Part Two | Perception is Power: The Time is Now to Reframe America's Misunderstood Essential Industry
This article explores the current relevancy crisis facing the American cultural sector, and solutions for advocating for greater support for the arts in the age of COVID-19. It is the second part of a two part series. Read the first part here.
Federal Art Project Works Progress Administration exhibition of graphic arts, between 1936 and 1941. 1 print on board (poster) : silkscreen, color.
The cultural sector must seize this moment to engage the general public, a public that is consuming art like never before. It must clarify and articulate its societal and economic benefits. It must fight for relevance by appealing to this global, diverse, and engaged audience. If not, then it may not exist.
Clearly, the public sector has failed the cultural industry. We can not let the private sector do that same. So, how do we do this?
1. “Perception is Reality”. So let’s change the perception
“Everyone wears black”. “Navel-gazing”. “My kid could do that.” “This is only for rich people.” “This money should go to a better cause.”
These are just a few of things I have heard to describe the cultural sector, from both the inside and outside.
The perception of the art world has done a disservice to the sector. When I speak with partners and clients in other industries, the perception is that the fancy international art events, which frequently highlight celebrities from other fields, represent the entirety of the art world.
This has skewed the public's perception of the sector as a whole. The perception does not reflect the innovative, entrepreneurial—and yes, scrappy—problem solvers that lead and contribute to the arts ecosystem. The perception is ignorant to artists being priced out of creative cities, to small performing arts organizations across the country that provide a safe space for children in need, and to museums that help teach the state core curriculums so that communities can meet the federal requirements.
In a recent Hyperallergic podcast, reporter Hakim Bishara said:
[There is a] misconception among general public that the art world is rich…that it’s all rich institutions, and rich, big artists, and they’re all stars and all creating expensive art work, while in fact in reality, the great majority of artists and art’s institutions are broke. [I think] that’s an obstacle.
Hrag Vartanian, editor in chief and co-founder, added:
The PR of some of the luxury part of the art world has unfortunately worked. And people have this perception of the art world as flush with money, with all these billionaires and millionaires walking around, not realizing that’s really just a PR story, that that doesn’t reflect the majority of our community.
They are right on.
The sector needs a full-scale educational moment. It’s time to go back to basics, and those basics need to be articulated: What are museums, operas, galleries, art schools, studio collectives? What are their income models? What does fundraising mean and why is it essential to institutional survival? What is a board of trustees? Who do cultural institutions serve at their grassroots? What is a grant and why do artists need one? What does a strong cultural sector mean for local economies?
Additionally, the income model on which the nonprofit arts sector is predicated is not well understood. As philanthropist Jaimie Mayer said, “Arts nonprofits are on an earned/contributed hybrid model, and people don’t understand that. It’s a different business model than most people think, and not that simple.” Fundraisers for cultural institutions frequently get asked if they make commission off the money they raise. (If only.) It is also not clear how artwork is priced; one curious young viewer once asked me at an art fair if bargaining, as one does at a souk, is common practice. I have been asked if musicians in a symphony receive a cut of ticket sales. There needs to be clarity here.
The industry needs to better explain how the art people around the globe are voraciously consuming right now—films, live-streamed symphonies, recorded Broadway shows, virtual exhibitions and studio tours, music albums, and more—is made, and what it costs.
Why not discuss production costs of a symphony orchestra production, the average rent in an art center, the cost of a MFA degree? The success of reality television programs involving creative pursuits and the arts— like Project Runway, Top Chef, and documentaries like The Price of Everything — have shown that audiences crave insight into the process. Why not use this moment of increased digital consumption to demystify what making art entails, that which is usually kept behind the curtain?
Leaders need to go on television shows, write Op Eds, speak to and educate audiences as you are streaming to them. Artists, cultural leaders and the most energetic supporters need speak on podcasts, television shows, and every cable news program in America.
The sector should partner with ad agencies and PR firms to conduct large-scale national campaigns to demystify the arts. The wealthiest and most well-connected individuals in the sector need to use their power and influence to influence others to harness their networks and advocate for the arts.
There needs to be a new narrative explaining why the arts are a necessary part of human existence, the robust economic impact of the sector, and what it really costs to make all this art. In this moment, this new narrative is currently staring us in the face.
2. Better Connect Art and Social Justice
Arts Funders Forum (AFF) research shows that “the emerging class of donors views cultural philanthropy through the lens of social justice.”
The cultural sector must better communicate how the arts address social justice matters in contemporary society. This will widen the audience base and create a compelling case for support for next gen donors. It will also help save local economies, as “thinking locally” has never seemed more relevant.
The general public is unaware of how the arts and the sector address the most urgent topics of our time, highlight inequalities, and offer ideas and pathways for change. By nature, the arts are about inclusion and broadening society’s views. Therefore, the 21st century cultural institution is more than just a place for performance and exhibition; it’s a gathering space, a “safe space”, a town hall, and educational facility, a therapeutic necessity.
Many studies show that a strong cultural presence in a community is proven to improve health and wellness, increase empathy and interpersonal understanding, contribute to greater local economic activity, and inspire conversation and reflection. But the specifics can be tricky to quickly articulate. A 2018 report, Americans Speak Out about the Arts, conducted by Ipsos on behalf of Americans for the Arts (AFTA), addresses this difficulty connecting the dots:
Americans highly value the arts, but when presented with a list of community issues, respondents cited job security, housing, and public safety as the top three. And when asked whether the arts could be a solution to addressing these concerns, the percentage of people who said yes was low. In short, the impact of the arts in community development, and its intersection with so many critical issues, is not a natural association to most Americans.
As a solution, AFTA (with support from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Doris Duke Charitable Foundation) created The Arts + Social Impact Explorer. The tool — with more than 1,000 independent data points and examples—was created to visualize how the arts connect with all issues of community life, social issues and areas of social justice. And it articulates the direct impact: From Military to Transportation & Infrastructure to Aging to Tourism to Community Cohesion, DAEI, there are impact points for every connection.
Why don’t we all download a copy on to our phones and pull it out every time someone says giving to the arts is a waste of money? We can tweet data points back at Nikki Haley.
Tools like this can help better articulate how the arts impact social connectivity, justice, and equity. Simultaneously, organizations need to reimagine and make fundamental shifts to their core programming, and even missions, as funders seek more impact, and 21st century audiences seek deeper engagement with organizations.
One such institution making that shift is The Oakland Museum of California (OMCA). The museum decided to measure its success in social impact, not just attendance numbers and contributed revenue. In a February 19, 2020 ArtNet News article journalist Taylor Dafoe quoted OMCA director and CEO Lori Fogarty and noted:
"We had witnessed a significant change in our audience…” noting particular increases in visitors of color, younger visitors, and visitors with families. “We realized, as we were doing this work and talking about the goals and outcomes and what success looked like, that we really needed to frame our work in a different way. It was more than increasing numbers or increasing the diversity of our visitorship. We were trying to do something that was much broader about the well-being of our community…The real question, Fogarty says, was, “what is the difference we are trying to make in the world?”
Recognizing that an institution is most responsible to its largest group of stakeholders—its community—is essential in this new funding landscape. People want to give to institutions that represent them and address the most pertinent issues in our society.
What would happen to the funder base if collecting institutions pivoted more towards community impact work, with measurable outcomes, and not only prioritized blue-chip collection building?
3. Remake the Model To Align with Rise of the Next Generation Donor
This crisis is occurring as we are experiencing the largest intergenerational transfer of wealth in history; it is estimated that between $40 and $130 trillion will move from one generation to another over the next 40 years.
But I argue that another crisis was well already here: not only is giving to arts decreasing, but according to a Generation Impact study, the people inheriting this wealth rank Arts & Culture giving 5th in priority, behind education, basic needs, health, and youth & family services.
Whether the wealth is inherited or made, AFF research shows: “Younger philanthropists view giving as more ‘process driven’ than ‘transaction driven’ in contrast with the current donor class. Meaning, they care about ‘how’ you give not just ‘what’ you give.”
Next Gen donors value issues more than organizations, and the achievable impact of their giving more than their predecessors. They believe in institutional transparency and effectiveness. They want to make systemic change, and they want organizations to show how they are a conduit to the cause. The rising generation of philanthropic leaders is less interested in the arts traditional fundraising methods, such as annual galas; they want to roll up their sleeves and participate in the change making. They are focused on local issues and ethical investing. They want clarity on exactly who/what they are funding and impacting. They move faster than previous generations.
Telling stories to communicate impact, by effectively using technology and communicating urgency, are also critical strategies to engaging and retaining rising gen donors. Right now, we are seeing operas and ballets streaming into homes, and museum collections from around the world now available to a wider audience with lower barriers to entry. This is creating an entirely new population to whom artists and organizations can make their case for support.
But while delivering programming to next generation audiences, cultural organizations and producers must also deliver explanations of value and illustrate impact. Delivering the art for free misses the opportunity. “The next gen needs a value add”, said rising philanthropist Jaimie Mayer. Delivering all of this art for free lowers the initial barrier to entry, yes, but without explaining and assigning value, it communicates that there is no value.
The success of reality programs already discussed have shown us that audience preferences have changed: next gen audiences do not want to just sit and watch the product, they want to know about the process. They want to see how things are made and the impact. Right now, organizations could be designing virtual programming highlighting what happens behind the scenes and the direct impact of the efforts.
The education and health sectors can clearly communicate impact, and provide on-site, roll-up-your-sleeves opportunities for donors. The arts must do the same. As a philanthropist and collector I interviewed said, “The value and impact of giving to the arts needs to be appreciated by the rising generations in the same way as giving a child an education.”
Next gen donors also want to see more innovation and entrepreneurial thinking to create more collaborative forms of giving and new giving vehicles. As San José Museum of Art Deputy Director Holly Shen said,
There’s a tension between the traditional philanthropy model—a small number of uber-wealthy subsidizing arts and culture—and some of the newer ideas that spread responsibility among more individuals, corporations and city and state governments, in addition to earned revenue. The latter generally allows for more autonomy and diversity, but less long-term security. It begs the question of how to establish robust invested funds, collectively built and managed by communities as opposed to wealthy individuals, to sustain arts and culture funding.
The time has never been more critical for private philanthropy. The sector is in such a funding crisis mode because it has not responded to what the next generation says it values, so there is no “bench.” The next gen has been telling us how they want to give, and this crisis can accelerate the process of remaking the model. It is past the point of redefining how the sector can use it’s best asset—art and the artist’s ability to promote examination, reflection, revolution, and societal change—to mitigate our biggest problems, the problems that the next generation is dedicated to solving. It’s time to rock the boat. Next gen donors want change, and now is the moment to make it. And by involving them in those discussions, the sector can collectively rethink and remake its funding mechanisms.
4. A New WPA
Americans for the Arts Impact Survey just revealed that 62% of national artists and creative workers are now fully unemployed, with 95% having lost income.
When facing an economic challenge this massive, and a sector already encountering a crisis of relevancy, it is imperative to demand a new WPA.
There has been staggeringly fast progress towards emergency loans for artists and cultural organizations, such as the national Artist Relief fund, and various local funds, such as the Arts for Illinois Relief Fund (AIRF). While these wonderful resources may help the sector survive, it needs more support and recognition to thrive.
The Works Progress Administration (WPA) Federal Art Project, funded under the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935, was the first time the American government engaged in large-scale patronage of the arts. Under the WPA, roughly 10,000 artists were commissioned and employed. More than 100 community art centers were created nationally, and artists used these centers for studios, exhibitions, and educational activities.
While serving as a job relief program, it made the case that artists were essential members and makers of society; their skills are unique and valued. From the president on down, the program’s existence articulated the importance of keeping the arts alive.
At this moment, the creation of a government-funded employment agency putting artists and artisans back to work would communicate the nation’s value of a robust cultural economy. The impact of the government’s investment in our creative life, as well as a job provider, could be the single biggest argument for the necessity and relevance of a cultural sector.
But Washington — THIS Washington — will not do this on its own. The private sector needs to demand it. Calling congressional representatives and supporting the advocacy work of Americans for the Arts and Grantmakers in the Arts is imperative. But the private sector also needs to marshal its resources by, as previously mentioned, positioning its strongest and most well-connected advocates as ambassadors for change; some of the most impactful arts philanthropists and collectors already have the platform to call for massive change, and the ear’s of those that can implement policies to make that change. Bringing together creatives and funders to form a coalition that can speak as one authority on the need for increased arts funding. This body could compel government to act, and also encourage more private funding for the arts, which is needed more than ever. The Arts Funders Forum aims to be the platform to bring about this change.
Imagine the amount of art that could come out of this? The elevation of the artist to public figure, yet again? The domino effect on cultural institutions? The increased understanding of what the art industry is?
*
The public sector has failed the art world. We must not let the private sector do that same. Now is the moment to zoom out. To create the most compelling arguments for why the sector deserves to exist, and what it brings to contemporary society. To articulate exactly what is needed for sector survival and resilience. And embark on projects and partnerships that will convince the general public.
In the midst of fear and uncertainty, there’s some good news that shows that a philanthropic ethos has not been crushed: a survey of philanthropic individuals taken in late March by Fidelity Charitable uncovered that “three in four donors plan to give the same or more to charity this year than they did in 2019.”
Now is the time. Let’s do this.
*