The Big Canvas arrives in Glenside

» READ MORE: "My Philadelphia"

» READ MORE: http://coreylikejune.blogspot.com/

Well hello there Philadelphia!

Recently, I took a drive down 611 and up 309 to attend the evening's Big Canvas event, part of the Great Expectations project. The Big Canvas is an effort by The Philadelphia Inquirer and the University of Pennsylvania to connect the people of the Philadelphia region to their elected officials regarding the state of arts and culture. Both of their

» READ MORE: web pages

, as well as

» READ MORE: my earlier blog posts

, outline in detail Great Expectations and The Big Canvas, their goals, and their overall progress.

Over the summer, similar events to the one I attended brought together people from all over the Philadelphia area to address the issue of reconnecting and revitalizing the arts in Philadelphia. From these meetings (known as Phase One of Big Canvas),

» READ MORE: four distinct approaches

were drafted to be picked apart during later meetings (Phase Two).

The event I attended was just one of many forums scheduled over the fall season to bring together those who live in the suburban areas, giving them a chance to get their opinions and input heard.

I arrived at Glenside Hall off of Easton Road around 6:30 p.m. Sept. 23. Upon entering the little town hall, I was immediately greeted by the smiling face of Great Expectations project manager Linda Breitstein. From the get-go, I was welcomed in with wide arms and felt right at home. After a quick sign in and the obligatory sharpie name tags, Linda presented me a packet of information regarding the evening's events, the background on the project, and the recent report by the Greater Philadelphia Cultural Alliance titled "portfolio".

The Issue in Brief is a nice light, side-by-side comparison of the different approaches to the Big Canvas Project highlighting the beliefs, funding and action steps to take. This proved to be a very useful outline of the plans later on, as the four approaches tend to overlap on certain topics. The bigger brother of this Issue in Brief was the

» READ MORE: Citizen Issue Guide

, a flushed out explanation of not only the approaches but the background behind the project, where its coming from and where it intends to go. Finally, the portfolio is a financial report regarding Arts and Culture in the region that paints a scary, yet very truthful picture - and at the same time nods to the urgency and need for a Big Canvas-style program.

At this point I made my way into a large auditorium style room and joined about 40 people. Then I sat for a moment and looked over the material, noshing on the snacks that were provided and chit chatting with the others who had come to take part in the discussion. The atmosphere was friendly, relaxed, and yet at the same time energetic. The people wanted to their opinions out there; they wanted to deliberate; they wanted to take part.

It was then that project leaders Chris Satullo (of The Philadelphia Inquirer) and Harris Sokoloff (of the University of Pennsylvania's Project for Civic Engagement) took the stage and welcomed everyone into the room. The two have been working on civics projects for at least a dozen years, several of those years spent together on Great Expectations. The dynamic duo traded off the role of head speaker, outlining the background of the project, the evening's procedures, and then outlining the four approaches.

We split into two smaller groups to allow for more personal discussion. My group went off with discussion leaders Chris and Jean into another section of the building away from the other group (and much to my dismay the snack table).

We went around in a small circle of about 15 or so middle-age parents, art teachers, artists and area volunteers introducing ourselves and our connection to the arts.

From then on, we reviewed the terms and conditions for each approach, and then in an open-forum style discussion talked over what we like and disliked, as well as tossed up a few questions and suggestions.

» READ MORE: Approach One: "Extending the Arts Experience"

This approach wants to take the already blossoming art community in the Philadelphia area and expose it the entire region. It looks at art for its intrinsic value, and wants to push it to the forefront along side all the other issues that normally overshadow it. This plan wants to funnel money in from the casinos and sports teams to provide for a stronger art community.

My group liked the idea of this plan. They agreed with the idea that currently, people are overwhelmed by the arts and how to experience them. Many told anecdotes of friends coming to visit and being dwarfed by the notion of experiencing the arts, specifically in terms of how to get to them, how to experience them. Many felt that, while the information may be out there, it is not easily accessible or people friendly.

There was a bit of back and forth when it came to the funding, however. It seemed as if it was a hard toss up as to how the grants should be disbursed ultimately. If the grants are awarded to individual artists, the group felt that the funding would become political, and a who-you-know sort of scenario. The other side of the coin, as other members of the group pointed out, was that providing the grants to institutions was no guarantee that the funding would make its way to the artists, and even if it were, there was debate as to which artists would get it, and for what reasons.

The gang then came up with the idea for a disbursement board, or a panel, which became a consistent point of conversation through out the rest of the approaches. Should there be some form of a board, its members should represent the artists, the institutions, and so forth. A bit of everyone. This way its not bureaucratic and a who-knows-whom scenario.

Our discussion group took kindly to the idea of an interactive, Web 2.0 idea, provided that it was maintained and updated frequently, as well as easy to access. Comparisons to the somewhat known "Philly Fun Guide" were tossed around. Additionally, they loved the idea of the culture passports and the Philly Van-Go idea, encouraging that art and music be put on board, quite literally, to enhance the arts experience, and make the arts "interconnected and easily accessible".

The issues that our group came up with wore more along the lines of the status quo in the city - in that arts are already very political when it comes to commissioned work and disbursement of art grants. One member, Ed, pointed out that if we were to go through with an approach like this one, that strict guidelines would be needed so as not to slip into a situation like the one we are already. Additionally, the funding for this would come from tax dollars, the casinos and our sports teams. One member of the group went on to point out that not many, especially those disconnected from the arts, will want to open their pockets for intrinsic value of art. In theory its nice, but practically it may not work out as well.

» READ MORE: Approach Two: "Nurture Children's Futures"

This plan called for a focus on the younger crowd. The idea here is to funnel the attention and planning to the children so that they gain an appreciation for art at a young age, involve their families, stay out of the wrong crowds and continue to support the arts as they grow older.

The beauty behind this planning is its funding. Instead of fighting an uphill battle for tax dollars, the idea is to make propositions and plans that revolve around the children which will prompt endless grants and funding. "As soon as its for the kids, funding and grants will line up one by one," noted one participant.

Seeing as how the group was made up mostly of parents, and art teachers, this approach was very well received. Parents are concerned because arts education is being dropped in schools, especially because of focus on testing through everybody's favorite "No Child Left Behind."

"There's a question of motivation and priority in the school districts," one mother said. One by one, the parents went around and pledged their allegiance and gave their thanks to the music programs that eventually "got my son to compose in college" and the art programs that "got my daughter into quilting, she does it for a living now."

It seems as if every one in the group felt like children needed to be more exposed through the arts. Be it in school, on field trips, out in the city with their families or at some form of after school program, the group agreed that the youth needed the exposure. There's no discounting the fact that immersion in the arts at a young age helps out in other areas of school. Music has been well known to help in areas such as math and the sciences, but that's not the only benefit.

Immersion in the arts also keeps children occupied, "and off of the streets," one concerned parent brought up. We discussed single-parent homes, and families that have two working parents and essentially all agreed that an after-school or rec center art program would be of huge benefit.

The only issues that really came up were the idea of standardization, which usually happens when funding becomes a public thing. There was expressed worry by one art teacher that children will only be exposed to "Fine Art" and that, especially at a young age, they will be disconnected and overwhelmed. Additionally, the focus is mainly on the children, and its results may not be immediate. In that way it may not last long enough to see its effects, which, in my opinion, would be a real shame.

» READ MORE: Approach Three: "Build the Creative Economy"

In order to understand this approach, one has to get a good feel for what exactly "Creative Economy" is. Great Expectations defines it as such: “Creative economy” is the term for an array of brain-powered enterprises – from information technology to higher education to biotech to the arts themselves – that produce the bulk of new wealth and new jobs in 21st century America."

Therefore, the idea behind this approach is to lend the artistic workforce to benefit the greater creative economy. Directly, it "links arts and culture to the rest of the economy and its development."

Great Expectations touches on this as well: "A vibrant arts sector makes a region more attractive to employers, helping them recruit talented employees. It helps the region curb “brain drain” and retain smart graduates from its many colleges. This young talent fuels innovation, which generates jobs. The arts also boost tourism, which brings in revenue while selling the region to the world. The arts themselves provide jobs, attracting creative people who make the region a more appealing place to live."

Many in my group felt that this was the "most pragmatic and realistic approach." It subordinated arts and culture to serve everyone, and in that way we would all see the results. The idea here is to bring in big companies, which attract hardworking, creative workers and in turn bring up the spirit of the neighborhood. Parents pointed toward the transformation of UPenn, Drexel and Temple Universities.

The real expressed concern regarding this plan was in the funding and holding an agency responsible accountable. Members of my discussion group were worried that the "grassroot guys" would be caught in the undertow of big, nationally known companies.

In that, there was also a feeling that we may lose some diversity. "What were really doing here is homogenizing the areas," one participant stated. "It's standardizing the area."

The real issue here is that with this plan, the arts may never see the fruits of their labor. The focus here is on bigger projects (public transit, easily accessible tourism, safety, etc) that have to be tackled before people are comfortable enough to immerse themselves in the arts scene.

» READ MORE: Approach Four: "Foster Quality of Communication"

This fourth approach is based on the notion that we experience the arts in our day-to-day lives. Great Expectations explains it as such: "...people don’t experience arts and culture in isolation, but in the context of their daily lives. People don’t live according to the line items of government budgets; they don’t live in institutional silos. They live in communities where they seek a good quality of life."

Those in favor of this plan from my discussion group liked to look at art as a kind of social network, more so than an "economic sector." There seems to be a focus on the community here.

"It seems like this plan builds up strong neighborhoods and regions," said one participant, "which of course will transfer their momentum down to the arts and culture."

The group felt that strong communities with arts at their core provide for a good environment for those living in them. People view the arts as an integral of their communities. Rec centers, after school art programs, murals, museums, libraries, parks, etc.

Having a strong arts center to a community is attractive to businesses, and specifically artists. "We can take some old properties and convert them into studio space," suggested on participant. The idea is that the artists move in and create a vitality to the area.

In regards to funding, the idea here is to create a collective fund for the five counties - presumably through a taxation - to "enhance community quality of life throughout the region..." says Great Expectations.

Some felt that those in the city wouldn't want to put up money for the outlying suburbs, and visa versa. If it were selective to the county, this may not be much of a problem.

"Those of us who live in the suburbs don't have much of an issue paying for our libraries and community centers [both of which are arts and culture centers] already, this should not much more of a jump..." said on suburbanite.

While in theory this idea seems nice, there was a bit of debate over the focus.

Many in the group felt it was selective and not wide reaching enough to work across the entire region. One concerned member worried that "...if we don't all work together as a region, people will lose their connections." Some went as far as to say that we might "tribalize" the area, which would in a sense contradict the themes of the Big Canvas plans, as well as bringing in those from 'burbs to add their input.

All in all this plan seemed to be a little less solid than the others, and its proposed collective tax seemed unlikely to be supported by the entire five county region.

At this point in the meeting, we drew up a collective common ground. This was a loose list of all the important points that crossed over between the four approaches. Things to remember, things to work on, etc.

1) The Arts are Political

2) The importance of diversity - in our neighborhoods, in the administration of the new plan (as in a collective board or disbursement committee, etc.), in points of view

3) The interpretation of the approaches varies by "Life Experience" which can entail age, region, class, wealth, art background, taste in art, ability to experience the arts, etc.

4) Access to arts/culture - economic or otherwise - can be a huge factor in how people look at these approaches

5) The arts have the power to transform communities, families, and individuals

6) The idea of the Travel Pass (for students, visitors, families, etc) is a great one and needs to be explored and worked out in order to battle the overwhelming aspects of the arts scene

7) a Web 2.0 (interactive website with user postings and reviews) needs to happen as well

Voting:

At this point, we went around in our groups and distributed 20 "points" among the four approaches, and the "fifth" approach which is keeping things as they are.