Yesterday (October 23, 2011) on NPR's Weekend Edition - Sunday reporter Joel Rose examined the recent upward trend of arts giving: it's improved -- in fact, giving has increased by over 5% in the past twelve months.
This is significant news.
First, it indicates that the economy is improving. (It could also indicate that there is a shift toward community values in still-difficult times, but perhaps that is too utopian of me.)
Second, it provides hope for the future of cultural institutions. (A Boston Globe article last month noted that job growth in the museum and culture sector was negative, so greater giving would surely help.)
But...
Giving is up for established, older-audience, white-majority, well-endowed institutions.
The small, the scrappy, and the local are still struggling.
Rose's example compares the Metropolitan Opera with Arts Engine. Which one have you heard of?
The data comes from a study by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy entitled Fusing Arts, Culture and Social Change: High Impact Strategies for Philanthropy
The concept of participatory philanthropy may be vital to the success of "the other guys" of the museum world....
Monday, October 24, 2011
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Participatory Philanthropy!
Tuesday, October 18, 2011, WBUR radio hosted a story by Andrea Shea "Harvest Parties Celebrate Bumper Crop Of Locally-Made Art."
It is the story of how the Cambridge Center for Adult Education (CCAE) is creating Community Supported Art.
Yup, you read that right: it's a CSA for art.
What a fabulous concept! This completely fits with readings and discussions we've been having in museum management, especially our class earlier this week (October 17) about financing.
The CCAE CSArt program has 50 members chip a $300 share for three boxes of three pieces each, distributed one each at a series of "harvest parties."
The nine artists in the program each receive $1500. In return they produce 50 works each (whew!). Program director Susan Hartnett calls this “seed capital,” according to Shea's reporting.
Artist Grace Durnford describes this process of exchange “monetizing" her pieces. That's a strange term to use, but one familiar to any Blogger.... and it, and the “seed capital” comment, raise the issue of how we fund art and the museums which host art and other forms of material culture.
Income, as learned in class, can come from several potential streams: earned, investment income, raised, and public/government sources. Earned is gate fees and other revenue-generating sources -- anything the institution can sell, including goodwill. For museums and private schools this often includes facility rental, too. Investment income only comes if one has an endowment or excess capital this is invested. Government/public sources as our professor Laura Roberts explained includes tax credits from charitable donations. [Yes, tax policy is an instrument of social will and deductions can generate social goods. Think on that...!] This leaves raised income, which is usually the province of the Development Office.
While larger, established, more traditional museums have Development Offices, however, artists and smaller museums do not. And, smaller and newer museums need to look to ways to add to their income stream, especially if they are trying to build the capital they need to actually form an endowment.
Enter "venture philanthropy." It's the practice of using venture capital techniques in a philanthropic context, usually on a smaller and more energetic scale. We're seen this practice work in schools with DonorsChoose.org. We've seen it in international development with micro-lending ventures,
such as Kiva and the Heifer Project. This week we were introduced to micro-philanthropy that harnesses the power of the group to produce venture philanthropy through an interview with Liza Roberts, head of Wake County Women’s Giving Network (NC). This group gives to women and children-supporting non-profits in their area by pooling their member resources. The cost? $1200 per member a year, with a five-year commitment. Only $100 of that $1200 goes to overhead -- an enviable stat in the world of non-profit finance! This coming month they'll announce grants totalling $140,000 to five organizations. Not bad for a group started by some women who were tired of the philanthropic rubber chicken circuit and wanted to see more bang for their buck!
In addition to getting a "giving circle" grant, other forms of "crowd-sourced" revenue for museums seem possible to me. The CCAE CSArt program is one possibility for a museum as well. It could blur the line between commercial art and the museum as a broker, however, if major donor's galleries or artists or artists whom they hold in their private collections are used. See the AAMD Guidelines for some provoking questions that lead me to this. BUT what if a Children's Museum used art from children's classes as a fundraiser in this way? It could generate not only revenue, but greater buy-in for the kids, their parents, and the shareholder. The shareholder even could be someone other than the kid's grandparents.
Appealing to the smaller investor and using the power of the group for good makes a lot of sense. If 80% of the philanthropy in the U.S. is from individuals, as Prof. Roberts says, then appealing to individuals makes sense. If worries about the undue influence of a few donors is a concern -- say, someone in that 1% of the U.S. population who consolidating income -- why not invite more people to the group? Furthermore, at least one psychological study has shown that the group as whole can make better decisions than the individual. (Unless, perhaps, they're already very rich and their social conditioning and their "groupthink" has pre-determined their choices.) So, finding ways to involve a greater number of people in the funding of museums makes sense.
Ultimately, I would call this approach Participatory Philanthropy. It's clearly based on Nina Simon's thinking. Her October 12, 2011 blog entry "Equity in Arts Funding", in fact, is especially relevant here. But let's extend the participation to funding sources. The idea that more people could become participants in museums, and that their participation could generate funding to support their museum, is the point here.
I doubt we'll get away from the "Big Ask" completely but adding more "Group Supported Art" (and Artefacts) sounds like a good idea!
For more information on the Cambridge Center for Adult Education CSArt program, click here.
It is the story of how the Cambridge Center for Adult Education (CCAE) is creating Community Supported Art.
Yup, you read that right: it's a CSA for art.
 |
| Artist Grace Durnford, left, and Susan Hartnett, creator of the CSArt program (Andrea Shea/WBUR) from WBUR Radio; View their slideshow |
What a fabulous concept! This completely fits with readings and discussions we've been having in museum management, especially our class earlier this week (October 17) about financing.
The CCAE CSArt program has 50 members chip a $300 share for three boxes of three pieces each, distributed one each at a series of "harvest parties."
The nine artists in the program each receive $1500. In return they produce 50 works each (whew!). Program director Susan Hartnett calls this “seed capital,” according to Shea's reporting.
Artist Grace Durnford describes this process of exchange “monetizing" her pieces. That's a strange term to use, but one familiar to any Blogger.... and it, and the “seed capital” comment, raise the issue of how we fund art and the museums which host art and other forms of material culture.
Income, as learned in class, can come from several potential streams: earned, investment income, raised, and public/government sources. Earned is gate fees and other revenue-generating sources -- anything the institution can sell, including goodwill. For museums and private schools this often includes facility rental, too. Investment income only comes if one has an endowment or excess capital this is invested. Government/public sources as our professor Laura Roberts explained includes tax credits from charitable donations. [Yes, tax policy is an instrument of social will and deductions can generate social goods. Think on that...!] This leaves raised income, which is usually the province of the Development Office.
While larger, established, more traditional museums have Development Offices, however, artists and smaller museums do not. And, smaller and newer museums need to look to ways to add to their income stream, especially if they are trying to build the capital they need to actually form an endowment.
Enter "venture philanthropy." It's the practice of using venture capital techniques in a philanthropic context, usually on a smaller and more energetic scale. We're seen this practice work in schools with DonorsChoose.org. We've seen it in international development with micro-lending ventures,
such as Kiva and the Heifer Project. This week we were introduced to micro-philanthropy that harnesses the power of the group to produce venture philanthropy through an interview with Liza Roberts, head of Wake County Women’s Giving Network (NC). This group gives to women and children-supporting non-profits in their area by pooling their member resources. The cost? $1200 per member a year, with a five-year commitment. Only $100 of that $1200 goes to overhead -- an enviable stat in the world of non-profit finance! This coming month they'll announce grants totalling $140,000 to five organizations. Not bad for a group started by some women who were tired of the philanthropic rubber chicken circuit and wanted to see more bang for their buck! In addition to getting a "giving circle" grant, other forms of "crowd-sourced" revenue for museums seem possible to me. The CCAE CSArt program is one possibility for a museum as well. It could blur the line between commercial art and the museum as a broker, however, if major donor's galleries or artists or artists whom they hold in their private collections are used. See the AAMD Guidelines for some provoking questions that lead me to this. BUT what if a Children's Museum used art from children's classes as a fundraiser in this way? It could generate not only revenue, but greater buy-in for the kids, their parents, and the shareholder. The shareholder even could be someone other than the kid's grandparents.
Appealing to the smaller investor and using the power of the group for good makes a lot of sense. If 80% of the philanthropy in the U.S. is from individuals, as Prof. Roberts says, then appealing to individuals makes sense. If worries about the undue influence of a few donors is a concern -- say, someone in that 1% of the U.S. population who consolidating income -- why not invite more people to the group? Furthermore, at least one psychological study has shown that the group as whole can make better decisions than the individual. (Unless, perhaps, they're already very rich and their social conditioning and their "groupthink" has pre-determined their choices.) So, finding ways to involve a greater number of people in the funding of museums makes sense.
Ultimately, I would call this approach Participatory Philanthropy. It's clearly based on Nina Simon's thinking. Her October 12, 2011 blog entry "Equity in Arts Funding", in fact, is especially relevant here. But let's extend the participation to funding sources. The idea that more people could become participants in museums, and that their participation could generate funding to support their museum, is the point here.
I doubt we'll get away from the "Big Ask" completely but adding more "Group Supported Art" (and Artefacts) sounds like a good idea!
For more information on the Cambridge Center for Adult Education CSArt program, click here.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Fiscally-Responsible Museum Branding; or, Do They Have a T-Shirt for That? ;)
Last week in museum management class we were discussing Fiscal Responsibility. In many ways, it was about how to keep the integrity of the organization intact. In other words, what could harm the brand and some thoughts about what to do to keep brand identity strong and therefore consumer loyalty.
This might sound strange in relation to a museum, but really, if we’re talking about a non-profit that needs to focus its mission to deliver (educational) services, create a clientele, be participatory, and continue to exist, isn’t that about brand management?
Business strategies are not a bad thing. Business theory applied to non-profits, however, has things work a little differently. See an excellent article on working for a non-profit in MORE magazine, August, 2011, for explanations made by former heads of for-profit divisions who now work for non-profits: life is different.
As we wrangled with the question of business-museum relationships during class – for example, having a Louis Vuitton shop (profits going to LV) inside a special exhibit – my inner voice kept asking two questions:
1) Aren’t museums businesses (albeit non-profits)?
2) Are the issues of “curatorial independence” fitting to this time and place?
Question #1 has a simple answer I think: yes.
Question #2 led me down some interesting by-ways:
To Wit: How is that museum’s today are so separate from the collectors, the artists, and the visitors?
Historically, museum collections were the products of one person’s passion.
The collection itself was the personal property of that person. The acquisition of these objects were commodity transactions in and of themselves. The museum itself would have been established by that collector and their personal likes and dislikes dictate exhibition. The Higgins Armory Museum in Worcester, MA is one such example. The Frick in NYC is another. The genesis of many larger collections is the aggregation of such personal acquisitiveness, no?
Also, those who are insisting on museum exhibitions conforming to a certain standard seem to have two things in mind:
One, museums are supposed to be dusty and non-interactive.
Two, that museums as non-profits created to serve the educational interests of the public have a duty to the greater good, and “shameless commerce” is not part of that duty. In this view, museums are a public good. Yet, unlike true economic public goods, museums are run by private boards, not the public government.
So, really, are capitalist transactions out of place?
Frankly, we have commoditized a large number of public goods.
Education is one – schools are run on grants in order to overcome the budgetary shortfalls and private business have influence, from signs on football stadium fences to commercial ads in homeroom broadcasts. The Post Office is another – it is supposed to a be self-supporting business these days; hence the sales of "related products."
Given this line of thinking, why should any art go into a museum?
Why not just have gallery shows or personal collection viewings?
Or why not expose “curatorial control” as the rule by a few elite?
Or promote a shop inside the exhibit as an example of a participatory event?
hmmm….
Ultimately, I guess, it’s a question of maintaining institutional trust and educational purpose.
To do that, fitting the activities and associations of the museum to its mission and purpose, with an eye to that economic intangible of goodwill is important.
So, probably, shameless commerce is a no. But the lessons of Exit Through the Gift Shop still have me wondering… Should we be entering through the gift shop?
This might sound strange in relation to a museum, but really, if we’re talking about a non-profit that needs to focus its mission to deliver (educational) services, create a clientele, be participatory, and continue to exist, isn’t that about brand management?
Business strategies are not a bad thing. Business theory applied to non-profits, however, has things work a little differently. See an excellent article on working for a non-profit in MORE magazine, August, 2011, for explanations made by former heads of for-profit divisions who now work for non-profits: life is different.
As we wrangled with the question of business-museum relationships during class – for example, having a Louis Vuitton shop (profits going to LV) inside a special exhibit – my inner voice kept asking two questions:
1) Aren’t museums businesses (albeit non-profits)?
2) Are the issues of “curatorial independence” fitting to this time and place?
Question #1 has a simple answer I think: yes.
Question #2 led me down some interesting by-ways:
To Wit: How is that museum’s today are so separate from the collectors, the artists, and the visitors?
Historically, museum collections were the products of one person’s passion.
Also, those who are insisting on museum exhibitions conforming to a certain standard seem to have two things in mind:
One, museums are supposed to be dusty and non-interactive.
Two, that museums as non-profits created to serve the educational interests of the public have a duty to the greater good, and “shameless commerce” is not part of that duty. In this view, museums are a public good. Yet, unlike true economic public goods, museums are run by private boards, not the public government.
So, really, are capitalist transactions out of place?
Frankly, we have commoditized a large number of public goods.
Given this line of thinking, why should any art go into a museum?
Why not just have gallery shows or personal collection viewings?
Or why not expose “curatorial control” as the rule by a few elite?
Or promote a shop inside the exhibit as an example of a participatory event?
hmmm….
Ultimately, I guess, it’s a question of maintaining institutional trust and educational purpose.
To do that, fitting the activities and associations of the museum to its mission and purpose, with an eye to that economic intangible of goodwill is important.
So, probably, shameless commerce is a no. But the lessons of Exit Through the Gift Shop still have me wondering… Should we be entering through the gift shop?
Monday, October 3, 2011
Music affects the brain
Do you have a soundtrack for your life?
If so, you're not alone.
May athletes use am iPod as part of their warm-up routine, for example.
But did you know that there's brain-based research showing how different soundtracks can affect your brain's function?
Dr. Galina Mindlin, assistant professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, can show you how.
As reported in the Boston Globe online on September 28, 2011, Mindlin, who also runs the Brain Music Therapy Center, has shown the influence of music on the brain. The beats per minute have a definite effect. The association of memories and emotion with certain songs also have an impact. The actual impact varies with the individual, however.
While "Baby Mozart" music is not going to shape an infant into a genius, studying to Mozart can increase calm and focus.
The article gives suggestions for beats per minute for certain types of situational goals.
One question: is music's impact on the brain or the heart...?
If so, you're not alone.
May athletes use am iPod as part of their warm-up routine, for example.
But did you know that there's brain-based research showing how different soundtracks can affect your brain's function?
Dr. Galina Mindlin, assistant professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, can show you how.
As reported in the Boston Globe online on September 28, 2011, Mindlin, who also runs the Brain Music Therapy Center, has shown the influence of music on the brain. The beats per minute have a definite effect. The association of memories and emotion with certain songs also have an impact. The actual impact varies with the individual, however.
While "Baby Mozart" music is not going to shape an infant into a genius, studying to Mozart can increase calm and focus.
The article gives suggestions for beats per minute for certain types of situational goals.
One question: is music's impact on the brain or the heart...?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)