A supply-and-demand approach to the arts?

Does this man look like a dangerous radical?

Actually, Craig Smith is the very non-threatening classical music and arts critic for the Santa Fe New Mexican. But he has a rather unorthodox proposal for arts organizations during our global economic meltdown.

Smith e-mailed me in response to my Sunday story in The Times, "The Ageless Audience," examining the myth/reality of the graying audience for live performing arts. We ended up chatting a bit about the economy because, really, who talks about anything else these days?

Included in one of Smith's e-mails was this little gem: "Speaking as a former nonprofit administrator and fundraiser, I think [performing arts] groups should be looking to form partnerships or mergers, or even shut down and pass the assets on to healthier groups, if necessary, to keep their mission alive. As Jung quoted Freud: 'Sometimes the doctor should not try to cure at all costs.' Ditto for nonprofits: better to end an organization's life and pass assets on."

Whoa. We've all heard the phrase "art for art's sake" -- but how about giving up art for some other artist's sake? Somehow it's hard to imagine arts groups, fiercely individualistic -- dare we say egotistical -- as they are, hanging it up so another theater/symphony/dance company might survive.

A number of years ago I interviewed the president of a major East Coast symphony orchestra who suggested that, instead of complaining that the audience for live classical music is too small, orchestras should play fewer concerts. "I say take the OPEC approach -- reduce the supply of oil," said the executive, in an apt metaphor for these times. Not exactly Smith's point, but in the same vein.

Should arts groups be willing to call it their mission to preserve the arts community as a whole, even if that means merging with another -- or in the extreme, shutting down altogether?  "It would require self-sacrifice from some people, and put some out of a job quite possibly," Smith writes. "But organizations with similar missions banding together ... could save energy, time, and resources they could then apply to doing what they are supposed to do: help, excite, refresh, renew, feed, counsel, support, cheer, nourish, nurse, and heal."

What do you think? Let us know.

-- Diane Haithman

Photo courtesy of Santa Fe New Mexican

Comments

[Chad Bauman]

Or maybe we should exmaine why there is a decline in audiences? In this case, it is pretty clear that the economy and markets will push more and more people to guard their disposable income. However, when you cut arts education completely from the curriculum of your school systems, is it really a shock that audiences shrink? Using the OPEC example--if we didn't create products that used oil, then OPEC would be out of business no matter how they regulated the production of their product. We are no longer creating cultural consumers--that my friends, is the main issue.

[Tamboli]

Interesting idea although perhaps there is a more worthy target. We could choose less support for meaningless consumer tchotskies, trashy carbon hungry movies, mindless tv shows and offensive, illiterate sound waves, all of which contribute to the dumbing down of America. This would create space for unique original objects and quality, meaningful performances that demonstrate substance, thoughtfulness and sincere commitment.

[Daniel Gerroll]

The idea is neither interesting nor sensible. There should be an INCREASE in performance during an economic crisis. Sure the provision of private support is likely to dry up but public money should be made available and spread around. In the 1930s theatre and film boomed. It helped that the Govt decided to spend its way out of the crisis - thank you FDR and Keynes. On another note, in 1987 Lily Tomlin came to work and said 'dont panic, at times like these its fortune tellers and entertainers who do well.'

[Uncle Zed]

what a dumb idea. if only financially thriving arts groups were 'chosen' to survive, in music we'd be stuck with 100% RAP. the taste of the majority does not necessarily embrace what is fine in fine arts. i, for one, enjoy events where the audience is not large.

[Joey Castaneda]

It is a dumb idea. If smaller groups threw in the towel, you'd have a lot of communities without access to the performing arts. The only companies that would thrive would be the great metropolises, e.g. LA, NY, Chicago, etc. It's the smaller companies that offer a deeper appreciation for the performing arts and easier access, certainly with ticket prices and location.

[Floyd Rumohr]

Interesting timing of this article from the Stages of Learning perspective, which has been in the process of merging for over a year. I began to seriously contemplate sharing resources to sustain the mission of the organization when I learned of the JP Morgan Chase merger sometime ago. With the economy only getting worse, a merger is prudent and wise in my view.

The cover story of our newsletter, Spotlight, describes the process so far and might be useful to readers. I anticipate the newsletter to post to our Web site at http://www.stagesoflearning.org during the week of October 20 for those interested.

- Floyd Rumohr
President & CEO
Stages of Learning

[Andrew Russo]

I say 'Amen' to Craig Smith. I've pursued that very same idea in Upstate New York with mixed results. It is nearly impossible to get certain groups to open up, due to the points of ego that Ms. Haithman mentions. Unfortunately, the fierceness of people's ideals often causes them to continue putting on events with little resources that are mediocre in preparation and poor in attendance. A bit of sacrificing on the sides of several organizations with some mutuality of purpose can, when executed well, lead towards better artistic results and healthier turnout without selling anyone out. Let's hope that organizations look to build teams rather than trenches in their communities!

[nikos zoggas]

Partnerships, mergers, and shared resources have proved viable and sustainable options for nonprofit organizations for decades, and should be viewed across disciplines not just in the arts. Many community arts projects have demonstrated positive results by entering into hospitals, schools and a variety of other civic venues. These relationships could and should be explored further to flush out the possibilities mutual benefits.

Many small performing arts groups have shared staff, space, and marketing, and turned lobbies into visual arts galleries and these efforts helped them evolve viable and sustainable programs. These actions should be part of all organizations planning actions and designed and implemented as part of prudent governance. Institutions, mid sized npo's, and grass roots groups should all be talking to each other and creating ways to share audiences and support resources for their own survival as well as the communities benefit.

[Ron Evans]

I agree with Chad that when people are not exposed to the arts growing up, they don't have a love for it later. There is new research out recently that says that the love of the arts doesn't come from just watching it growing up; it comes from actually participating. So it's the painting classes where kids actually paint, or the marching bands, or the children's theatre that makes the difference in the long run. But I do agree that if arts organizations cannot learn from their errors and adjust their behaviors with measurable metrics, they should allow resources to be redirected to arts groups that can do these things.