I wrote a comment I made on a blog post on arts participation by Ian David Moss on the American’s for the Arts Artsblog. I am reposting it here because I think it is a challenging topic that deserves continuing dialogue.
Hi Ian,
Interesting post on a tough topic. Mind if I challenge you on one thing?
I agree completely that the majority of arts organizations that present what the NEA defines as “benchmark arts activities” are going to have to radically transform to reach audiences that differ drastically in type from their current ones–people who are younger, located in rural areas, less wealthy or from different ethnic or social backgrounds.
On the other hand, I think to remind ourselves that just because 65% of Americans did none of these particular benchmark activities they did not participate in art. In fact, other studies have found data to suggest that art is a critical part of the lives of most people…it just isn’t the kind of art that our system has traditionally validated. In fact, Alan Brown’s work in the Inland Empire, one of the poorest and most ethnically diverse regions in California, suggests that a majority of people in that region not only participate in the arts, but actually create art of some kind. Our conventional definition of arts participation is antiquated and euro-centric, and leaves out many arts practices that are “indigenous” among younger and more diverse populations such as hip hop, quilting, dancing, film-making, and many heritage and religious activities. Many of these are created at professional levels of skill.
I think this underlines your point about the benchmark arts institutions needing to make a radical transformation if they want to reach the other 65%, but offers a slightly different frame on the challenge. If many of those who aren’t coming to conventional arts venues are already doing something creative, something that they enjoy, how do you convince them to spend their time with you instead?
I think the answer has something to do with 1) authentically appealing to what they value in a way that is authentic to you, 2) treating them with respect, and making them feel comfortable and welcome, and 3) showing them a really good time. But even so, at a certain point we might have to accept that every kind of art doesn’t speak to everybody…and that is ok.
The implication for the support system for the arts is slightly different. If our system (mostly) validates and supports some arts and not others…And the type of arts that are validated and supported appeal to some people and not others…And the people who are interested in the validated kind of art tend to be the most privileged in our society… Something ain’t right.
I think you have to begin to look at how cultural market forces are mediating creativity. For example, most everyone I know is trying this week to get to Miami Basel, and this kind of acceptance of top down activity is endemic to the problems of authentic accessibility your raise. Funding agencies like the NEA (if it survives the upcoming budget cuts) or the handrul of foundations providing direct support to artists are the smaller part of the financial ecology driving the arts and culture sector. If artists of all classes and colors are hewing to market validation, then something ain’t right there. I would propose that rather than a euro-centric issue linked to a bygone multicultural dialogue (I would further argue that there has been substantial change and equity in the arts) we are dealing with class issues governed by market capitalism and the notion of place as a factor in distribution of cultural capital. Contemporary art is further governed and mediated by the art academies, which do privilege those who can afford $50,000 per year tuition. These academic networks are setting the tone, as gatekeepers, of what is seen, who is included, and the essential aesthetic decisions which show up as images in art forum magazine. This dynamic is class and place based, furthering contributing to the imbalances you discuss. Thank you for your thoughts ideas.