Jumper

Diane Ragsdale on what the arts do and why

Time to start pulling off the duct tape …

In his article, Occupy the Arts, a seat at a time, NY Times critic Anthony Tomasini (like others) pounced on recent allegations of ‘elitism’ in the arts (growing out of the Occupy movement), decrying that there are loads of free and affordable arts events and that even those organizations that charge $400 per ticket also have cheap seats (and the experience is just as great from the nosebleeds, thank you very much!). Not only do Tomasini and others seem a tad defensive when they fly their Free Tickets Flag in the face of those seeking to raise a conversation about social inequalities in the arts, it seems they rather miss the point.

Tomasini writes:

But as we try to grasp what the committed Occupy Wall Street activists are saying to the performing arts, can we all agree to put aside at last the charge of elitism? Especially, I would say from my partisan perspective, regarding classical music? At least in New York and in many other American cities, as well as most college towns, there are abundant opportunities to attend free or very affordable concerts and operas.

What arouses allegations that fine arts organizations are elitist is not (primarily) that their ticket prices are sometimes high, but rather that they are (more often than not) governed by a select group of (generally wealthy, well-educated, and often white) people whose beliefs and tastes are presumed to be ‘the best’ and, therefore, good for society as a whole. Many fine arts organizations are perceived as elitist because they seem to cater to the needs, capacities, and desires of this select group of people rather than serving their communities-at-large.

Communities in which, evidently, a lot of people are quite poor. Russell Willis Taylor of National Arts Strategies and I were chatting the other day and she mentioned that the most recent US census shows that 1 in 2 people in the US are living at the poverty level (Census: 1 in 2 Americans is Poor or Low Income).

And yet, attending a fine arts event in the US one steps into a world that seems to be (and often is) completely out of touch with the reality of that census statistic …

Arts organizations could do something in response to that statistic. Several years ago now, Appalshop (an arts and education center located in the Appalachian mountain region) realized there was a tremendous (and rather sobering) ‘growth market’ in its community (and the US generally) that was not being served by the arts: people who have been or are currently in prison, or those who know people who have been or are currently in prison. A staggering number of people fall into this category—enough that the good people at Appalshop felt that their perspectives and needs were worth taking seriously and that it was important to develop programming with them and for them. To read about this extraordinary program go to the Thousand Kites homepage.

Oh, but wait just a darned minute! Isn’t Appalshop one of those ‘community-based’ organizations? So that’s different. They’re supposed to serve the needs the community-at-large. That’s their mission. As opposed to ‘Arts’ organizations which are supposed to serve … ummmm … oh, never mind.

Pffffffff.

There is a growing financial, artistic, and psychic gap between the ‘nonprofit fine arts world’ in the US and the ‘rest of the US’.

And we’ve been trying to bridge this gap with duct tape (aka, friends with money) for at least 30 years.

It’s a new year.

What better time to tear off the duct tape, see what holds, and start building something better?

Instead of more data perhaps we should discuss why we keep ignoring the data we have?

I finally had found some time this week to read Scott Walter’s excellent second post in his trilogy (all three now published) looking at the 1% vs 99% issues in the US arts and culture sector. A compelling string of comments follows this post, led by one of my other favorite bloggers, Clayton Lord, who argues two points: (1) Is it effective to turn against the ‘top’ arts organizations at a time when the arts generally are under attack? and (2) We need to collect more data to understand how to improve the system. Walters responds that the time for action has come and that collecting data has become, essentially, a way of postponing action.  As much of a data geek as I have becomenow that I’m working on a dissertation (and as much as I would advocate for transparency and the collection of better data in the sector generally), I tend to agree with Scott Walters that data is probably not going to make the difference here.

My suspicion arises from what I pointed out in a Jumper post written in response to the Fusing Arts, Culture, and Social Change report when it was first published: the issues outlined in that report have been in existence, and have been reported on, for decades. Furthermore, every single year that I was a grantmaker I read the annual ‘funding snapshot’ published by Grantmakers in the Arts, which discussed (among many topics) the distribution of funding. Every year, GIA seemed to report that the majority of funding was distributed to a minority of organizations and every year the percentages remained about the same.

Here’s another example of funders and arts organizations disregarding data (and a bit of a tangent, but I think it is a related and serious issue). I was recently at a meeting looking at the findings of a major new study examining the causes and impacts of the massive investments in arts facilities in recent decades. At the convening, it was discussed that at least one (and I suspect more than one) study had been done prior to this one – perhaps not as comprehensive, but certainly raising many of the same issues and concerns – and that the behavior of funders and arts organizations had not changed in response to learning the findings.

How many arts leaders (and their capital investors) were told when planning to build/expand/renovate facilities and (invest in such facilities projects) the statistics on what happens to organizations in the first five years after those buildings are built? Probably all of them. How many went ahead anyway? Probably most of them. How many arts groups struggled  to pay off debt or laid off staff or struggled to stay true to their missions and keep the building open 3-5 years after completing the project? How many donors who made ‘one time’ gifts to the capital campaign were asked to consider large operating gifts to help the organization after opening because audiences and contributed income were not as high as projected and expenses were higher than projected? Again, I’d wager a majority of them. (We could get into the related issue of the opportunity costs of so much funding getting sucked into a single organizations, but I’ll stop here.)

It seems to me there are two issues here. The first one I raised in my post a few weeks ago. The wealth/class/race disparities that we are experiencing today are, I believe, to a large extent by design. High art / low art, upper middle class / ‘the rest of us’ distinctions were very much embedded in the development of the ‘fine arts’ end of the nonprofit arts sector. For all the talk about the ‘blurring’ of lines and democratization of the arts, in reality, we seem to have a system that is still trying to maintain these distinctions. There are arts leaders and those that would fund them that would wholeheartedly agree that they are elitist and would say that this is a positive thing (meaning  that they want to do the finest work possible for the people that have the time, money, and education to appreciate it). I’ve wondered in a previous post whether such organizations should perhaps be restructured as country clubs (and have the nonprofit tax status that is given to such clubs rather than the kind that goes to charitable or educational institutions).  But that’s a topic for another day ….

The second issue is that data (facts) do not seem to change behavior unless people have an emotional connection to them, especially if the status quo is working in their favor. I tend to think that change will come in the arts sector with a change in leadership (which will bring with it a changed worldview). When I look at my generation and the generations below mine (I’m at the upper end of ‘X’) I am inspired. Of course, if we don’t turn the reins over to people now 40 or under for 20 more years and if they have no interest in working for the arts when ‘their time’ comes, then my hope in the next generation may be for nil.

In the meantime I would offer this: foundations and service organizations should not be collecting data unless they are prepared to take firm action when they get the results. I have repeatedly seen both types of organizations pursue strategies that seem to be in direct contradiction to the very research that they have commissioned. If you are not prepared (if the data implications suggest it) to stop funding or celebrating the practices of the historically leading institutions of this country then do not commission research that may lead to this conclusion. It’s a waste of tax deductible individual gifts and grant dollars.

Even better, before paying for any new studies perhaps funders and service organizations should take several months and simply read all the studies that have already been done and see whether there isn’t a preponderance of evidence already in existence that might compel us all to make different choices. I suspect it’s out there and that what we need is not more evidence but a candid discussion about why nothing has changed despite the evidence that already exists.

And to Clayton’s excellent question about whether we should turn against the leaders at a time when the arts are under attack – I am probably oversimplifying things here, but it seems to me that the majority of the attacks against the arts are political and stem from them being perceived or easily portrayed as elitist and out of touch with (and doing very little for) the majority of Americans. Just punting here, but … I wonder what would happen if the top 1% of arts organizations (who capture the majority of foundation, corporate, and individual support) willingly gave up their federal, state, and local government cash grants (perhaps the grants could be tapered off over 3 years, giving them three years to develop individual donors to replace those funds) so that those funds could be redistributed to the 99%?

Perhaps we would remove the largest weapon that the other side has to use against the arts while simultaneously redistributing government funds to smaller organizations that (let’s be honest, Mr. Kaiser), will never be competitive in the fight to attract board members or individual donors when battling against organizations 10 or 100 times their size that are armed with glossy publications, celebrity-studded galas, Fortune 500 CEOs on their boards, well-branded if not exceedingly talented artistic leaders, and a battalion of development staffers.

1% image by ThreeArt and licensed by Shutterstock.com

 

The times may be a-changin’ but (no surprise) arts philanthropy ain’t

The Philanthropy News Digest recently sent me a bulletin with the headline, “Arts Funding Does Not Reflect Nation’s Diversity, Report Finds” which linked me to an AP Newsbreak article with the headline “Report finds arts funding serves wealthy audience, is out of touch with diversity”. My initial thought was, “Seriously? We need a report to tell us this?” The report, Fusing Arts, Culture, and Social Change: High Impact Strategies for Philanthropy, was produced by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy and written by Holly Sidford.

Here are a couple paragraphs from the executive summary:

Every year, approximately 11 percent of foundation giving – more than $2.3 billion in 2009 – is awarded to nonprofit arts and culture. At present, the vast majority of that funding supports cultural organizations whose work is based in the elite segment of the Western European cultural tradition – commonly called the canon – and whose audiences are predominantly white and upper income. A much smaller percentage of cultural philanthropy supports the arts and traditions of non-European cultures and the  non-elite expressions of all cultures that comprise an increasing part of American society. An even smaller fraction supports arts activity that explicitly challenges social norms and propels movements for greater justice and equality.

This pronounced imbalance restricts the expressive life of millions of people, thus constraining our creativity as a nation. But it is problematic for many other reasons, as well. It is a problem because it means that – in the arts – philanthropy is using its tax-exempt status primarily to benefit wealthier, more privileged institutions and populations. It is a problem because our artistic and cultural landscape includes an increasingly diverse range of practices, many of which are based in the history and experience of lower-income and nonwhite peoples, and philanthropy is not keeping pace with these developments. And it is a problem because art and cultural expression offer essential tools to help us create fairer, more just and more civic-minded communities, and these tools are currently under-funded.

I am as discouraged as anyone by where many (but certainly not all) private foundations and wealthy individual donors give their support, and where they do not. However, my sense has never been that this behavior persists (and has perhaps become more pronounced as the demographics of the country are shifting dramatically) because the heads of foundations or the wealthiest donors in America were lacking a report explaining that too much of their money was going to arts organizations producing Western European ‘high art’ for white, upper middle class audiences.

The book Patrons Despite Themselves told very much the same story back in 1983 in its analysis of the ‘indirect’ system of funding the arts (that is, via the tax system rather than via direct grants from government). Feld, O’Hare, and Schuster concluded (among other things):

On balance, income to the arts is paid for disproportionately by the very wealthy and is enjoyed more by the moderately wealthy and the well educated. The demographic characteristics of the audience – the beneficiaries of the government aid – do not vary much across art forms. While the system tends to be redistributive, it is only so in a limited sense: from the very wealthy to the moderately wealthy.

Three of the recommendations in PDT regarding philanthropic decisionmaking are: (1) “decisions should reflect expertise in the subject”; (2) “public decisions in allocation of government support for the arts should reflect many varied kinds of tastes”; and (3) “arts decisionmaking must be independent of malign influence, that is, influence represented by narrow partisan politics or self-serving interests.”

We can see how much traction the authors had in the arts and culture sector with this message given the ‘elitism redux’ (and with more urgency) message in the new National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy report.

This is why I find it ironic when funders throw their arms up in the air, discouraged by declining attendance at ‘out-of-touch’ symphony orchestras and other fine art forms. It would seem that the growing gap between these organizations and their communities exists in large part because they continued to find support and legitimacy from high profile foundations even as they were raising ticket prices and failing to update their programming and becoming increasingly ‘non-representative’ of their communities over the past 30 years.

Moreover, if we are wondering why this decades-old message just doesn’t seem to ‘stick’ and change behavior, it may be worth taking a moment to recognize the “alliance between class and culture” that emerged with the very development of our nonprofit arts system in the US: “High art” was meant to serve the needs of urban elites and the hierarchical distinction between “high culture” and “popular culture” was meant to distinguish not simply two forms of culture but the types of people that patronized these forms of culture (DiMaggio 1982).

We have (and have had) a cultural divide in the US and the arts continue to contribute to it – not all arts, but certainly a large part of the sector that is often heralded as ‘leading’, ‘excellent’ and ‘world class’. You don’t end up with the large majority of your audience being white and wealthy by accident. Nor do you end up with the large majority of your funding portfolio going to assist those organizations that are primarily serving those white and wealthy people, by accident.

This is by design, folks.

I by no means want to suggest that it is a waste of time to periodically document the fact that private funding for the arts continues to primarily support upper middle class white people. This is, perhaps, a message that needs to be transmitted continually if the situation is to change. And, as the report accurately suggests, this issue is becoming more acute as arts funding fails to keep pace with dramatic socio-economic changes that are occurring.

Indeed. Taking the message one step further, I don’t think I’m alone in thinking that organizations whose value is reliant upon old institutions, old habits, and old social networks (centered around an old concept of ‘the cultural elite’) may very well find themselves on the wrong side of a cultural change in the years to come.

Arts organizations and their funders would seem to have a choice: be part of the change or fight to the death to uphold the dying system that for decades gave their work meaning. Perhaps their own survival (if not an interest in fairer and more civic-minded communities and a sincere desire to upend social norms and support social change) will ultimately prompt some of these institutions to change their behaviors?

 Poster designed by adbusters for #OccupyWallStreet.

 

 

Works-in-process in an everyone-is-a-critic-now world.

If inviting general audiences into the artistic process now means potentially inviting them to share their feedback with the world does this change how we think about presenting works-in-development for public audiences?

Perhaps I have a skewed perception, but it strikes me that over the past couple decades (at least in the US) arts organizations have increasingly presented half- or nearly-baked works to the public and (in many cases) charged them money for the privilege of seeing this work. For a variety of reasons, we have invited patrons into the process and have sold them on the idea that (1) this will increase their knowledge and understanding of an artform or (2) their presence and feedback will be valuable to the creators.

It is perhaps worth questioning whether we are sincere when we say these things and under what conditions these statements are true.

A related phenomenon: sometimes we haven’t invited patrons into the process as much as thrust it upon them. Sometimes works ‘in development’ are not advertised as such; they are rather deceptively called ‘previews’ or ‘world premieres’. By this I mean (for example) preview periods which producers or artists use to make significant changes to a piece, or works that are essentially being developed in performance at one or more venues on their way to New York (though being sold to audiences as if they were finished).

Recently there has been a good deal of chatter and discussion about the impact of amateur critics or passionate patrons (and recently a professional critic or two) blogging or tweeting reviews or comments on works ‘in development’ or shows ‘in preview’. In general it seems these have been seen by artists and producers as breaches of trust. But given the growing power and influence of consumers, and given that we have welcomed them in and charged them money and promoted the importance of their presence and opinions, is it any wonder that they now want (or feel entitled or even encouraged) to blog about their experiences?

While some may wish that we could enter into ‘contracts’ with patrons and require them to respect the artistic process and hold their tongues, this strikes me as impractical, unenforceable, and potentially destructive to relationships with patrons. Here are some other options, posed as (quite sincere) questions:

  • Do we need to do away with works-in process for the general public and simply present work that is finished and ready for review?
  • If we do works-in-process, do we need to be much more honest and explicit with audiences about our reasons for doing them and what we consider their role to be (or not to be)? (We might start by figuring this out for ourselves.)
  • Is it possible that if a work-in-process gets a dig by a patron or amateur critic that readers are astute enough to know that the piece is still being rehearsed and will wait to form their opinions on whether or not to attend?
  • Is it possible that if a blogger writes a piece dismissing a work in its development he or she may return and write again about the evolution of the piece and that this story might be more interesting than simply hearing about the finished product?
  • Is it possible that any conversation about a work (negative or positive) is better than no conversation at all and will likely make people more inclined to see the piece?
  • Is it possible that among the opinions expressed by passionate patrons and amateur critics about works-in-process that we might actually find some valuable insights?

One final question regarding works-in-process that are disguised as ‘previews’ and ‘world premieres’: putting aside for the present moment the (perhaps quite legitimate) reasons why such things occur, we might ask ourselves whether a public performance that is being used to make major changes to an artistic work should be called something else.

Dress Rehearsal, perhaps?

 

Arts Ed: An opportunity for arts nonprofits to create shared value?

A new acquaintance recently recommended the Jan-Feb 2011 HBR article, “Creating Shared Value“ by Michael E. Porter and Mark R. Kramer. The authors define the concept of shared value as “policies and operating practices that enhance the competitiveness of a company while simultaneously advancing the economic and social conditions in the communities in which it operates.”

The article, which is compelling, gives several examples of policies and practices that create shared value, including: food companies traditionally focused on taste and quantity refocusing on the fundamental need for better nutrition; firms focused on holding down wage levels and reducing benefits refocusing on the positive effects that a living wage, safety, and wellness programs can have on employee productivity; and firms re-conceiving products to serve disadvantaged communities and by doing so developing robust new markets. One of the recurring ideas of Porter and Kramer is that companies need to shift the short-term/zero-sum mindset that investing in ‘doing good’ will harm profits. The authors posit that companies that refocus on creating societal and economic value, in the long term, can generate increased profits.

It strikes me that arts nonprofits may have a similar short-term/zero-sum mindset when it comes to investments in arts education: because such investments don’t pay off in immediate returns at the box office, and may siphon resources away from other areas, many will not invest in arts ed, or will invest only in response to incentives, when dedicated funding is available (and available only for that purpose). Moreover, those arts education departments and programs that are created (even with dedicated funding) often seem to receive insuficient organizational attention and resources.  

On Twitter a few days ago, someone referred to education in arts organizations as the ‘tail wagging the dog.’ I wonder if this idea stems from another issue–the sector having at once too liberal and too narrow a conception of what it means to exist for ‘charitable and educational’ purposes? On the one hand we posit that our educational purposes are fulfilled simply by putting on shows or exhibits and creating program notes; on the other, when we decide to invest in ‘education’ programs, they often end up being limited to two types of activity: kids at craft tables or adults listening to erudite lectures.

One of the definitions of education provided by Wikipedia is ‘the act or process of imparting or acquiring particular knowledge or skills’. There seems to exist a far greater range of knowledge and skills and means of imparting and acquiring them than arts nonprofits are currently embracing. Given the newly published NEA report indicating a significant correlation between taking an arts course and adult participation, increased demand for arts education and participation activities (noted by the National Arts Index), and the dearth of such activities for some members of society, there would seem to be tremendous opportunity for nonprofit arts groups to respond to this societal need.

As I suggested a couple weeks ago, it does not seem unreasonable to think that addressing this societal need could provide new (earned and contributed) revenue streams for arts organizations, and (in the long term) increase interest in performances, exhibitions, etc. In my previous post on the subject I suggested arts/ed hybrids as a possible solution– but by no means do I think this is the only or best path forward. What does seem clear, however, is that arts organizations that want to pursue this path need to take the role seriously and invest accordingly.

If doing so seems to be at odds with a mission ‘to produce excellent shows’ then why not consider a dual mission and add the statement ‘and to help members of our community gain the knowledge and skills necessary to have an expressive life’ (thanks Bill Ivey)?

I often hear organizations protest that arts education is the role of government, not arts nonprofits. Perhaps, but nonprofits were created to fill societal needs that government either cannot fill, or chooses not to fill. Who better than nonprofit arts groups to step in and invest in developing quality resources to meet the societal need—and if Porter and Kramer are right—to potentially strengthen themselves while doing so? The Joffrey Ballet’s investments in dance classes for the public, which yielded significant returns to the organizations strikes me as a great example of this. And there are many more, including Elizabeth Streb’s Trapeze Academy, (which I’ve mentioned before), Chicago Symphony Orchestra’s Beyond the Score programs, and  the Metropolitan Opera’s Live in HD broadcasts and ancillary programs. To my mind, these organizations are creating ‘shared value’.

Image of TMobile Do-Re-Mi Flash Mob at Antwerp Central Station.

Perhaps we need to rethink which nonprofit arts groups are considered leaders in their fields?

Many have written in the past week on the pending and proposed eliminations of the Kansas, Texas, and South Carolina state arts agencies (among others). For a roundup of the news on this front I recommend this post on Createquity. Some see these attacks as yet another sign that the country is filled with philistines, some see them as symbolic or purely political, and others as the reasonable end of decades of disregard by arts organizations of their communities-at-large.

The arts (which in the minds of most people equates with ‘the fine arts’) are clearly not everyone’s cup of tea (and no amount of rhetoric will probably change this); having said this, it would be shortsighted to dismiss current attacks as being driven primarily by barbarians. Many politicians evidently perceive that they can safely target the arts for cuts on the basis of their being exclusive, elitist, extravagant, or wealthy (and suggest that taxes and subsidies would be better directed elsewhere) because the arts often serve and are defended by a relatively small percentage of their constituencies. Furthermore, and rather unfortunately,these arguments against the arts are not just political rhethoric; they are reasonable accusations that can be plausibly lobbed at more than a few so-called ‘flagship’ nonprofit arts groups.

Candidly, I find it increasingly difficult to defend why a nonprofit theater company (even, and especially, outside of NYC) needs to charge $100+ for its tickets, or why a nonprofit opera company needs to charge nearly twice as much, if not more. I’ll save for another day my thoughts on the downsides of coupling the price of admission and the value of the arts experience in the minds of consumers, but for now suffice it to say I agree with those who have expressed the opinion that lowering ticket prices (or otherwise reducing financial barriers) is the number one change that many flagship, fine arts groups need to make–both to demonstrate that they are earnest about being ‘inclusive’ and to increase attendance.

Secondly, for decade upon decade, many arts organizations have essentially paid lipservice to their educational missions, despite the fact that many people do not have meaningful exposure to the arts growing up and there is research that suggests that such exposure is linked to adult participation. (It seems that it would be in the best interest of arts groups to take their educational missions more seriously.) Nonetheless, I recognize that, in particular, hands-on participation activities are not (today) a core competency of many arts groups (although one might posit that over the next 10 years they will need to become so).

Given research demonstrating a link between hands-on participation and attendance, what if (over the next five years) 30 percent of all nonprofit arts organizations were (voluntarily) re-engineered as arts education hybrids, specifically designed to provide sustained adult and youth arts participation activities as their primary, if not exclusive, purpose? Perhaps doing so would (1) be a more effective method (than current practices by arts groups) for broadening and deepening engagement with the arts; (2) eventually lead to an increase in attendance and enjoyment by people at traditional organizations whose primary purpose is to produce or present great exhibitions and performances; and (3) in the short term, bring new revenues into the sector and reduce competition for audiences and resources?

Finally, at a time when many Americans do not have jobs, cannot pay their mortgages, and cannot afford other essentials it’s easy to pin adjectives like extravagant and wealthy on the arts when they continue to show up in the news under headlines such as these: (1) leading organization needs bailout (again); (2) leading organization breaks ground on fancy new building despite recession; (3) leading arts group unable to afford fancy new building built five years ago; (4) leading organization announces high-priced, celebrity-studded show or gala that is guaranteed to sell out; (5) executive of leading arts group making in the ‘high six figures’ takes 10 percent cut in pay due to recession; (6) leading arts group closes its doors after years of accumulated deficits, mounting debts, financial mismanagement, overspending, and poor board oversight. Headlines like these corroborate the perception that arts organizations do not merit subsidies because they are already wealthy or spend more than is necessary, wise, or justifiable.

The large majority of organizations are not exclusive, elitist, extravagant, and wealthy; but those that are, particularly when they are heralded as ‘leaders’, give the nonprofit arts sector a bad rap. Perhaps organizations that would prefer to target and price their performances exclusively to the upper middle class, who believe that the arts primarily exist to serve the highly educated cultural elite, who are not interested in fulfilling their educational and charitable missions, or who lack the will or discipline to exercise fiscal moderation, should be restructured as private, for-profit, membership-based clubs?

Or if that’s a preposterous idea, at the very least it may be time to question whether such organizations should continue to be lauded as exemplars of the nonprofit arts realm? Perhaps we need a new conception of what constitutes a ‘leading’ nonprofit arts organization in the 21st century? It may be time to set the public record straight.

Image of fallen chess king by Herbert Kratky, licensed at Shutterstock.com.

Slow Food: a model for the arts and culture sector?

Capay heirloom tomatoes at Slow Food Nation

In 1986, a McDonald’s opened near the historic Spanish Steps in Rome. It was the inciting incident that prompted culinary writer Carlo Petrini to launch Slow Food, a grassroots movement and counter-revolution to the fast food industry, which had ‘revolutionized’ dining beginning in the early twentieth century. I’ve been wondering the past couple years whether the ‘high arts’ sphere in the US might benefit from modeling some of Slow Food’s strategies. For example:

  • Through festivals and events, Slow Food connects everyday people (not just ‘major donors’ or ‘underserved youth’) directly with the farmers and artisans from their community because it believes if you have a relationship with your local poultry farmer, and understand how he raises his birds, you may be more likely to give him your business rather than Tyson.
  • Slow Food knows that many taste buds have become accustomed to fast food so it helps adults and kids reawaken their senses and study all aspects of food by offering Taste Education events that are an integral and enjoyable aspect of what they do (as opposed to supplementary and pedantic, patronizing, or cursory). 
  • Slow Food values what you do in your own kitchen as much as what Alice Waters does at Chez Panisse. It tries to encourage (rather than ignore or dismiss) your inner Alice Waters.  Slow Food restaurants are but one component of a comprehensive strategy for changing the relationship between people and food. 

Indeed, to fight the impact of big agribusiness Slow Food’s primary strategy was not to open upscale restaurants and send out brochures announcing: “A world-class meal featuring olive oil-soaked ladotiri cheese from Greece, lentils from Abruzzi, sausages made from Sienese wild boar raised in Tuscany, and a dessert featuring Vesuvian apricots – $140 per person.”

If it had, one can imagine the implicit message to the people tossing the brochure in the trashcan on their way to grab a burger at the diner on the corner might have been: “We think you will probably feel more comfortable eating somewhere else.” 

Here’s what I see:  Plenty of Boomers and others who have ‘no time’ for the ballet are spending plenty of time growing their own herbs; browsing farmers markets, buying organic cheeses, artisanal breads, and heirloom fruits and vegetables; and preparing gourmet feasts in their Viking-stove-equipped kitchens. Others are spending the equivalent of tickets to the ballet (in time and money) dining at Slow Food restaurants. While it’s hard to know how much of this gastronomic enthusiasm can be credited to Slow Food (as opposed to other factors), the list of accomplishments on its Web site would appear to indicate that Slow Food is making headway with its revolution through food.

Can we say the same about the ‘arts and culture sector’ – particularly the ‘high end’ of it? We’ve created more organizations, but have we brought more people over to the arts cause? And what is our cause, anyway? If, like Carlo Petrini in 1989, we are faced with the difficult reality that there is declining appreciation for what we do, might we need to focus our efforts on changing the relationship between people and art? If so, can the arts achieve that goal with its current strategies?

Heirloom Tomatoes Image available under a Creative Commons license, found at Wikimedia Commons, & originally posted to Flickr by mercedesfromtheeighties at http://flickr.com/photos/51314692@N00/2812518700.

Who has access to ‘culture’? Who gets to define it?

Last week, I wrote a response to a blog by Judith Dobrzynski in which she asked, “Are we, as a country, defining the arts down?”  I essentially challenged her question. Responses to my blog varied, with one person calling my views ‘nonsense’. A few days ago, I happened to read a provocative new pamphlet by Counterpoint, the British Council’s think tank, called “Culture and Class,” which goes straight to the crux of last week’s conversation. Author John Holden describes a culture war being waged on two fronts:  the first concerns who has access to ‘culture’ (as traditionally defined) and the second concerns who gets to decide what ‘culture’ is, in the first place.

The director of Counterpoint writes in the preface to the pamphlet:  “… at a time when we know that the gap between rich and poor is at its widest, worldwide, and likely to widen as the economic recession deepens, we are entirely failing to address the direct role played by culture in perpetuating these distinctions.” Using the UK as a case study, Holden argues for a more democratic definition of culture as the first step towards a more egalitarian society.  

To achieve a more democratic culture, he asserts that two things need to happen in parallel: a shift from cultural exclusion to cultural inclusion and a shift from culture defined by a narrow elite to culture created by everyone. He then describes three different groups that affect the ability of people to participate in culture, as follows:

  • The cultural snobs are a small but still influential group, typified not only by their allegiance to certain art forms and periods, but by their insistence that only the already educated should enjoy them.
  • The neo-mandarins are ‘cultivated’ and are cultural enthusiasts who wish to share their enthusiasms with others. They believe it is patronizing to assume that anyone is incapable of understanding and enjoying culture and are keen to educate them in ‘high’ culture.
  • The new cosmopolitans respect, enjoy, and are knowledgeable about Shakespeare, Berlioz, and Fra Bartolommeo and the rest [but also] find cultural quality (meaning emotive power, intellectual stimulation, inventiveness and skill) in popular music, folk art, product design, Youtube uploads – and even in new media and film. The fact that some of these are readily embraced by masses of people and are ‘popular culture’ does not bother them. 

I was glad to see all three of these perspectives (and others) represented in the volley of comments to last week’s blog.  The conversation about how ‘culture’ (or ‘art’) is defined and who gets to define these terms is an important one; and “Culture and Class” is a stimulating text on the topic.

Return to top of page

an ArtsJournal blog

This blog published under a Creative Commons license