Should There Be More Discussion of Mid & Long Range Collective Advocacy Plans?

by:

Joe Patti

Oregon Arts Watch (h/t Artsjournal.com) provided some insight into a state advocacy group’s two year plan to propose a redesign of the state’s funding arts model in light of the national political environment.

Cultural Advocacy Coalition of Oregon is soliciting feedback through six in-person and one online forums and a survey of arts and cultural organizations around the state.

What caught my attention was the discussion of their advocacy schedule for 2026 and 20227 based on feedback they had received from the state legislature. I had not really seen a state advocacy group provide as much detail and insight about mid-range plans advocacy plans to its members.

Granted, the states in which I have lived may not have had legislative sessions whose lengths varied so greatly on alternating years as Oregon’s does.

But often communication from advocacy groups is along the lines of needing members to call/write representatives in the next two weeks about a specific bill and to turn out on advocacy day at the legislature. The effort in Oregon outlines what they are doing now and through 2026 in preparation for 2027.

According to Hildick, legislative leaders have said the 2026 session, which is limited to a maximum of 35 days, will not have enough time to consider any comprehensive reforms or programs, no matter how justified. That means the results of The Big/Rethink will be presented in 2027, when the semi-annual “long sessions” can last up to 160 days.

State Of Independent Venues In Your State

by:

Joe Patti

The National Independent Venue Association released the results of their first survey showing the economic impact of independent venues in each of the 50 states and Washington D.C..

The information categories provided aren’t too different from what you might see if you plug your organization’s numbers into an economic impact calculator like Americans for the Arts’

However, the data they collected is only from entities:

….not controlled by a multinational corporation or a publicly traded company, and their primary
mission is to present live performances to the public. This includes venues, promoters, festivals and more.

Each state either has a notation about the contribution to tourism or profitability. Some of the profitability numbers were interesting to read. For example, apparently only 19% of venues in NY reported being profitable. Most of the other states I clicked around on with this category reported were in the 30%-40% range. The only one that was lower was Vermont at 13%. Nationally, they report 64% of stages were not profitable.

The other thing that each state reported was the operational challenges across the nation. Based on the frequency they were reported they were:

  • Marketing and Bringing in An Audience
  • Artist costs driving higher artist fees
  • Staffing costs
  • Inflation
  • Monopolies
  • Rising Insurance Costs
  • Scalping and Reseller Platforms
  • Cost of Rent and Mortgage
  • Uncapped, unlimited performing rights organization fees
  • Decreasing alcohol sales

The second to last one about performing rights organization fees I am guessing may be groups like ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, etc charging high fees for the rights to perform songs. I didn’t see any specific explanation on the page or press release.

Many of these aren’t surprising since it is pretty clear many of these factors are driving up costs. I didn’t expect decreasing alcohol sales to make the top ten list. But that does have a certain logic to it.

Studio Tours Shouldn’t Replicate The Gallery Experience

by:

Joe Patti

For two weekends this month, the local Creative District is operating their annual artist studio tours. There are other associated activities, but the artists’ opening their spaces for people to wander in and look around is the focus of the event. And if people are moved to buy something, so much the better.

One of the features of the tour the president of the Creative District has been pushing artists to do is not sanitize their work spaces. She feels that when artists clear their materials away into closets and throw sheets over bookcases, it removes many of the interesting elements that can lead to a conversation about process.

I tend to agree. I visited a number of studios this weekend with more on my list for next weekend. In some cases I was able to stand right in the studio was people worked. Most of the time I was in a living room with all the furniture cleared out and the work hung on the walls, arrayed on display racks, or shelving.

Because I have some familiarity and knowledge, I was able to ask some questions about process and materials used, but many curious visitors would basically have had the impression they wandered into a home gallery.

Part of my concern is that seeing a person painting in their immaculate living room with a small tarp under the easel essentially reinforces the idea that art is done by a special breed of people who create things immediately without error.

When in fact, their studios are paint and clay splattered, with swaths of material shoved in to nooks and crannies, and metal filings and sawdust swept into piles. All testaments to their efforts. Not to mention photos, sketches, and early iterations that comprised their study and preparation of the final product leaning against the walls.

Galleries are places in which artists can control the context and perspective in which the visitors encounter their work. Studios tours provide an opportunity to let visitors encounter and better understand their process. There is a missed opportunity when studio tours are essentially replicas of the gallery experience.

Post-Pandemic Cultural Habits Are About Set

by:

Joe Patti

About twice a month Colleen Dilenschneider and the folks at IMPACTS Experience release some interesting data they have compiled about trends they are seeing that may impact arts and cultural organizations. Recently they released an update on the recurring topic of what have audience preferences been since the start of the pandemic.

One aspect of this data I feel I have missed and not adequately emphasized in my previous posts on these articles is that they have been measuring the tendency of someone who regularly participated in an activity in 2019 to return to that behavior.

 It means that people whose normal behavior in 2019 was to go to movie theaters report being less likely to return to movie theaters now. It means that people whose normal behavior was to go to public parks are even more likely to visit them now than they were before the pandemic.

Among exhibit based organizations, visitors have trended away from science and children’s museums and toward outdoor spaces like zoos and gardens as well as larger museum spaces which were perceived to have more space to move around during the pandemic. These latter groups have returned to their 2019 attendance levels more rapidly than science and children’s museums.

Live performance organizations have also generally seen a slower return to 2019 levels, except for live theater which is just shy of attendance numbers of six years ago. In some cases, those audiences shifted their cultural participation to exhibit based entities.

Folks who were interested in the symphony went to the art museum instead, and many Americans habituated away from these performing arts experiences. The challenge is and has been to do our best to shake the masses and wake them back up to the magic of live theater, the power of chamber music, or the grace of the ballet.

Demand is slowly inching back to 2019 baseline, but it may be happening too slowly to meaningfully overcome negative substitution. 

The IMPACTS folks note that research has shown that on average habits are formed in about 66 days and it has been five years since the start of the pandemic. As a result there is a bit of inertia to contend with if you are trying to convince people to make you part of a new habit.

123784 Next