift toward the arts as utilitarian things that can only exist when they do something else, like address social issues or education, or community and economic development. The idea that we could raise the necessary resources to keep our museums and symphonies going just because we need to have them and they need money to do excellent work resonates with a shrinking and aging population. Part of the problem is the lack of exposure to fine art in popular settings, part is the complete lack of art and music education in our schools, part is the distrust of expertise and a sense that anyone can do anything, so anyone can be an artist. When anyone can be an artist or musician, there is no room for appreciation of excellence, training, skill, and dedication required to perfect one’s art. Our major funding source for the arts here, a united arts fund that used to raise one of the highest per capita funds for profesional arts groups, has just given up and gone almost completely after providing hands-on art expereinces and arts education–not much left for the professionals. It is a very serious situation. Yes, we have a role in arts education, economic development, etc., but it should be secondary to performing great music at the highest level.
Hi Joe,
Thanks for posting an excerpt from an article I wrote. I’m happy that you found it provocative and hope your readers do too.
I write quite a bit on topics like this and am a regular columnist for KCET’s Artbound in Los Angeles. http://www.kcet.org/arts/artbound/columnists/corbett-barklie/
Thanks again, Corbett
Thank goodness this question is back in the air. Although I have worked in service situations, as a composer I consider that to be a choice that I might or might not want to make. The requirement for social service has kept me out of the grant-writing process most of my life. Instead, I find myself raising money from businesses and individuals who do not expect me to be a social service worker and expect only that I do my work and do it well.
Wow, I didn’t realize this might be such a hot topic of discussion. I am glad I asked.
In some respects, I think some of the comments are complementary. Molly notes that there is little appreciation of craft and I think that is due to a lack of exposure and training in critical thinking that Nicole espouses.
I certainly don’t think it is up to the arts to teach everyone critical thinking skills. That is something that is pretty much crucial to being an operative member of society. Personally I would rather be developing those skills in a museum or theatre than pretty much anywhere else.
Richard Feynman was a great physicist who was gifted in explaining physics to the layman. But very few people have that gift. I often wonder if Neil deGrasse Tyson yearns to pursue science more exclusively rather than be a public figure and lead the Hayden Planetarium.
I would argue that the rest of us are the better for having both men explain science to us.