Great Expectations

Citizen blogger Alletta Emeno blogs the latest Big Canvas event at Moore College. Participants at the Oct. 5 community forum discussed a regional strategy for funding arts and culture. Alletta first blogged for Great Expectations from the summer community forum in Malvern.

Is there a strategy that can unite big and small arts and culture institutions, provide them additional funding and build consensus with non-artsy taxpayers? It was a tall order for attendees of The Big Canvas event held October 5 at Moore College of Art in Center City.

The 60 participants were overwhelmingly female and active in smaller arts and culture organization. However, there was greater race diversity and better representation of young people than the Chester County event I attended during the summer.

Four approaches, developed out of discussions during the six forums this summer, were presented to attendees. After being divided into seven groups, participants were instructed to work through the pros and cons of each approach. From those discussions they were to identify common ground – those themes that resurfaced in discussing each approach.

Approach I

“Extend the Arts Experience,” the first approach, espouses that arts and cultural should be supported because of its intrinsic value. And as high-minded as the initial argument is, this approach focuses on making the arts easy to find, easy to attend and easy to afford.

Participants repeatedly praised the idea of an information clearinghouse that would track arts and culture events. Some suggested that the idea should be expanded to provide a way to track other needs of organizations, including volunteers and storage and rehearsal space.

A key component of this approach was the push to improve public transportation to arts venues outside the city. If this event and a prior one in Chester County are any indication, city residents seem to feel strongest about this argument probably because their access to suburban venues is limited without a car.

“Culture Passports,” discount or prepaid cards for arts and cultural tickets, were met with some skepticism. How could it be made easy for patrons? How would it be possible to get enough organizations to participate? And how does this work without the smallest events being left behind?

One goal of this approach was to make arts funding more about the artists and less about the institutions. But the “Culture Passports”, dedicated mass transit routes and “free days” at cultural attractions suggested seemed to be more about the latter, as pointed out by several participants.

Approach II

The second approach, “Nurture Children’s Futures,” seeks to build consensus for arts and culture by making children the focus of all efforts. Not a bad idea given that children would serve as a unifying force for many disparate groups. Children learn to appreciate the arts, bring their parents to events and grow up to be patrons. Or as one woman said, “What’s not to like about this?”

Apparently, the idea of handing more money to some already failing school districts might be a big sticking point. Some participants didn’t trust school systems to spend the money well.

Others didn’t think that schools would be willing participants. “It’s a real ordeal to get principals and teachers on board with these programs,” said one woman who volunteers her time to in-school programs.

Another participant, who runs a local dance company, described the aggravation of trying to convince one school district to partner with her organization on an artist-in-residence program. The district said the right things, she said, but was unwilling to share any of the costs.

During the discussion, it became clear that what was missing was the creation of an organization that would distribute funds and oversee how they were spent. And while this approach didn’t seek any additional funding, it became less cost-efficient as more oversight was suggested.

Approach III

The “Build the Creative Economy” approach contends that a vibrant arts sector attracts employers and boosts tourism revenue. These two facts earn arts and culture a seat at the economic development table and, in turn, qualify it for some of the development dollars. It’s a logical approach that says the region should “spend money to make money.”

I wish I could say that this approach was well received, but most participants just didn’t get the fundamental argument. It was described as “murky”, “confusing” and “fuzzy.” How is the “creative economy” defined? How is it measured? Will the money really trickle down to arts organizations?

Some argued there wasn’t enough behind the argument to get citizens of the region on board. People are too unaware of the breadth and depth of arts and culture opportunities in the region. “They’ll never buy it,” said one participant who lamented about putting on festivals drawing national talents, but being unable to convince Philadelphians of its importance.

Others thought it muddied the mission of these organizations. “Our business is to make institutions attractive,” one participant said. “It’s the chamber of commerce’s job to get the story out.”

What the approach fails to truly embrace are the numbers behind the arts and culture sector. It employs 40,000 people, pumps $1.3 billion into the regional economy annually and generates $158.5 million state and local tax dollars each year, according to the Arts, Culture and Economic Prosperity in Greater Philadelphia report, published by the Greater Philadelphia Cultural Alliance. Clearly, there is an economic impact. Yet, none of the three group discussions I observed really delved into the economic impact argument.

Approach IV

The “Foster Quality of Community” is a holistic approach that presents arts and culture as a force for good. Arts and culture are presented as a vehicle for solving community problems from juvenile crime to economic development.

Again, participants liked the concept, but worried about the reality of implementing it. Community arts organizations, which are notoriously under funded and lack volunteers, could benefit from this approach. However, it was unclear how the overall strategy would be developed and who would assure equitable distribution.

This approach may appeal to lots of taxpayers, not just the artsy ones, but it does require counties to come up with new funds or reallocate existing arts and culture dollars. “Is this realistic with everything that is going on?” one woman asked.

Common Ground
No one seemed completely enamored with one approach specifically. Many expressed dismay that some of the most appealing ideas were siloed.

Others thought the basic components of all of the approaches were the same. “In the end, I feel like many of these approaches are doing the same thing,” said one participant. “We are just describing it with different language.”

By the end of the night, several big themes running across many of the approaches seemed to stand out for a couple of the groups.

First, there needs to be a more cohesive effort to get the word out about arts and culture organizations and events. Ideas suggested included a multi-media website with information on every event in the region and a Center City booth selling tickets to events.

Second, more funding sources need to be identified. These funds can’t just benefit the wealthy institutions. The Philadelphia region is rich in arts and cultural organization, but unfortunately these groups are poor. According to a 2006 report by the Greater Philadelphia Cultural Alliance, nearly half of the arts and cultural organizations operate in a deficit.

Third, accessibility to arts and culture needs to be improved. Public transportation needs to be available to events in the suburbs, not just the city.

Fourth, regardless of the plan, fiscal controls must be instituted to assure that the money is spent wisely. This oversight must be regional and it must assure an equitable distribution.

And, finally, no matter which approach is selected it must address an underlying tension between big and small organizations. Representatives from smaller organizations expressed concern that they will be left out of any solutions.

“The usual suspects get all of the money,” lamented one participant. “It’s as though nothing else exists.”

If this issue isn’t address, how can the arts community come together to mount a campaign for public support?

The Big Vote
Each participant was asked to weigh in on the approaches at the end of the night. There were instructed to divide 20 points among the four approaches or the status quo.

I’m glad I don’t have to set the odds for the outcome. It was hard to get a sense of how people would allocate their points. There appeared to be only one sure thing - the “Build the Creative Economy” approach won’t do much better than the status quo.