Today I want to make an argument about the rise of arts culture. In the 1950s, at the dawn of TV, the medium’s pioneers believed that television would be the great democratizer – exposing culture to the masses. The best of the world’s culture could be brought into the living rooms of America. The early shows were full of high-art culture – symphony orchestras, plays, high-minded debates.
Of course we all know it didn’t stay that way, and TV became the ultimate engine for gathering up huge audiences for something considerably different than the “high” culture originally envisioned.
But the fact that anyone thought that high culture would be the best use for this mass medium is interesting. When the National Endowment for the Arts was set up in the 1960s, its founders were thinking along the same lines. The biggest problem in American culture, they thought, was making great art available to everyone. Forty-plus years on, I think we can say that the arts-for-all crowd has succeeded spectacularly.
In 1950 there was only one full time orchestra in America. In 1965, there were only three state arts commissions. Now there are 18 full 52-week orchestras, and more than 3,000 arts commissions at the local and state levels. The 1990s were the biggest expansion of arts activity in American history; we went on a construction binge, building more than $25 billion worth of new museums, theatres, concert halls and cultural centers. Since 1990, almost one-third of all American museums have expanded their facilities. Major American museums such as the Met and the Museum of Modern Art are now so crowded the experience of visiting them has degraded.
The number of performing arts groups is up 48 percent since 1982. Last year American music schools graduated more than 14,000 students, and new fine art academies are popping up all over and overflowing with students. There are more than 250,000 choruses in America – that’s choruses, not people in choruses. That means that more than four million people a week are getting together to sing. There are at least that many book clubs. Opera attendance is up 40 percent since 1990. Band instrument sales are at an all-time high, and in cities like Seattle, where I live, the youth orchestra program is so crowded, more and more orchestras have been added. Culture is a $166 billion industry, accounts for 5.7 million jobs and is America’s top export.
Okay – a whoosh of statistics, and cherry-picking them as I have doesn’t give a real picture. Going to the ballet or opera or museum is hardly an everyday experience for most Americans. But then, what is? Baseball might be experiencing record attendance, but wide swaths of the population are indifferent to it. TV may still dominate the average America’s entertainment diet, but what they’re watching has diversified.
I’m not making an argument that the arts are the new mass culture. I’m not even arguing that the audience for classical music rivals that for the pop star du jour. My point is this: Since most culture is defined in part by its relationships with the other cultures around it, if mass culture is losing its ability to gather huge audiences, and arts culture is growing, the relationship between the two needs some redefinition. In a crowd of pygmies, the arts have a different relationship to commercial culture and, I believe, the ramifications are significant.
UPDATE: Several readers have asked that I supply sources, so I’m going back through this piece and adding links to sources. The figures I’ve cited come from various arts studies I’ve accumulated over te past several years.
interesting piece. would you mind providing me with your sources, or the source of the sources for the stats? My field is leadership, management leadership in the arts, and as the expansion has occurred so has the aging of the work force causing an imbalance between the number of leadership positions and the number of leaders
Thanks
Yes very interesting!
re sources,is it also possible to find out the statistics for gender balance in leadership positions . What percentage of these art institutions are run by men?
Doug,
This is a terrific broad summary of the growth in our sector. I too would love to know some of your sources, in part because I’m involved with a project at the University of Chicago’s Cultural Policy Center to study investment in arts infrastructure: new concert halls, museum expansions, etc. Some of your stats describe the supply side of culture (e.g. the increase in the number of symphonies with year-round schedules) and some describe demand (e.g. that increase in opera attendance). In a commercial context supply and demand would be closely (if complexly) linked, but in the nonprofit world that relationship can be counterintuitive. I’m curious whether, in your research for this post, you found any striking differences between the ways or extent to which supply has been growing and the ways or extent to which demand or participation has been growing. Or maybe that’s a whole ‘nother kettle of fish…
Really? In 1950 there was only one full-time orchestra in America? Which one was it?
Last year the foundation I work for carried out some local research about the Chicago region which certainly supported the claim of robust growth in the arts sector:
http://www.gddf.org/chicagoartsscan/articleDetail.asp?objectID=1175
We discovered far more active arts non-profits in the region than even veteran arts advocates had estimated, and that the growth rate had increased dramatically starting in the early 1990s.
Couldn’t the argument be made that the rise in arts culture is part of a larger socioeconomic trend?
Troops came home from Europe and Asia after WWII and for most it was the first time they had travelled abroad.
Women had gone into the work force and for many, were able to consider employment outside of the home.
Not only fine arts culture, but food, film, music, clothing, manners, and educational opportunities all exploded in the post war period.
Economic growth increased the quality and availability of public and private school.s
I think the bifurcation is arts and leisure; fine art practices and entertainment. Is a professional orchestra better than a regional jug band? Television not only introduced high culture, but also Lucille Ball, who is 10 times as funny as the cut up in the local PTA. There has been an increase of professionalism and careerism in the fine arts.
Here in LA there is a concern about amateur content providers on the internet- film makers, musicians and critics with opinions. It’s a circle.
You should also look at the NEA’s 21st Artist in the Workforce Study. Really interesting stats there too.
Lisa Canning
http://www.EntrepreneurTheArts.com
http://www.Bite-SIzeArtsEnsemble.org
Now a day art culture is on a rise which is very good for our society because what is in our culture we have to follow it. Earlier the art has not been given much importance but now we came to see a tremendous growth in the art sector.
================================================
Andykkz
http://community.widecircles.com
If you noticed a boom in interest since the 1990s I think I have your answer. The first online art communities popped up in the mid to late 90s. Sites like Artwell and Artwanted allowed everyone to move beyond being a “hobby painter” to being a “real” artist in the sense that they were able to gain feedback from people daily. I’d say that helped to foster a dedicated interest in art at that time.
In the 2000s we have online art communities like Deviantart, MyArtSpace, and Redbubble which all have thousands and in some cases millions of members. Those websites feed the interest that those site users have for creating art and viewing art.
The downside of the rise of the online art communities is that some of them have hurt art appreciation more than helped it. Take deviantart for example, most of the “art” on that site is nothing more than cartoon doodles. But then you have to consider that their membership base is age 13 to 18.
The online art communities have had an impact on how the public views art. You have to figure that with some of these online art communities they have more people visiting per month than any major art gallery has in a year.