Update: It’s the 2018 2020 redux. The President’s budget proposes to eliminate the NEA, National Endowment for the Humanities, Institute of Museum and Library Services, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Arts advocates and administrators have responded with pleas that federal arts funding is important and can’t be lost without ‘devastating’ consequences for arts organizations and society. Sadly, many of the arguments are ineffective because they only reach those who are already on board with the idea of public funding. Those explanations haven’t worked to change the landscape of public understanding in the past and they aren’t likely to build new support now.
The upcoming debate over funding for the NEA is an opportunity for advocates to build broader support and shift thinking about the arts as a public good.
Research by Topos for a Midwest arts organization revealed that the natural way most people think about the arts is a barrier to considering the arts as an important benefit or tool for successful communities. This makes it easy for those who use the NEA as an example of wasteful spending in order to undermine the role of government or advocate for different federal priorities.
Default thinking = The arts are something other people do
We face challenges in part because there is a widely held view of the arts as something other people enjoy—especially rich, older, white people. And if that’s the case, it’s hard for people to see why ‘the arts’ should benefit from public funding. So when our messengers are heads of major arts organizations housed in the intimidating temples of architecture in major cities, we trigger thinking of the arts as something for the elite. This isn’t true and it undermines our efforts to change the landscape of public understanding, build new supporters, and create political space for decision-makers.
Public awareness of the role of the arts is undermined by deeply entrenched perceptions. Yes, people like the arts, some quite a lot, but that’s not enough. Because the way they think about the arts is shaped by a number of common default patterns of thinking that obscure a sense of public responsibility or value.
We found some prevalent assumptions about the arts that work against our objective of positioning the arts as a public good:
- The arts are entertainment and therefore, a private matter: Arts are about individual tastes, experiences, and enrichment — and individual expression by artists.
- The arts are a good to be purchased: Therefore, most assume that the arts should succeed or fail, as any product does in the marketplace, based on what people want to purchase.
- People expect to be passive, not active: People expect to have a mostly passive, consumer relationship with the arts. The arts will be offered to them, and therefore do not need to be created or supported by them.
- The arts are a low priority: Even when people value art, it is rarely high on their list of priorities.
When advocates talk about art as a transcendent experience, important to well-being, a universal human need, etc., they are reinforcing a focus on private, individual concerns, not public, communal concerns. While many people like these messages, the messages don’t help them think of art as a contributor to community quality of life.
A new way to build support: the arts ripple effect
Of the many approaches explored in our testing, one stood out as having the most potential to shift thinking and conversations in a constructive direction. This approach emphasizes one key organizing idea: A thriving arts sector creates ripple effects of benefits throughout our community, even for those who don’t attend.
These are broad-based benefits that people already believe are real—and that they value:
A vibrant, thriving place: Neighborhoods are livelier, communities are strengthened, tourists and residents are attracted to the area, etc. Note that this goes well beyond the usual dollars-and-cents economic argument and is about creating and sustaining an environment that is memorable and a place where people want to live, visit, and work.
A more connected population: Diverse groups share common experiences, hear new perspectives, understand each other better, etc.
This organizing idea shapes the subsequent conversation in important ways. It moves people away from thinking about private concerns and personal interests (me) and toward thinking about public concerns and communal benefits (we).
Importantly, people who hear this message often shift from thinking of themselves as passive recipients of consumer goods, and begin to see their role as active citizens interested in addressing the public good.
The arts’ value to the public is a critical part of building support for the NEA, activating citizens as advocates, and offering decision-makers a rationale to decisionmakers that resonates with their constituents.
Don’t depend on data
People already believe these benefits exist — they don’t need studies or new data to get it. It’s just not the first thing they think about when they hear us talking about the arts. Our messages can build support by reminding people that they value the way the arts strengthen places and bring people together. The vast majority of people see these outcomes as reasons we all share responsibility for the arts, even those who don’t think of themselves as ‘goers’.
Advocates often use a different version of value, one based on the ‘return on investment’ that uses a dollars-and-cents case for funding. While it’s true that some decision-makers expect to see this economic impact data, our research reveals that it is not persuasive to the public and is not useful to build broad support for public funding.
When offering examples of NEA-funded initiatives, we should use those arts events and projects that underscore the ripple effect of benefits to the community. This is easy to do given the range of NEA project funding, new initiatives in creative placemaking through the Our Town initiative, and the geographic diversity of grants.
To do list
Here’s a checklist you can use:
✓ Arts Organization: Are the benefits created by an organization/event/institution that NEA supported?
✓ Concrete Description: Does the discussion give a concrete picture of arts experiences created by the organization?
✓ Vibrancy/Connectedness: Does the example include benefits that could be seen as examples of vibrancy/vitality or increased connectedness?
✓ Benefits to All: Does the example point out potential benefits to people who are not participating in the specific event?
✓ Behind the scenes: Does the discussion also remind people that this doesn’t happen by accident but requires investment, etc.?
✓ One of Many: When possible, it is helpful to mention additional examples in the discussion, which helps audiences focus on the broader point that a strong arts sector creates a range of benefits.
✓ Does the messenger support the concept of arts benefitting everyone? Our research recommends a local leader as speaker. Local leaders are trusted on this topic and can be a mayor, city official, chamber of commerce leader, well-known neighborhood leader, etc.
We can’t say the sky is falling—that undermines our efforts because most people won’t agree with us. We should advocate for good policy on immigration, health care, nutrition, transportation, etc. because these changes could be incredibly devastating to the arts, artists, and the communities where they live. It’s not responsible to fight only for the NEA budget in the face of other damaging proposals.
••••
Elected and appointed officials have successfully used this way of talking about the arts to build broader support and increase public funding:
● Connecticut officials doubled funding and tied grantmaking to strengthening neighborhoods and creating places we all want to live in and visit. A state official explained, “Instead of the money going out with no strings attached, we are placing the goal of creating a more vibrant community,” said Kip Bergstrom, deputy commissioner of the state Department of Economic & Community Development, which runs the Office of the Arts. “We want to put our money behind folks that are doing this well.”
● In Cincinnati, former Mayor Mark Mallory used the Topos research findings in his state of the city speech to encourage broad giving from individuals (and found a perfect way to incorporate recognition of a large donation to the Symphony).
● In Providence, organizers of Waterfire, a regular public festival of music and street performance, have focused on their mission “to inspire Providence and its visitors by revitalizing the urban experience, fostering community engagement and creatively transforming the city by presenting Waterfire for all to enjoy.”
● And Mesa Arizona Mayor Scott Smith, speaking on a panel at the Republican National Convention, discussed his support for maintaining public funding of the arts even in a tough city budget year. “There is a direct connection between the health of the arts and culture in your community, and your ability to grow economically,” Smith said. “People want to live in a place that is vibrant, that is growing.”
A version of this post originally published by Topos Partnership. Reposting in light of the President’s budget proposal.
The term “common good” is a vitally important concept, but among a large part of the American right it has been coded as something bad, a form of thinking that leads to government interference and communism. There were many thinkers on the right who contributed to demeaning the concept of the “common good,” Ayn Rand perhaps being the most important. The result is that when we use the term “common good” we lose a significant portion of the American populace. It we are going to use the term “common good” as a talking point in support of public arts funding, the term will need to be rehabilitated.
In Europe, the common good is a corner stone of social thought. Here is an article that compares the European concept of the common good with the American concept of strict self-interest.
http://www.osborne-conant.org/arts_funding.htm
We would agree—and don’t recommend using words like ‘common good’ or ‘public good’ in communications about the arts.
Instead, here’s a full tested paragraph that we recommend for the *ideas* that work to shift public understanding. It’s a frame or outline—not meant to be memorized. Ordering matters and ideas too. Either one of the benefits can be emphasized depending on the goals of the community.
“Why do leaders of cities around the country think of arts and culture as important priorities? Because when creative activity is happening in large and small ways throughout an area, it creates surprising ripple effects of benefits, even for those who don’t participate directly. The arts ripple effect creates at least two kinds of benefits: 1) in the economic vitality of an area, and 2) in how communities come together and understand each other. In economic terms, theaters, galleries, concerts and so on mean more energy and life in a neighborhood, more tourists, more renovated buildings, more people and businesses moving to an appealing place. A vibrant arts environment with music, storytelling, and community art centers also means more people coming together to share experiences and ideas, connecting with each other and understanding each other in new ways. We have historically supported the arts and enjoyed the benefits of these ripple effects. We should be proud of what we’ve built, and take responsibility for keeping our investment going.”
Yes, the avoidance of certain words or phrases is essential in totalizing societies, such as ours with its post-HUAC purging of thought, market fundamentalism, racially informed class systems, and state of permanent war. Torture becomes an “enhanced interrogation technique.” The funding for invasions to assert hegemony becomes “defense spending.” Overcrowded prisons rife with cruelty and corruption become “correctional institutions.” Killing innocent civilians becomes “collateral damage.” “Civilian dead and wounded” is especially to be avoided. US trained, funded, and guided terrorists and death squads in Latin America become “Freedom Fighters.” And on and on. We’ve developed an entire lexigraphy of self-delusion that is also built around the words we cannot use, the truths we cannot mention.
Totalitarianism is measured by the distortion of language, by obfuscation and denial. Orwell described it well in “Nineteen Eighty Four” with the newspeak and doublespeak of the “Ministry of Truth.” So you are quite right. We should not mention that public funding for the arts serves the “common good.”
Sadly, the Ayn Randians will see right through the list of benefits the arts create that you mention. They know that a lively culture will become more open and less totalizing, less based on market fundamentalism and plutocracy. They know that the arts create a space where truth appears. So they won’t be fooled. They will stop true cultural growth.
The framing we recommend is based on our research.
In fact, it does work with most people, regardless of political party or ideology. Certainly, there will always be a few people who disagree.
But, by design, the research uncovers a way to talk about the issue that moves people to action. It avoids the problematic framing we uncover and boosts an idea that people ALREADY believe is true, but is just not their default way of thinking about the issue.
I understand. Of course, we have to think carefully about the difference between framing, blinkering, manipulation, and rationalizations. OTH, I admire the work of cognitive linguists like George Lakoff and his attempts to revitalize the left with new forms of language. Even his suggestion that the left needs “linguistic think tanks.” And even if it seems like an effort to regenerate the brain of a lobotomized culture — a culture that cannot even speak about the “common good.”
I just put another comment on another of your posts that notes that a group of major Western European countries spend 11 times more per capita on the arts than the USA. I remain doubtful that gaming our language is going to solve this problem. The issues are too deeply systemic. Re-framing language will create a little increment here or there, but no major changes. That will only be accomplished by plain, hard truths.
But I don’t want to be a troll and will shut up. Carry on. I love your posts.
Glad to know you are a fan and not a troll.
Our research is framing science. Our approach is outlined here. You could say we are a ‘linguistic think tank.’
The goal of a Topos project is to create the kind of simple but profound shift in perspective that helps advocates promote new engagement, better understandings, and more constructive action on an issue.
Achieving this goal means re-thinking an issue from the ground up, uncovering the hidden patterns of understanding that undermine citizen action, identifying new possibilities and refining a course of action.
This innovative approach synthesizes traditional public opinion research with state-of-the-art cognitive science perspectives and methodological innovations.
Margy,
In today’s prevalent neoliberal language used by arts advocates, the word “artists” is disappearing.
The paragraph you suggested doesn’t use the word artists, or musician, or playwright, or poet. Neither does the mission statement of the NEA.
This language shifts what “the Arts” are, something made or performed by artists, to something “people” do.
We no longer are suppose to argue the value of a culture which is stimulated and enriched by artists making works of art. Instead we are instructed to say that art is good for the economy, or worse yet it has to reflect vaguely define notions of “vibrancy” and “connectedness”. Museums are pictured as bastions of “rich white people” while we are shown pictures of the new “arts”- hula hoop parties in the social square.
This is madness, and it does nothing to foster the arts. It does nothing to foster artists.
All art isn’t made for everyone. Not every type or piece of art is going to be understood or experienced or enjoyed by all people.
Just saying “the arts strengthen places and bring people together” means nothing and it just makes artist disappear further. Art strengthens places and brings people together” because artists, writers, poets, and musicians make works of art that strengthen places and bring people together. It’s time to bring that message back.
Hi Richard. There’s no reason we can’t use the word artist or writer or poet or actor or musician, etc.
This research is designed to build broader understanding of the value of arts and artists. One thing we learned in the research is that most people don’t know what we are talking about when we use the words ‘arts’ and ‘culture’.
This means we need to describe the role the artist plays in creating the benefits described, and in the case of NEA funding, the connection of funding to the artist. You can read more about this in the full research report, here.
Certainly, some communications about art and artists will not be in this frame. We just shouldn’t expect communications which don’t mention benefits to the community will build support for, or understanding of the need for, shared responsibility, and public funding, of the arts.
Margy,
Your report mentions “artist” 7 times and 6 of those times are in quotes from people on the street.
“After a year of investigation into the topic, this research finds that public responsibility for the arts is undermined by deeply entrenched perceptions that have nothing to do with government and everything to
do with understanding of the arts.”
Well that’s just plain historically incorrect or it’s a mischaracterization of how people in society got to the place they are in today. Art appreciation isn’t something that just happens on it’s own for most people. We have been suffering as a society from decades of conservative Republican politicians trying to kill public support for the arts. We have had decades of these same politicians trying to defund our public schools, where our children had any hope of learning about the appreciation of the arts. The majority of American’s are losing interest in art because they are no longer being taught anything about it.
The neoliberal language, fostered by Richard Florida and others, now wants to blame artists, organizations, and institutions. Florida tried to sell everyone on the idea that everyone is creative and that the creative industry inherent in our cities could be the source of a economic resurgence.
Now that his thesis is being seen as flawed artists are being blamed-we aren’t “engaging’ with “community” enough. We aren’t “diverse” enough” or we aren’t giving communities what they desire so that’s why they are uninterested. Baloney.
The reality is the NEA hasn’t really foster artistic growth in years. In my home state of Michigan only 10cents of every public and private dollar that flows through all of the states arts organizations is spent on “programing” (Pew Data Project). The majority or arts funding is spent on arts organizations.
We as a society are not supporting “arts and culture” if we don’t financially support artists, let alone even use the word ‘artist’ in our research.
Richard. We can agree on the need for more art in education. But that’s not what this is about. In fact, we find that talking about arts education as the reason to fund the sector is a failed strategy.
However, we didn’t report a finding that people don’t appreciate the arts.
In fact, the opposite. The research uncovered that people LIKE the arts (once they know what we mean when say ‘art’), but it’s not a high priority for them because of the WAY they think about the arts. (That’s what a reframing helps to shift.)
What we DO find is that public funding and a sense of shared responsibility for our arts (and therefore our artists) IS undermined by public perception.
The next sentence after the one you quoted reads:
We won’t solve everything by shifting the way we talk about the arts. But by helping people see the arts as a community benefit, we encourage more shared support and public funding for arts AND artists.
Richard, we speak about the arts without artists because artists are subversives. Healthy societies embrace the subversiveness of artists while totalizing societies such as ours do not. We thus avoid mentioning artists in our communiques since they are almost as evil as concepts such as “the common good” or “social democracy.”
This is, of course, nothing new. One thinks of the work of Edward Bernays and his books such as “Crystallizing Public Opinion” (1923) and “Propaganda” (1928.) Or Herman and Chomsky’s iconic book “Manufacturing Consent.” The cognitive linguistics of social engineering was already essentially complete by 1954 when Bernays used his methods to help United Fruit overthrow the government of Guatemala. It is only natural that the arts and artists will be corralled (framed) using similar techniques.
I seriously doubt that this sort of marketing linguistics will create the social transformations necessary for the USA to join the rest of the developed world and create comprehensive systems of public arts funding. And if fact, the defanged language of marketing will eventually weaken the arts. Art defined by euphemistic descriptions will become a petting zoo for a strictly controlled culture, something always safe, a place where art seldom if ever challenges the status quo. In such a world, just as Baudrillard has noted, art doesn’t really exist, but only a simulation of art.
The language used in your research and those of many other arts advocates always sounds so positive, but the terms and phases used either are vague and ill defined or go against the very intrinsic value arts have for people.
In your report you focus on the “ripple effect” which has an effect “1) in the economic vitality of an area, and 2) in how communities come together and understand each other. In economic terms, theaters, galleries, concerts and so on mean more energy and life in a community, more tourists, more renovated buildings, more people and businesses moving to an appealing…”
Your report and other always seem to hint at how art has an important vital value for people lives but then the language always slides back to examples of type of busy vitality and economic development. Is that what we are now becoming, a people who only think art is important because it brings us economic vitality?
Where is the acknowledgment that Art can be difficult, challenging, and push us beyond our expectations? Why are we not also talking about that Art isn’t necessarily democratic, that some art forms aren’t going to be enjoyed or understood by everyone but are still worth our support? If art is only going to be looked at and supported as a type of activity that brings people together and ads a popular vitality, what happens then to artists and art that deals with anarchy or controversial topics?
Are you saying that art which deals with controversial topics does NOT have a ripple effect of benefits? I profoundly disagree.
I think you missed the methodology and goals of our research. We uncover those things that people ALREADY believe about the subject—a perspective which will support the policy goal, in this case more shared support of the arts. What we found is not something we guessed about. This is what people already BELIEVE about the arts, the reasons they understand that art is good for people and places.
Economic vitality — neighborhoods that are memorable, yes these are things that people appreciate about the impact of art. To be clear, that’s NOT the same as a dollars and cents economic impact study. We found the latter to be ineffective at building support for public or shared funding of the arts. But that’s not all. People are hungry for experiences that help them connect to others, people in their workplace or neighborhood. They believe the arts are better than other shared experiences as a way to get to know each other, to build community and connection.
Your goals seem different from the research goals and the reason I posted this commentary. As long as artists and arts supporters are advocating for the NEA, we want them to have the benefit of communications research on the most effective way to talk about the arts to build broader understanding of the benefits of the arts to everyone.
I’m not saying controversial art doesn’t have a ripple effect. I’m saying the NEA and most arts organizations have gone out of their way NOT to deal with anything overtly controversial every since the NEA Four had their grants taken away from them.
I’m advocating for artists. How much did Eric Lui’s project costs? How much did a program like that financially benefit real, full time professional artists? I could almost guess with certainty that more went into the administration of just that one program that ever benefited actual artists.
In my circle of peers I don’t know of many artists that really advocate for the NEA, let alone even talk about it any more. Why? Because it’s not really advocating for us any more. It’s all about the arts organizations and if, maybe, you can mold your work to a project they have in mind (which mostly is always about economic development in some capacity), then, yes, you might get a little money from them.
I’m advocating for artist’s as leaders in arts and culture. Not artists as a subordinate partner in someone else’s agenda. I want to see arts advocates build a broader understanding not just of the benefits of the arts for everyone but a better understanding of the role of artists in society.
“People are hungry for experiences that help them connect to others, people in their workplace or neighborhood. They believe the arts are better than other shared experiences as a way to get to know each other, to build community and connection.”
If the arts are to create communal connection, they are best administered locally, not by a Federal agency. As a case in point, about 90% of Germany’s $13 billion public arts funding is administered at the state and municipal level.
• 40 percent of the NEA’s grantmaking budget is awarded directly to the states through their state and regional arts
agencies, reaching millions more people in thousands of communities.
• In FY 2016, the NEA recommended more than 2,400 grants in nearly 16,000 communities in every Congressional
District in the country.
NEA Quick Facts
Here’s an excellent example of referencing the role artists play in creating the broad benefits described:
via Springboard Exchange http://springboardexchange.org/eric-liu/