“Arts Groups Struggle to Stay Relevant”

Arts Groups Struggle to Stay Relevant,” is the title of a recent column by Kerry Lengel, theatre critic for the Arizona Republic.  In it, he summarizes the challenges facing the arts and culture community of the region due to significant leadership changes at major institutions, declines in private and corporate philanthropy, and competition from “digital entertainment options.”  He notes, “Programming that appeals to a wide audience is a crucial part of the relevance question.”

Does art have to be popular to be relevant, and who decides?  In one of its practical lessons, “The Big Picture: The Marketing Challenge for the Arts,” The National Arts Marketing Project asserts, “it is important to remember that the audience determines what is relevant to them, not the artist.”  Does that mean that for art to be relevant it needs to be something the audience already connects with and understands? NO.  It is useful to remember why nonprofit arts organizations have federal tax-exempt status. What is their tax-exempt purpose? If you guessed “art-making” you would be wrong.  The exempt purposes listed in section 501c3 of the Internal Revenue Code are:

“charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.”

Many nonprofit tax-exempt arts organizations qualify as such because of the inclusion of “the advancement of education” in the definition of charitable.  The “Art of Video Gamesart iof video games exhibit at the Phoenix Art Museum is inherently relevant to many people because video games are ubiquitous.  But museum director Jim Ballinger, quoted in the Republic article, ties the exhibit to the educational mission of a museum: “the idea of game theory as an educational device is staggeringly powerful in a positive way…so how can we harness that at the art museum? Something tells me we’re on the front end of some pretty interesting things to keep ourselves relevant.”  In other words, the museum – or any museum – can use game theory and digital interactivity to keep relevant those aspects of museums whose relevance is not inherently obvious.  A museum educates people about how its collections are relevant; interactivity can be one element of that educational effort. Similarly, a theatre company can live up to its “advancement of education” mission by educating its audience, contextualizing the relevance of its work.  If-you-build-it-they-will-come programming only works in baseball fantasy movies, not at civic performing arts centers.  The community-oriented programming a generative artist might consider superfluous to the artistic product is there to engage and incite interest – to educate the existing audience and the potential audience about the relevance of the work.

Endnote: In reviewing the definitions of “charitable purpose” for this post, I was struck too by this: “lessening neighborhood tensions.”  How can arts organizations lessen neighborhood tensions and in doing so become not only “relevant” but “necessary?”  This could be the up-side of the creative-placemaking movement – arts and culture not (solely) for economic development but for true community development.

About lindaessig

Linda Essig is director of Enterprise and Entrepreneurship Programs at the Herberger Institute for Design and the Arts at Arizona State University, including its award-winning arts entrepreneurship program, Pave: http://pave.asu.edu The opinions expressed on creativeinfrastructure are her own and not those of ASU. You can follow her on twitter @LindaInPhoenix and "like" the Pave Program in Arts Entrepreneurship at http://www.facebook.com/pages/pave-program-in-arts-entrepreneurship/386328970101 Find Pave's journal, Artivate, at http://artivate.org
This entry was posted in Arts funding, arts infrastructure, Arts policy, Technology and arts, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to “Arts Groups Struggle to Stay Relevant”

  1. Pingback: Another One Bites the Dust | Creative Infrastructure

  2. Linda,

    Isn’t that the problem? There is no NEA public funding for artists (except for writers for some odd reason) that doesn’t first have to be funneled through an arts organization. So if the IRS is saying that an arts organization’s mission can’t include art making, only art education, how does a arts organization follow the mission of the NEA and the IRS tax law? And where does that leave art making and artists in this shell game called ‘public support of the arts’?

    • lindaessig says:

      Richard:
      I think you may be reading the IRS definition (and my post) too narrowly. An arts organization’s mission can of course include art-making and it can fulfill its charitable purpose as a tax-exempt organization in a myriad of ways. What I am arguing is that it is up to arts organizations to educate the public about why their art-making is relavent — doing so is not the same as “arts education,” as the term is widely understoond. Note too that a significant portion of the NEA budget is distributed to state arts agencies as block grants; many of those state arts agencies provide grants to individual artists.

  3. John F. Kennedy once said “I see little of more importance to the future of our country…than full recognition of the place of the artist…Society must set the artist free to follow his vision where it takes him…And the nation which disdains the mission of art invites…the fate of having nothing to look backward to with pride and nothing to look froward to with hope.”

    Kennedy’s vision for the future eventually became the National Endowment for the Arts whose goals as stated in their Strategic Plan, FY 2012-2016 include the creation of art meeting the highest standards of excellence, engaging the public with diverse and excellent art, and promoting public knowledge and understanding about the contributions of the arts.

    It seems we have forgotten that the first item in the strategic plan is not education of the public but the support of artists and the creation of excellent art.

    • lindaessig says:

      Richard:
      The strategic plan of the NEA and the Internal Revenue Code are completely separate from one another. I strongly support public public funding for individual artists; individual artists are not tax-exempt arts organizations, however.

  4. Pingback: “Arts Groups Struggle to Stay Relevant” | Symposium Magazine

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s