premium wordpress themes

If it ain’t broke, fix it – non profit arts

On August 14, 2010, in Arts Advocacy , Opinion , by John McLachlan

This is a post from John McLachlan’s blog here .

The trick to surviving in this small, cash-strapped world of non-profit arts seems to me to be about taking the long view and using all the tools you have whether they be knowledge of opportunities, knowledge of the landscape and the world around you or even your “spidey” sense of where things are headed.

Cuts to arts funding are raging through the system right now in my home province of British Columbia. Organizations are freaking out as they receive letters telling them their funding is being cut by 50%, 60% and even 100% in some cases.

The hornets nest has been disturbed. Everyone is buzzing like crazy and looking for people to sting such as the Minister, the Premier, the Government in general and even other arts organizations who “got more than we did.”

Yes, having funding cut to zero is an emergency. Yes, having funding cut by 50% is serious. Organizations need to deal with it or maybe decide to fold and put their efforts to better use in a newer, more effective way.

Provided an organization isn’t dead and there is some chance of a future, even if it’s remote, then they’ve just been handed a great opportunity to remake themselves and be better because of it.

The biggest danger

The biggest danger I see for non-profits are the ones that have been funded to the point that they are still ok. It’s very easy to be lulled into complacency and not make the changes necessary to be more fit and strong.

“If it ain’t broke, you just haven’t looked hard enough” business author and strategist Tom Peters has been known to say. I think this advice for the non-profit arts sector is very timely.

I believe organizations should be opening up to new ideas and getting their ear to the ground, listening to members, talking to people outside their usual focus and, yes, looking down the road to how they could see the world being and how they could see their organization working in that new world.

What if they’d done that five years ago? Would they be in such dire shape today?

A common theme:

  • So many non-profits:
  • start out small and smart
  • grow
  • get funding
  • start new projects
  • get more funding
  • go after projects in different areas
  • get funding from only one or two sources
  • start feeling entitled to what they get
  • get sloppy
  • have too much staff
  • have an office space they can’t really afford
  • morph themselves to fit other project funding
  • lose their way and become mediocre
  • receive funding cuts
  • scream and rant
  • cut back
  • refuse to change
  • struggle along on life-support slowly becoming less and less relevant but taking years to die.

For god’s sake, if you are running a non-profit arts organization and you still have a pulse, REMAKE YOURSELF NOW.

1 Comments
Leave A Response

Tagged with: • • •

Cultural Democracy Equals Money for Guitar Strings

On July 18, 2010, in Arts Advocacy , Democracy , Opinion , by John McLachlan

By John McLachlan: This is a response to the idea of Cultural Democracy . discussed in the previous post on this site.

I wonder, do we really want cultural democracy? What would it look like?

I am conflicted on this issue.

We can talk in abstract terms but there comes a time when we have to narrow this down to actual examples of how the arts funding scene would change if a different model were developed.

Let’s look at a real example and how changing from this curatorial model could work. I co-ordinate the Community Presenters Assistance which is a program of the BC Arts Council and administered by the BC Touring Council.

The program provides funding to community presenters throughout the province who book touring artists as part of a season in their community. It includes both volunteer and professional presenters.

Once per year these presenters apply for a grant to assist with fees they pay professional artists. Only performances of professional artists are able to be supported through the program.

There are two levels of “curatorial” work done here. One is at the grants level itself where a peer review committee looks at each application to ensure it meets the requirements of the program and makes recommendations on funding level. In my opinion, the primary purpose of this committee is to be oversight of public funds. There is very little “artistic” meddling which frankly, is a good thing.

The other level of curatorial work is done by the presenters themselves when they choose who to book to perform in their communities.

The benefits of the current system are that you have people in each community choosing who will come and perform. I highly favour this method. If you didn’t do it this way, you’d have organizations like the BC Arts Council deciding which artists would work and where. Or, heaven forbid, you’d have governments telling you what you’d be doing. In some ways, the Canada Council, in choosing which artists to support is also saying who will thrive/who will die. It is always done with the best intentions as in “your heart is in the right place but your head is up your @%%”

Is the program perfect? Does it address everyone’s needs? Is it truly democratic? No, but… if we were to remove the curatorial aspect of this, what would we be left with? The program I’ve just described would be gone. And with it, a whole lot of small concert series and a whole lot less work for emerging artists who wish to tour. Is that a good thing? I don’t think so.

Perhaps, if we want to be democratic about this, we should just remove all funding for professional artists, companies and organizations. Let’s just give all the money to the arts councils around the province to set up programs for people to do art. But wait, isn’t that curatorial?

Let’s get really democratic and just give each citizen a cheque to spend on arts as they see fit. Based on how much our government spends now per capita on arts funding, I could buy a new set of guitar strings and a paintbrush.

I guess my point is, I think we still need both types of support.

We often talk of democracy as if it’s the height of a civilized world but since when is democracy perfect? We have elections now where fewer people voted for the party in power than didn’t. Is that democratic and fair? No, it’s messy.

I think we need the messy system we have but be open to making changes and adjustments.

What are your thoughts?

0 Comments
Leave A Response

Tagged with: •
© 2010 Arts Advocacy BC