What Will We Do? The Paintings Aren’t Working!

by:

Joe Patti

Via Artsjournal.com is a piece on The Critic addressing the trend in thinking art has curative abilities. I have long written about the problem with measuring the value of art in prescriptive terms.

While the piece focuses on The Tate in the UK, the points are applicable world wide.

Writes Ella Nixon in “It’s not the Tate’s job to heal you”:

These cultural institutions are transforming curatorial practice in order to combat the spread of anxiety and depression — particularly amongst the young. Taxpayer value is proven through demonstrable worth. Curators are incentivised to diagnose and treat societal ailments through exhibition practices as a means of demonstrating their social utility and thereby justifying their public funding, at the expense of art’s true potential to cultivate society.

But as Goodhart’s Law states, when the measure becomes the goal, the measure ceases to have any value.

Nixon cites examples of when the art created has had to take a backseat to the goals of addressing inequity, social issues, and environmental concerns.

One manifestation of the medicalisation of artistic value is the latest Turner Prize winner. Commentators — including chair of the jury and director of Tate Britain, Alex Farquharson — focused excessively on the fact that Nnena Kalu was the first learning-disabled artist to win the prize, rather than on discussing the artistic qualities of her work.

Not only are curators expected to address complex manifestations of medical disabilities, but also to inextricably link care and climate change. One wall text at Tate Britain declares, “We continue to struggle with the planet-wide impact of the climate emergency.”

Certainly artists intentionally address issues which are meaningful to them in their creations. But if the didactic messaging is the primary recognized value and the artistic expression is expected to take a secondary or tertiary role, wouldn’t it be better to just commission a PSA?

In the same way, viewing and using art in a prescriptive manner intended to solve some ill makes the artistic value and creativity invested in it subservient at best and in danger of being regarded alongside a tablespoon full of cod liver oil at worst.

Elements of Your Business Model That Can Derail Change

by:

Joe Patti

Ruth Hartt made an insightful post on LinkedIn a few weeks ago which caught my attention. She also mirrored it on her own website. She talked about how boards and staffs of arts organizations will recognize that the digital age has lead to a change in business models across dozens of industries–except for arts and culture.

We have watched film developing kiosks in shopping center parking lots have disappeared and how Blockbuster stores were replaced by Netflix DVD mailing service and then streaming. But when it comes to arts and culture organizations, the solutions to challenges are to cut expenses, do more marketing and discount tickets.

This week she went more in depth about how staffs can start to shift the framing of the business model in partnership with their boards.

Ruth provides a step by analysis of the business model most arts and cultural organizations follow and how the different elements can derail efforts to change. I really appreciate how she broke the issues down in this manner because it provided structure and clarity to things I had already been thinking about.

She sums up part of the overarching viewpoint in need of change:

Your value proposition to the public is simple: “You should buy tickets because we make excellent art.”

But excellent art isn’t what most people need right now. What they actually need are the outcomes that art provides. That doesn’t mean excellence doesn’t matter. It means excellence alone is no longer a viable value proposition.

When the digital revolution shifted consumer priorities—when people started seeking wellness, connection, stress relief, community—this value proposition (and thus the entire model) became a liability.

[…]

The model collapses under its own weight because it’s built to protect something—artistic excellence—instead of serving the people you’re trying to reach.

Back in August I came across a video by the Frick Collection in partnership with Steve Martin which serves as a good example of an audience focus. In my blog post, I called out the following language from the beginning of the video:

Consider what you or I might be drawn to…maybe it is a gilded beard, or a velvet sleeve, a trend setter, a love triangle, a mysterious exchange…Maybe what you see reminds you of a friend or a place you’ve been, or a book you’ve read, or a show you’ve binged.

Maybe it jogs a memory or fills you with a sense of delight, desire, power, wonder, bemusement, or calm.

Maybe you need a moment to sit and think and escape. Somewhere peaceful. Somewhere with a view….this is what the Frick collection is for. For slowing down, following your eye, and getting closer to objects of beauty and awe…”

Stimulating MN Arts Impacted By ICE

by:

Joe Patti

Last week, Springboard for the Arts, based in St. Paul, MN posted on LinkedIn about different funds they and others had created and contributed to in order to mitigate the impact of federal immigration enforcement presence in Minnesota.

While some of the funds are intended to provide relief to artists and organizations who had lost sales and other revenue generation opportunities, funding was also available for reinvestment in creative businesses and to cultivate social cohesion in neighborhoods and communities.

Artists Respond: Safety in Neighbors: We’re funding artists to create small, neighborhood-scale projects that make community care intentional and accessible. How would you like to respond to this moment with your community? Share your project idea with us. Applications are open on a rolling basis.

These are the type of programs Springboard seems to excel at. I have mentioned in other posts that we drew some inspiration from their Irrigate initiative to create art installations and experiences around the street construction in our downtown.

The description of this program on their website defines neighborhood-scale a little more granularly.

Artists Respond: Safety in Neighbors activates the local: neighbors, block clubs, apartment buildings, whisper networks, and local businesses, and asks artists to make it easier for neighbors to find resources, solidarity, and each other. Our goal is to support at least 50 projects in Minnesota. Applications will remain open on a rolling basis, learn more and apply to participate.

Who You Think It Is For

by:

Joe Patti

A decade ago when Nina Simon mentioned in a talk she did that not all the programming at a museum was necessarily for everyone, and that is alright, it was an eye opening moment for me. It has had me looking at the way I program experiences a little differently.

An example she used was that of restaurants adding vegetarian or heart healthy options, people don’t decide to stop eating there. (Cracker Barrel being one exception) People aren’t meant to eat everything on the menu.

Seth Godin made a blog post along the same lines. He notes that the way you process feedback often depends on whether a good or experience was created with a particular person in mind.

If the work we made was intended for someone just like this, and they don’t like it, we need to do a better job next time. The criticism will help us understand how to improve.

But if the work we made wasn’t for someone with the hopes, needs and expectations of the person we’re hearing from, we can forgive ourselves (and them) by acknowledging who it’s for and why.

This being said, many times artists discover that those encountering their work invest it with meaning that the artist hadn’t intended. It can be worthwhile being a little flexible in your view about who the work is for. The unanticipated audience may be quite large.

123794 Next