Art Giving is Up, but....

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....

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.

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.

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?

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...?

Museums as Learning Organizations, or, why intent and its consistent application is important....

Earlier this week I heard a presentation by two General Managers of the Guest Experience at the Conner Prairie Interactive History Park: Aili McGill and John Elder.

Their comments were enlightening as was the class audience discussion afterward.

If museums are primarily educational in mission, then they should be learning institutions.

Learning institution is a term of Peter Senge and his followers. Senge is the top management guru of the 1990s and 2000s. His goal was to create an entire learning organization, from top to bottom. His book The Fifth Discipline is the cornerstone for organizational learning theory.

Senge’s ideas are picked up in Randi Korn's article about holistic organizations and intentionality. Her argument boils down to a simple precept: the entire museum, with all staff, needs to be focused on its mission, and purposefully make all actions directed to achieving that goal. In other words, the organization needs to live its intent.

This is hard to do. I am the veteran of several educational organizations' transition years and know well what designing the mission (via strategic planning) and living the mission can feel like. It doesn’t go smoothly and it doesn’t always go well. It's "living in interesting times" -- !

Enter Conner Prairie. As consultant and educator Laura Roberts argues, it is “the best example of intentionality” she can find. Certainly, the way in which this museum has clarified its mission and crafted its programs and staff experience to fit the intent of the museum. Conner Prairie presents how this did this on their website and through their DVD.

Several things that John and Aili mentioned resonated with the idea that museums as educational institutions and with the concept of holistic intentionality.

One, the institution as a whole really looked at mission and program and made sure that the entire institution was on target.

Two, the strategic planners involved everyone in the process of planning and made sure that those who were affected had input. The suggestions for how the program would work were made by those who saw who it worked or did not. Doing this was crucial because these are the people who actually know what’s going on and therefore have the data that is needed for planning. Also, it is necessary for buy in and implementation of program. Too often strategic planning it top down. In a school it would be top level management sequestered in a conference room for several days. Certainly the food service staff and security would not be involved. Yet who is the front line when something breaks? The "line staff" of security, food service, interpreters, etc.... Thus holistic intentionality.

Three, they crafted their approach to allow for downtime for the “guests” (visitors). They did this to enhance visitor learning. Allowing the learners enough time to process what they've learned so they remember it is called consolidation time. It is basic brain-based educational theory. It works.

By switching their approach from filing visitor vessels to interacting with guests, Conner Prairie staff began to educate.

Four, they shifted evaluation. This got them the greatest impact. Their evaluation shifted so that the rubrics looked for what was desired as results. This means that the person or product being assessed knows how to craft their performance to reach the goals. In education this is called “backward design” or understanding by design (UbD). It is essential to the curriculum planning process. Look at the work of Heidi Hayes Jacobs and Grant Wiggins for more on this.

As I listened to the questions and comments after the presentation, however, two areas of audience concern riled me.

1) A few people thought that the switch from content to process was ghastly.
I couldn’t disagree more. If learning involves the long-term retention of information and the knowledge how to use it, then a focus on process and building cognitive connections is much more important than trying to cram facts into someone else.

This position of building interconnections is the core of constructivism.

It’s also brain-based learning theory.

It’s also effective social psychology.

It’s also Web 2.0 social networking, and hence participatory museum fundamentals.

Ken Bain in What the Best College Teachers Do has demonstrated that the question of what people think about who can learn dictates their the purpose of education, their educational approach, and their results. To wit: if someone thinks that the ability to learn is static – that one is born with the ability to learn and cannot change – then their students won’t learn.

If you think people can’t change, then why the hell are you in teaching?

And, if a museum is about learning, then why would anyone involved in it belief that learning is fixed, that is a quantity, that it is an object, that it is one-way communication about facts?

So, the holistic organization is about learning and interaction.

The struggle reminds me of the controversy of VTS.

Shari Tishman, whom I adore, presents a good response in her argument that museums are for learning; see her essay here.

2) Why involve the whole organization in decision-making? The little people don't have much to add. (Ouch! is my response.)

Besides populist politics and good manners, it is good learning theory to involve everyone. (You know, Vygotskyan and Dewey-esque social learning; that sort of thing...) It’s also politic and effective.

Granted, not everyone will want to be involved, or agree with the new stragetic direction of the institution. Regrettably, there will be turnover. This is the sad experience. And it hurts if it’s you. But if the mission and intent is crafted by the whole organization with input and purpose, then those who participate can see if they want to buy in. Those who are new hires will fit themselves to the intent.

When we all know what that organization is all about, then that museum or school will have a clear mission that all members can fulfill with intent. I can still quote the mission statement from one of my previous schools, as can the alumnae. Mission gives us purpose and everyone in the organization needs to live that purpose in order to be effective. So, this is a "participatory museum" and a "learning organization" and a "holistic institution."

So, museums are learning organizations AND they need to know learning theory.

As you can tell by my references to educational theory above, I think there is more to be done in this area of connecting museum management to classroom managers.

Conner Prairie actually did that.

Cool.

Museums are like Independent Schools....

The past two week in the museum administration class I'm taking we've been reading about the museum's relationship to the audience -- the museum as an authority but also as accountable to the audience.

Part of the accountability is engaging the audience. Another part is being a trustworthy source. Another part is serving the mission. Another is meeting the needs/expectations of other stakeholders, such as the board or the auditor or the powers that enforce the non-profit laws....

While Nina Simon pushes us to think about revisioning the museum audience as participatory, and while Simon and other people (Grove, Robin Cembalest, Jim Richardson, Daniel Spock, Anderson, and Carol Scott (and Carol Scott) just to name a few), "reshape" thinking about museums as places of shared authority, I found myself thinking the same thing, over and over again:

Running a museum is like running an independent school.

Why do I say this?

Here is a list of "Why a Museum is like an Independent School":

1) Both are non-profit institutions.

2) Both are mission-driven.

3) Both are responsible to multiple stakeholders.

4) Both, in their essence, are learning institutions.

5) Both have retention as a major concern along with the "yield rate" (memberships from admissions for museums and returning students from admits for schools) but neither has all of their program primarily funded by "receipts" (gate receipts/admissions for museums, tuition for schools).

6) As a consequence, both are actively involved in courting additional sources of funding

7) This means that both institutions need
a) additional "profit centers"
(like a summer school or a golf course for a school, and a cafe or a gift shop for a museum)
b) a talented and active development office
c) a head who knows how to
-- schmooze and smile
-- read a balance sheet, an income statement, and other financials
-- hire talented others who can raise money and delegate to them
d) a SWOT analysis performed on a regular basis
e) a "theory of change"
f) an understanding of "backwards planning" on an institutional level
g) an ability to "curriculum plan" (a la Heidi Hayes Jacobs) on an institutional level -- perhaps also known as the "logic model"
h) an ability to develop and use "metrics"
i) an understanding of the "implicit messages" or "hidden curriculum" that the institution sends
(like, the education department with a tiny budget and housed in the museum's basement or toilet door signs that read "Men" and "Ladies" in an all-girl school)
j) the ability to sector the potential markets and constituencies


8) BUT, in both cases, the institutional head needs to be someone who understands the institution and its people (i.e., cannot be just a "numbers-cruncher") because

9) Both museums and schools are creative fields, with their own complex institutional cultures which shapes the people and the perceptions, within and without, of how these institutions work. The CULTURE and the PEOPLE are ignored at the leader's and the institution's peril.

Because creative people are not driven by the same priorities as and do not have their thinking shaped in the same ways as business people/mba's, which is why the creative folk went into the non-profit sector in the first place! The monetary incentive while important is not the primary inducement for a teacher or a docent.

10) Both would benefit from an infusion of Web 2.0 technologies and techniques...

11) But both, as mission-driven institutions with their own histories and with budget limitations, are hard-pressed to implement said technologies but need to do so as a tool to realize the mission goals.

12) Both benefit from a CONSTRUCTIVIST approach to their programmatic design.

13a) Programs that are more like "play" or "leisure" are better received.

13b) The audience of each comprises more than just children.

14) They are products of their community.

15) Both are accountable to their public, yet the audience/student population changes with each generation...

16) And therefore, at the end of the day, both are participatory institutions, because without the people whom the institution and its mission is supposed to serve, there would be no institution. Ergo, both museums and independent schools are service organizations, who must SHARE authority because they are accountable to audiences, whom they must entice to return, with the prospect of a value-added experience.

Running a museum is like running an independent school.

This thought is actually, strangely, liberating for me.

You see, I'm trained to run an independent school.

But I'd rather run a museum.

The Participatory Museum

Today (Thursday, September 22, 2011) I was lucky enough to get some professional development time to attend a workshop sponsored by Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) and hosted by the Higgins Armory Museum.

It was "Fostering Innovation in an Interactive Museum Culture" led by Nina Simon.

Nina Simon is currently the head of a museum in Santa Cruz and the head of Museum 2.0 blog. She is the author of The Participatory Museum.


Simon, an EE grad of WPI, says she is out to change museums. Chiefly by making them more interactive. How? Three key ways, says Simon, changing museums:
--from a destination to a place of everyday use
--from a trusted source of information to a trusted host of social experiences
--from a place of seeing and exploring to that AND being a making and sharing place.

Simon elaborated with examples of how museums typically are static sources of information that people visit only three times in their lives (studenthood, parenthood, and grandparenthood) -- that they need to go from being purely a content provider to being a platform provider, i.e., being a place where people go to do things with stuff and each other. For example, hosting an evening "stitch and bitch" group in the galleries. These shifts would create the participatory museum.

This makes sense to me as, in high school, I took an afternoon modern dance class in the Addison Gallery. I have deep and significant memories of contemplating the art even while I tried to refine a footwork sequence. There is one abstract, almost Cubist, painting of a daffodil that I still want to re-visit as it symbolizes my junior (upper middle) year.

While creating participation could be through digital means, Simon's focus today was in the museum gallery, working directly with objects.

One of Simon's big points was that participation needs to center around objects. In other words, people need an object to discuss. Simply throwing two strangers together may not work. A mediator (usually an object, but could be another person) is necessary. Anyone who has tried to have a conversation with a teenaged boy understands this -- sitting side by side, working on something (playing a video game, repairing a bike, watching TV) will produce a conversation, while staring at each other over a table with the command to "Talk!" will not.

Social objects have these qualities (but not necessarily all at once):
--often very big
--draws one in with their process of creation
--connects to pop culture
--provocative
--requires some figuring out
--has some motion to it.

How do you know when you've got a "social object"? (Or, what are the 'metrics"?) You'll see the people interacting with it and each other produce the following behaviors (again, but not necessarily all at once):
--talking
--pointing
--taking photos
--'reproducing' (mimicking the object, or building something in its image)
--moving around it or with it
--asking others to join them with the object
--interpreting the object for others.

It occurs to me, that the new Chihuly sculpture -- the Lime Green Icicle Tower-- at the MFA Boston is such an object. It's greenness, size, texture, location, newness and importance as a fundraiser all lead to conversations of people clustered around it, even if the comments vary from "ooh, ahh!" to "wtf?!?".

After talking about examples of participatory experience from a variety of museums across the country, we spent the afternoon "walking the talk" [ha!] by going upstairs into the Higgins Armory galleries to determine what exhibits provoked participation and in what ways could we design participatory exhibits/experiences. They group as a whole had some terrific ideas.

Also, the venue and its stuff was awesome. By the nature of the collection and its appeal, the immersive nature of the building and galleries, plus the work done by the education staff to host a variety of events, the Higgins Armory and the workshop group make participation easy.

And, I'll admit, I'm a sucker for a sharp blade...

Thanks to Simon and the other participants for a thought-provoking day!

See you at Saturday's "Festival of Ale"?

Or, better yet, at Higgins Armory in November after they open their Wii-based interactive exhibit Extreme Sport: Jousting Then and Now?!