Nonprofit arts organizations that refuse to tend to the un-served among us just bolster the elitism epithets, deservedly so. But artists can make the kind of magic that makes lives better for everyone, especially those who need help.
I had a set-to recently with an arts administrator who didn’t believe that Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs was applicable to the arts. I won’t quote this administrator, but I’ll give you the gist. They mentioned that they didn’t understand why those at the bottom of the pyramid couldn’t self-actualize with the arts, even though that sentiment goes against accepted sociology and psychological data.
Maslow’s theory was elegantly simple: human beings are motivated by a hierarchy of needs, the most basic of which must, more or less, be met before higher needs can be tackled successfully.
In practice, like Elizabeth Kübler-Ross’ famed stages of grief, hierarchical needs don’t happen in a particular order. People from many cultures (India, for example), can be hungry and happy simultaneously.
That said, the dismissal of the neediest of the hierarchies—the physiological and survival needs of food, water, warmth, and a place to sleep, for example—by this arts administrator was callous and missed the mark. As we all know, it is not that arts organizations produce art that elicits support, it is when nonprofit arts organizations produce impact that they become fundable.
The only people who will support a nonprofit arts organization that does no service to its community except produce art (they don’t, after all, create art) are those who want to see it. If there are lesser efforts to engage in education models, that would be highly fundable if only the organizations collected real data that showed the participants increased their education. Just showing up is not enough. Not even 80% of life, despite what a famous, now-discredited, comedy director once said.
It got me to thinking about what makes a region great. The greatest place would have enough jobs and money for all its people but still be affordable for those who can make it better. People would want to come there, regardless of ethnicity, age, or orientation. They’d turn their region not into a melting pot, where a lot of disparate things become one blob; but into a stewpot, where a lot of disparate things make other disparate things better.
Artists are those people who can make cities better. As urban theorist Richard Florida said, “Metropolitan regions with high concentrations of artists exhibit a higher level of economic development.” As nonprofit arts organizations close around the country—it seems as though the numbers are increasing, not decreasing—certain cities are going to have to face a future without a substantial number of artists living in them. But the most innovative ones will take a different tack.
In Lancaster, California, a former train stop in the high desert region just north of Los Angeles that had become a highly-populated exurb, the downtown was in trouble. They put together a plan to revitalize the crumbling, continuingly vacant downtown with artists at the hub of the solution. Artists want to create art, make their cities special, and be recognized—as they are in other parts of the world—as catalysts for positive change in society, not just as painters of pretty pictures, happy little dancers, or guitar-playing buskers.
Arbor Lofts has a strict admission policy for renters. They must be visual artists and must use their apartment as their residence. They are provided a modern place to live with extra amenities such as 220V balcony outlets for kilns and other high-energy tools. And their rent is commensurate with their income with some apartments renting to those who make no more than 30% of the area’s annual median income, which is already comparatively low (August 2023: $64,242 – 30% of which is 19,273).
The result? $130 million in private investment in downtown Lancaster; 1,100 temporary construction jobs; 50 new businesses and all their new jobs. Sales tax has doubled, and property values rose 10% in the first 3 years of the project.
Lancaster should expand this project.
Manhattan Plaza, a set of two luxury high-rises that were built during a city-wide bankruptcy scare in 1977, became a haven for artists. The owners, seeing a debacle in the making of trying to sell high-cost apartments back in the 1970s, turned to the city for ideas. The city used the Mitchell Lama program, created in 1955, to turn the buildings’1,900 apartments into a mix of middle-income apartments, Section 8 apartments, and some inexpensive senior apartments.
Manhattan Plaza has allowed at least some lucky artists to remain in the theater district instead of moving out to the furthest sections of Queens, Brooklyn, or New Jersey in order to further their careers.
New York should expand this project.
So, as we bandy the ideas behind nonprofit arts organizations being essential (they’re not), we can still make room for the fact that artists can create a burgeoning, ever-improving great city process by, well, creating art.
Let’s say your city were one in which the downtown has been mostly vacated, like Lancaster. People are living outside of town and shopping in malls. They’ve just spent the last few years pent up, either by disease, fear, or by choosing to work from home. What would happen if your city were to take its most vacant areas and plan a city of art, starting with housing?
What would happen if 1,000 units were built to accommodate artists: visual, dancers, singers, actors, directors, technicians, musicians – all of it? Base the rent on their actual income, but require them to work with the current local businesses to increase their viability, attraction, and revenues (they’d want to, anyway).
What would happen to your city when every storefront becomes an artistic opportunity, every empty space becomes a potential performance area, and every school receives visits from teaching artists who work through the local districts rather than through an arts organization?
What about nonprofit arts organizations who never charge for admission because they’re producing hyper-local work with local artists on the streets of your city in order to uplift the poorest and most underserved among us, bringing social service agencies along to help needy people get the services they deserve? Wouldn’t they finally become fundable? Relevant? Indispensable?
Artists aren’t the problem. They’re the solution. Give them affordable housing and watch your city grow and become a magnet for equity, revenues, and most importantly, livability.
Alan’s new book, “Scene Change: Why Today’s Nonprofit Arts Organizations Have to Stop Producing Art and Start Producing Impact” will be released in just a few days! CLICK HERE TO ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES.
2 launch events scheduled for the Seattle area (with more to come soon across the country):
Saturday, February 3: The Book Tree – Time TBA
Saturday, February 10: Seattle Repertory Theatre – 5:00 in the Leo K. Rotunda
If you live in the UK, CLICK HERE to order. If you live in Australia, CLICK HERE.
And, of course, it is available for pre-order on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and other large bookstores. If you can’t find it, just give the bookseller the ISBN: 978-1-80341-446-1. They’ll know what to do.
A few advance copies may be made available for those booking conferences, reading engagements, and speaking engagements. Recruit your local bookstore, conference panel, or boardroom to get a visit from Alan.
SPECIAL OFFER! For a limited time, Alan can offer a free copy for every board member of your nonprofit arts organization when you sign up for a consultation. Contact him at alan@501c3.guru for details.
Leave a Reply