Arts & Economic Prosperity: Cliffs Notes version

I know: you’re a busy person. You don’t have a lot of time. You’d like to read my entire 7,000-word tome on Americans for the Arts’s economic impact study, but let’s face it: it’s just not gonna happen. At least not this week. Probably not next week, either. You suppose you could take it on vacation with you to Bermuda, though frankly that wouldn’t do you or Bermuda any favors. Is there any chance, you’re thinking to yourself, he could just make a little summary post like he did for that last one?

Well, you’re in luck. The Arts Policy Library series was created for people like you–people who would like to understand every facet of every research study or book that comes out, but just don’t have the time to spare. And so on the occasions, like this one, when APL entries run well past the normal length of a Createquity feature, it is my pleasure and privilege to provide you with a summary of the summary: everything you need to know in five minutes or less.

So without further ado, I present to you the Cliffs Notes version of Createquity’s Arts Policy Library entry on Arts & Economic Prosperity III, by Americans for the Arts.

  • Arts & Economic Prosperity III, which has been widely cited in the media during the past two years thanks to Americans for the Arts’s advocacy efforts, attempts to count up the total expenditures of nonprofit arts organizations in the United States, as well as the purchases made by those organizations’ audience members in connection with arts events on items like lodging, refreshments, souvenirs, etc. These expenditures are then run through an economic model to estimate further impacts such as employment totals, household income, and government tax revenue. To estimate the national totals, the study uses an intriguing distributed research method that involved partnerships with organizations in 156 communities ranging from small towns to entire states.
  • The study, which is for the most part constructed quite carefully and with admirable attention to detail, clearly shows that nonprofit arts organizations play a significant role in the nation’s economy, more significant than we are often led to believe. For example, the numbers reported for organizational expenditures (which should be roughly equal to revenues) are quite a bit larger than the total revenues for highly visible industries like coal mining, fishing, logging, and spectator sports. Furthermore, the arts often induce additional audience expenditures on local goods and services, a feature not replicated by most other industries.
  • At the same time, the study does not show in any real sense that the arts cause the economic activity with which they are associated. Many of the supposed impacts could be and probably are the result of substitution effects rather than newly generated value or wealth. For example, the meal that patrons had before the show was going to get eaten in some form or another regardless of whether there was an arts event involved that night. Many, if not most, of the workers employed by arts organizations would likely have found jobs elsewhere or started their own businesses if their time were not spent toiling for the museum or the symphony.
  • As a result, while the study deserves to be taken seriously as an estimate of the size of the nonprofit arts and culture sector in the United States, other claims about its deeper significance have tended to be overblown. Foremost among these claims is the idea that because the arts return an amount in taxes to government that is greater than the amount that government puts in, the arts represent a good “return on investment” from a financial standpoint. This is simply not true. The argument relies on an apples-to-oranges comparison that assumes that arts organizations would simply disappear entirely were they to be deprived of the 6% of their budgets that comes from government sources, a notion that I hope we can agree is silly. Furthermore, a return-on-investment argument is only useful to policymakers in context with comparative data from other potential investments, information notably absent from A&EP III.
  • Finally, there is reason to believe that the national estimates for organization and especially audience expenditures may be skewed a bit high, even though there are several factors working simultaneously in the opposite direction. This is because the sample for the smallest cities and counties in the study exhibits extraordinarily high average per capita spending as compared to cities in other population groups and, more importantly, to the multi-county regions and entire states included in the study. While the total spending estimates do not seem outrageously out of whack when checked against data from Giving USA, they are nevertheless higher by a noticeable amount.
  • Despite these issues, I believe that the strengths of Arts & Economic Prosperity III are considerable, and offer a strong foundation for further improvement of the study. This is data that the sector needs to have, and its occasional misuse as an advocacy tool notwithstanding, the problems cited above are relatively easy to fix or mitigate in future editions. I would particularly like to see AFTA make a move toward documenting a causal relationship between expenditures on the arts and local economic growth. Something as simple as adding a few questions to the survey instruments about counterfactual scenarios (e.g., how would you have spent your evening instead if you hadn’t come here tonight) could be an important first step in this direction.
Leave a comment

Arts Policy Library: Arts & Economic Prosperity III

Arts & Economic Prosperity III

Perhaps no arts-related research study is cited as frequently in the mainstream media these days as Americans for the Arts’s gargantuan economic impact survey, Arts & Economic Prosperity III. Its key message, that the nonprofit arts sector is responsible for $166.2 billion in economic activity nationwide, has been hammered home relentlessly to policymakers, politicians, grantmakers, and arts managers around the country since the report’s initial publication in 2007. Americans for the Arts clearly sees the report itself, along with the general theme of economic relevance, as central to its overall advocacy strategy: as AFTA’s Director of State and Local Government Affairs, Jay Dick, put it while speaking at the 2007 Wyoming Arts Summit,

In the past, when we went to do funding for the arts, we said, “fund the arts, it’s good for the soul.” […] That’s true, [but] it doesn’t work anymore. You know, we have to have a business argument for it. So, “fund the arts because it’s good for the soul—and they bring to the jobs to the economy and they bring taxes back into the [government].” That’s what we have to do.

Not everybody, however, is convinced. For one thing, the dual role that AFTA assumes as impartial researcher and impassioned advocate renders the report vulnerable to criticism on the grounds of bias, criticism that the report itself goes to great lengths to counter. Moreover, even assuming the numbers are accurate, thinkers from Tyler Cowen to Greg Sandow have assailed the very concept of economic impact studies and their utility in advocacy discussions. Indeed, when last we paid a visit to the Arts Policy Library, the authors of Gifts of the Muse: Reframing the Debate About the Benefits of the Arts argued that relying too heavily on economic and other “instrumental” arguments for the arts is a trap, pointing out that that economic impact studies

…receive criticism because most of them do not consider the relative effects of spending on the arts versus other forms of consumption—that is, they fail to consider the opportunity costs of arts spending. Some economists dispute the validity of the multipliers used in economic studies because they assume that spending on the arts represents a net addition to a local economy rather than simply a substitute for other types of spending.

The tension between the two approaches led journalist John Stoehr to set up a kind of debate between the AFTA and RAND texts in a 2007 article for the Savannah Morning News, a debate that in Stoehr’s mind Gifts of the Muse ultimately won.

As always, though, much is lost in a public debate about a study when most of the participants have only read the press release. The full Arts & Economic Prosperity III report contains some 314 pages of findings, facts, and figures, including 27 multipage data tables and one of the most thorough explanations of methodology I’ve ever encountered in a research report. So let’s dive in and find out what Arts & Economic Prosperity III actually has to say about the economic impact of nonprofit arts organizations in the United States. Read More »


Around the horn: term paper edition

Have you been wondering whatever happened to the Arts Policy Library series? It hasn’t gone anywhere–it’s just been in extended hibernation in preparation for the piece that’s about to be unveiled tomorrow: a 7000-word, seminar-paper-length treatise on Americans for the Arts’s landmark economic impact study, Arts & Economic Prosperity III. Well over 60 hours of research and writing to date have gone into this piece, if I had to guess. If you’ve ever found yourself wondering about whether the economic impact argument for the arts holds water or not, keep an eye out tomorrow and all will be revealed.

Here’s what’s been going on elsewhere the past week:

  • While we’re on the subject of Americans for the Arts, Robert Lynch’s letter to the Washington Times was just the beginning. Now they’ve released a complete list of inaccuracies in the Times‘s coverage of the arts’ role in the United We Serve initiative. AFTA also has a group blog discussion on arts education going full-blast this week at ARTSblog, which coincidentally has a fantastic new look.
  • Seems this is the time of year for major blog upgrades: in addition to Createquity’s migration to WordPress (the background graphic is different this week, do you like it?), and the aforementioned ARTSblog and Tactical Philanthropy‘s recent redesigns, three other Createquity blogroll denizens are planning big changes: small-town arts champion Scott Walters looks for a new name, arts marketer Maryann Devine goes the teaching route (with video!) and recent arts administration program grad and consultant Erin Gore has a new domain.
  • Scott Walters has also joined Barry Hessenius’s multi-week discussion of the future of the NEA, which got off the ground last week. This week’s panel has a great lineup including Bob Lynch (President of AFTA) and Sandra Gibson (ED, Association of Performing Arts Presenters), as well as Createquity reader Anne Katz.
  • Two updates on arts funding battles previously covered here: the war in Pennsylvania is over, and while the Pennsylvania Council on the Arts appears to have survived, arts groups have been hit with the reintroduction of the sales tax on arts tickets and admission charges. PA arts advocates are not happy. Also, Aaron Talbot has his finger on the pulse of the British Columbia arts funding saga, and suggests that the involvement of celebrities (in this case Kim Cattrall) may yield results. (Way to fish for Google image search hits with that pic, Aaron.) (FYI, this brings to mind how mysteriously absent American Hollywood celebrities are from arts advocacy campaigns, other than a few exceptions like Robert Redford and Linda Ronstadt.)
  • This is pretty cool: four different city governments have teamed up for a collective branding and infrastructure-building effort called the East Bay Cultural Corridor. The press release claims it’s the first collaboration of its kind in the US.
  • Arts & real estate fun: Trinity Real Estate, which is owned by the famed Trinity Wall Street Church in Lower Manhattan, has temporarily donated an entire city block to the Lower Manhattan Cultural Council as outdoor exhibition space. The idea is to ride out the market downturn with pretty designs instead of dour-looking and deserted construction scenes. It helps, of course, that Trinity is a nonprofit with a world-renowned music program, but it makes business sense as well in that undeveloped spaces blight neighborhoods and drive down prices. Will it become a trend? Meanwhile, Carolyn Jack reports from the From Rust Belt to Artist Belt II summit on a new partnership to provide artists with low-cost properties for live-work spaces in Cleveland.
  • I love it when I’m planning on writing a post and find out that someone has already done it for me. In this case, Sam Smith of Scholars & Rogues did a little mapping exercise last year on the relationship between state arts appropriations and political voting patterns. It’s not as detailed as something you would see at FiveThirtyEight, but it’s cool to look at nonetheless.
  • A new round of MacArthur “Genius” Grants is out, with several artists among the recipients as usual. And piggybacking on Dudamania, The Daily Beast has a feature on young conductors, and manages to make the field look a hell of a lot more diverse than it is. I don’t know if TDB quite counts as “mainstream,” but it’s nice to see a site with that kind of traffic pay this much attention to classical music.
  • Lucy Bernholz, who has pretty much made a career out of calling out cutting-edge trends in philanthropy, has a typically thought-provoking piece out called Decoding the future of philanthropy. The crux? “Data are the new platform for change.” Meanwhile, Gabriel Kasper, a consultant at the Monitor Institute, wonders about the role that intuition (specifically, “networked intuition”) has to play in decision-making. Two visions at odds, or two sides of the same coin?
  • In search of impact: Holden Karnofsky of the GiveWell Blog is back with another informative post on microfinance, and says that repayment rates are not as helpful a metric as they appear to be. The Boston Foundation announces a new plan that moves this venerated community foundation several steps in the direction of venture philanthropy, deciding to give larger grants to fewer recipients with fewer restrictions. Dan Pallotta loves it.
  • Remember the Awesome Foundation? Well, a Harvard Business School blog post by Umair Haque is now proclaiming that “awesomeness” is the new innovation. It’s mostly semantic wordplay, but sometimes that’s important: “awesomeness” carries with it a certain visceral connotation that innovation doesn’t quite have. And Haque singles out a few other distinctions: innovation is focused on growth for its own sake, regardless of its impact on sustainability or real value to customers, etc., whereas awesomeness is predicated on the creation of what Haque calls “thick value.” Not surprisingly, Haque hearts the Apple Store.
  • Well, speaking of innovation, here’s an idea whose time has come: the Brooklyn Creative League offers shared workspace for freelancers and independent contractors on a monthly membership basis, combining the best aspects of renting an office and hanging out at the coffee shop. And in other cool idea news, there’s a new company called Games that Give that embeds philanthropy into games like sudoku, solitaire, etc.
  • The “wisdom of crowds” is neither wise nor generated by a crowd. Discuss. (My take: yes, it’s true that most “crowdsourced” projects are driven by a small minority of the participants–but there’s still a big difference between that approach and going it alone. Ultimately, I think businesses and others will discover that a smart integration of grassroots and hierarchical structures–what might be called guided crowdsourcing–will yield the best results.)
  • Are “best practices” really always the “best”? Well, maybe not, if you’re just parroting other people’s tired old ideas. Like the one about paying entry-level (and not-so-entry-level) nonprofit workers $30,000 a year, just because that’s what everyone else does. It is an easy and tempting move to use the recession to take advantage of younger employees, but Rosetta details the effect that such practices are having on her generation.
  • This is hands-down one of the best fundraising pitches I’ve ever read.
  • So, feel free to ignore this if you’re not a music geek, but this is too cool: composer and music critic Kyle Gann reports that one of his students has figured out a technique to make super-elegant rubato figurations using notation software. It involves nesting tuplets up the wazoo: his most “basic” example features seven levels of octuplets. But it sounds amazing; just listen to the clips on the site.
  • Only in the Midwest: the Oshkosh Area Community Foundation is attempting to set the Guinness World Record for the “tallest toilet paper pyramid.” All for charity, of course. And no, I am not making this up.

On value, utility, and morals

As mentioned here recently, I’m engaging in a slow-motion blog-off of sorts with Tony Wang of Philosopher 2.0 about the nature of value and how it relates to different sectors. In my posts leading up to this discussion earlier this summer, available here, here, here, and here, I started off by showing that value and money are not the same thing, and continued on to argue that even confining ourselves to very traditional and narrow definitions of economic wealth, a number of what economists call “externalities” (costs or benefits to third parties that are not reflected in the prices of individual transactions) play important roles in determining the potential for net wealth creation for society.

Tony weighed in on the subject two weeks ago with a post entitled “The Implicit Theory of Value.” In it, he sort of shrugs his shoulders at my attempts to map out a set of causal links to a specific goal (in this case, “increased transactions for goods and services”), saying that

…if we assume utilitarianism is true and believe that we should maximize the greatest good, the question then becomes what is the good? And I think here is where we find contentious beliefs, even among reasonable and good people. Is it ok to sacrifice environmental goals to alleviate poverty? Is economic growth better than no economic growth? How should we weigh the arts against other issues like homelessness? Given $1,000,000 each person would choose to allocate money differently; some would give more to international health while others would give more to domestic education. To debate which issues are more important may ultimately prove ineffectual – if the past two millennia since Plato and Socrates and the diversity of philanthropic interests are any indication.

Essentially, Tony is saying that it’s all well and good to be able to map out a strategy to achieve a certain goal, but it doesn’t do us much good unless we know what the goal should be. And how should we determine that with any degree of logical rigor? Tony seems to think that it’s no use bothering to try; instead, he lays out a fundamentally pluralistic vision of value, arguing that decisions we make as individuals and organizations are informed by an “implicit theory of value,” a particular set of priorities, judgments, and beliefs unique to each of us:

In any conversation about social change or social justice, we necessarily assume some sort of implicit theory of value – that we believe certain things are better than others.The belief can be as simple as believing that justice is better than injustice, or as controversial as believing that removing a thousand tons of carbon is better than feeding ten children. But it is under this implicit theory of value and the corollaries that it can be maximized and that the choices we face can theoretically be measured for the value that they generate, that we can best understand the sectors.

Before we fast-forward to the discussion about the sectors, though, I’d like to spend a little more time contemplating this pluralistic framework for thinking about value, because I’m not sure if I totally accept it. To be sure, there are many things to like about this system, not least of which is that it unburdens from us the responsibility to decide what’s good and what isn’t. Effectively, utilitarianism argues for crowdsourcing morality–the more people who believe a thing more strongly, the more right it is. Yet this refusal to privilege certain values over others can get us into trouble, I think. To take an extreme example for illustrative purposes, a whole lot of people in the 1700s thought that slavery was a perfectly legitimate industry and business practice, and derived significant utility in both financial and nonfinancial terms from having slaves at their disposal. So does the fact that the collective utility of slavery was much higher then than it is now mean that it was reasonable, or at least not as wrong, at the time?

Well, perhaps not, if we consider that the slaves experienced significant negative utility from being forced to endure atrocities for their entire lives. So in fact, we can presume that the net utility for society was hurt by slavery, even if some people benefited from it. And certainly we can declare that slavery was not the optimal path to maximizing the collective utility for all human beings.

If we’re going to go that far, however, I don’t see why we have to stop there. If our goal is to maximize collective utility, why do we need a pluralist notion of what value means? Doesn’t value just equal utility? And aren’t there some absolutes, some things we pretty much know to be true about what human beings want and don’t want? Each one may not be true for all human beings, but even if we have a rough idea what percentages of people care about which things and how deeply, unless those things change drastically over time and between cultures, shouldn’t it be possible to set up policies and practices (and philanthropic systems) that maximize collective utility?

At the risk of embarrassing myself (if, indeed, I haven’t already) by treading tired old ground in the field of philosophy, I want to try to get some additional clarity on these questions before we take the plunge into what will eventually become a conversation about organizational structures — because I feel that a strong understanding of the relative value of various issues can only aid our understanding of the relative value of organizational structures within those issues.


Flashback: Reinventing the Wheel

This blog has a lot of new subscribers who have joined us in the past few months (actually, since February the readership has grown by a factor of 12), and it occurred to me that many folks may not realize that my interest in arts policy and arts management stems, more than anything else, from my experiences as a semi-professional composer and leader of two performing ensembles from about 2003 to 2007. I thought it might be fun to throw up some clips of music for you to listen to every once in a while, in case you’re interested in what I was spending my time on before I decided to become a policy geek.

Our inaugural flashback track is the first off of the debut album for my experimental rock/jazz/minimalist/metal band, Capital M, which came out in 2005. It’s called “Reinventing the Wheel” and its composition followed a month of pretty intensive study of the score to Steve Reich’s masterpiece Music for 18 Musicians. Throw on some headphones and have a listen!

1 Comment

20UNDER40 receives 304 chapter proposals

Edward Clapp’s 20UNDER40 anthology, a publication that will feature twenty chapters from emerging leaders in the arts under 40 years of age, has received an eye-opening 304 responses to its recent call for proposals from 343 authors on five continents. This is, frankly, a pretty astounding yield for a project with no history, financial reward, or major institutional backing. (Note: one of those submissions was prepared by yours truly in collaboration with Chicago-based management consultant and arts policy wonk Daniel Reid.) From Clapp’s email this afternoon:

Given the number of proposals before us, publication in 20UNDER40 can be equally compared to the acceptance rates of the world’s most elite academic and cultural institutions. [...] I feel it is important for all of us—whatever our age or experience—to pause and reflect for a moment on the surge of interest from young arts professionals. What does it mean, what does it tell us that such a massive response has ensued from a simple, grassroots call to voice geared towards young and emerging professionals at this juncture in the evolution of the arts? [...]

My answer: Clearly, the field has spoken. There are literally hundreds of eager young leaders ready to take the reigns of the arts for the purpose of redirecting the field in a positive new direction—one that greatly differs from the methods of policy and practice we know today. [...]

Young leaders have asked to be heard, and through this project and the residual conversations and actions that will emanate from its expanse, they will no longer be ignored.

Clapp has set up a Facebook site to discuss the implications in more detail.

Here’s what I think. The robust response to a project of this nature is reflective of a few things. One is certainly that Clapp and his co-conspirators deserve a great deal of credit for not only coming up with the idea, but also successfully generating serious viral momentum for the project. I had about a half-dozen different people, people with no official connection to the project, encourage me to make a submission through both email and Twitter – and frankly, I probably wouldn’t have done so without that extra push from people I knew. This momentum will carry through to the actual publication, helping to ensure that (hopefully) a great many folks will actually read the thing when it comes out.

Another factor that no doubt plays into this is that there are a lot of young’uns out there who are looking for a leg up. There’s a reason that colleges, grad schools, fellowship programs, grants, jobs, and other opportunities that bring with them exposure and/or the stamp of institutional approval are getting more and more competitive each year. It’s because the world is getting more connected, more people are becoming better educated and dreaming bigger dreams, and also because, let’s face it, the economy sucks. Since no opportunity is any longer a sure thing, and because the financial, convenience, and time barriers to submitting applications are becoming less and less, people try to cover their bases by submitting more applications. Which makes the application pool for each opportunity that much more competitive, and the cycle keeps feeding itself.

And so I agree with Edward–and Adam, and Lex–that our time has arrived. Generation Y (and, okay, the rump end of Gen X – you know I love you guys) is positively itching to take the wheel. But it’s not just because we’re impatient, though I’ll admit, there’s probably a bit of that. If I may generalize extravagantly for a moment, it’s also because this rat race that we’re all in has honed us, forced us to define ourselves by our strengths, encouraged us to seek our passions, and nurtured our entrepreneurial spirit in ways that set us apart from previous generations. I don’t mean to suggest that our elders didn’t face challenges themselves–but they faced very different ones. Challenges like ensuring basic rights for women and minorities in the workplace, like the threat of nuclear war hanging over their heads at all times, like having to type out all those damn fundraising envelopes themselves instead of just doing a mail merge. These challenges were serious, but in many ways their successful (or somewhat successful) resolution has paved the way for the challenges of our generation, which have to do with an intensity of competition amongst our ranks that has never been seen before in history. Population growth, new technologies, the opening up of opportunities to previously excluded groups and classes, and a comparatively secure and peaceful world have all dramatically increased the global talent pool and productive capacity. In order to run down a dream in that kind of environment, one needs to stand out, to find new ways of doing things, and to knock on as many doors as possible. And so this project was perfect for emerging leaders. It only asked us to do what we’ve been doing already, all this time–come up with new ways of thinking about and pursuing our work, and tell everybody we know about them.

1 Comment

Around the horn: WordPress edition

The arts blogosphere (artosphere?) has been buzzing lately with the news of the demotion of the NEA’s erstwhile Director of Communications, Yosi Sergant, in response to Glenn Beck’s paranoid delusions about two conference calls that Yosi helped to organize to get artists involved in community service. Jeff Chang says this is the new shape of the culture war: going after movement progressives in the administration regardless of what they do. Piling on, Senator John Cornyn has written an open letter warning against what he calls the “politicization” of the NEA. Meanwhile, Americans for the Arts is fighting back, publishing a letter to the Washington Times from Bob Lynch responding to an editorial in that paper today. It’s worth noting that no one, other than the 75 call participants and Beck himself, has actually heard the entire audio recording of the call; that’s because the man driving this story, Patrick Courrielche (who just happens to be Yosi Sergant’s former boss), secretly recorded the conversation and went straight to Beck with it.

You can listen to some of the excerpts at this link (warning, you’ll have to sit through a lot of blathering first). Here’s the main one that they repeat several times:

This is just the beginning. This is just the first telephone call of a brand new conversation. We are just now learning how to bring this community together to speak with the government, [and] what that looks like legally. We’re still trying to figure out the laws of putting government websites on Facebook, and the use of Twitter. This is all being sorted out–we are participating in history as it’s being made. So bear with us as we learn the language so that we can speak to each other safely, and we can really work together in a sense to move the needle, and to get stuff done.

Taken out of context and accompanied by Beck’s and Courrielche’s innuendos (“they know exactly what they’re doing…I’m going to show you some artwork that maybe, coincidentally, came out two weeks after this phone call”), it all sounds a little creepy–until you realize that if they had anything more damning than this, they would have played it. I mean, come on: “learn the language so that we can speak to each other safely?” “what that looks like legally?” At least they’re interested in actually following the law, unlike a certain previous administration that just left office!

Anyway, for more commentary, you can read a rant from 99 Seats, a response from Chris Ashworth that I don’t really agree with but has a nice diagram to illustrate his point, and surely Leonard Jacobs will freak if I don’t include a link to the Clyde Fitch Report’s original analysis of the situation, which I neglected to mention the first time around. (Jacobs, to his credit, saw the right-wing culture war revival coming long before anyone else did as far as I can tell.)

Well, enough of that. Here’s some other stuff that’s been going on this week.

  • Speaking of Leonard Jacobs, he has a funny story about the reporter who contacted me last week.

    Funnily enough, the Fox reporter that contacted Moss also contacted me after Perez Hilton got into that stupid fight earlier this year with Will.I.Am and called him a “faggot.” I agreed to be a source for the reporter, but he wasn’t very happy with me. His first question was, and here I’m paraphrasing: “As a leader of the gay-rights movement, do you think Perez Hilton was justified in calling Will.I.Am a homophobic slur?” Well, I was just aghast. I said, “Um, I was unaware that Perez Hilton was a leader of the gay-rights movement.” At that point, said reporter reminded me of the whole Carrie Prejean nonsense — as anybody might need such a reminder — and pressed the point, that Hilton is a seminal figure in the gay cause. I replied to said reporter, “I think you want him to be a leader of the gay-rights movement, that that’s your agenda.” We volleyed a bit after that and it was quite clear the reporter didn’t get what he wanted. Shame.

  • ArtsJournal turned 10 years old over the weekend. What an amazing resource from Doug McLennan and company. One of the original ArtsJournal bloggers, Andrew Taylor, is announcing an innovative arts management class that seeks to bring the world to the students and the students to the world: it even has its own blog. Will be interesting to see how this one unfolds.
  • A few oldies but goodies that I’ve meant to link for the past few weeks but that have gotten lost in my browser window: 1) Perhaps portending a trend, the Sarasota Arts Council is refocusing its energies on lobbying efforts; 2) Art & Seek has a great story about the arts-led revitalization of tiny Ben Wheeler, Texas; and 3) Wired sees a revolution coming in “good enough” technology–slimmed-down, cheaper versions of things like cameras whose features we mostly don’t use anyway.
  • More evidence for recent college grad misery: their post-college earnings have not been keeping up with growth in tuition, by a long shot. (I would imagine that there has been a growth in financial aid at the same time, but is that enough?) And if you think that’s bad, African-Americans (taken as a group) have been in recession for nine years, according to this excellent article by Barbara Ehrenreich and Derek Muhammad. A particularly telling quote:

    Plenty of formerly middle- or working-class whites have followed similar paths to ruin: the layoff or reduced hours, the credit traps and ever-rising debts, the lost home. But one thing distinguishes hard-pressed African-Americans as a group: Thanks to a legacy of a discrimination in both hiring and lending, they’re less likely than whites to be cushioned against the blows by wealthy relatives or well-stocked savings accounts. In 2008, on the cusp of the recession, the typical African-American family had only a dime for every dollar of wealth possessed by the typical white family.

    If you are breaking even or slowly bleeding money, having a cushion, even a small one, makes all the difference in the world. It gives you flexibility, reduces your stress, enables you to pursue opportunities you wouldn’t have been able to otherwise. Scrapping for every dollar is a dehumanizing experience no matter who you are.

  • Did Bach discover serialism 200 years before Schoenberg? The musicologists don’t seem to think so, but I still hold that Beethoven was the originator of ragtime in Op. 111. Meanwhile, Pierre Ruhe reports on a composer using a different method to write wind band music: Facebook consensus.
  • Hewlett Foundation Philanthropy Program Officer Jacob Harold writes a column in defense of regranting. I used to be not so hot on regranting (it seemed to me like it just added middlemen into the process needlessly), but in the past year I’ve changed my mind somewhat, and Jacob makes some really compelling points in the article. Though I’m not sure I agree with him that giving $35 to the Gates Foundation is necessarily a smart idea.
  • This is interesting: Arts Council England is hiring 150 “assessors” to go out and review 10-14 events a year for two years, basically crowdsourcing their site visits. I think it’s a cool idea, but not without problems, as the Guardian explains.
Leave a comment

It’s a Brand New Blog

Today is a special day. If you’re reading this in your email or an application like Google Reader, consider this an invitation to escape, right now, the drab tyranny of the preview pane and visit Createquity in its glorious new incarnation at That’s right, I am now master of my own domain and have left Blogger behind for good.* The pretty designs you see around you are courtesy Evan Stein of, whose “zero-gravity” consulting and design services can be had for a reasonable price. I have some more exciting stuff for Createquity in store shortly; in the meantime, poke around and do let me know if you see anything amiss. And once again, thank you for following along and helping to make Createquity what it is.

* If you happen to write a blog that links to mine, this would be your cue to update that link. Thank you bunches!

Leave a comment

Fox at it again

I get letters:

From: Miller, Josh
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 3:38 PM
To: Moss, Ian
Subject: RE: Media Inquiry
Importance: High

Mr. Moss,

Greetings – I hope this message finds you well.

I’m a reporter who is working on a story about two NEA-supported conference calls that purportedly asked artists to create art within major areas of President Obama’s administration, such as health care and the environment.

Have you participated in either one of these calls?

Please contact me at your earliest convenience so we can discuss this matter further. Thanks in advance.

Joshua Rhett Miller
Reporter/News Editor

I thought about writing him back, but instead I decided I’d just respond here. In case you’re joining us late, this story comes from a rather hysterical rant at’s Big Hollywood blog authored by Patrick Courrielche, who seemed to think that an effort to incorporate artists into the President’s United We Serve initiative was some kind of Machiavellian plot to convince the art community to serve as pawns in Obama’s grand scheme to become dictator of America. Calling it “the making of a machine…initiated by the NEA, to corral artists to address specific issues” that “could potentially be wielded by the state to push policy,” Courrielche asks, “is [it] the place of the NEA to encourage the art community to address issues currently under legislative consideration?”

(As an aside, Courrielche seems positively shocked that the NEA is the “largest arts funder in the country.” Umm….duh? Anyway, the NEA reclaimed that title only recently from New York City’s Department of Cultural Affairs. That’s right, the city of New York until recently provided more arts agency funding for 8 million people than the USA did for its population of 300+ million–and yes, I double-checked the numbers.)

As I reported back in June, this project is the brainchild of the NEA’s Communications Director Yosi Sergant, who served as the liaison between artists and Obama during the campaign and commissioned Shepard Fairey’s iconic Hope poster in that capacity. I don’t know who Courrielche is, but according to his essay he used to be Yosi’s boss. Hmm, a little personal drama perhaps? Anyway, since Courrielche had his say, the story has been picked up all over the right-wing media and almost nowhere else–because it’s a complete non-story. The sinister initiative steamrolled on with a late August conference call featuring actor Kal Penn/Kalpen Modi, which I blogged about here (that’s apparently how our friend Josh found me). Although I wasn’t a participant in the first conference call, which is the one that Courrielche wrote about, I did listen in on the second.

So here’s the scandalous dirt on that talk, exposed for everyone to see. Modi, Americans for the Arts President Robert Lynch, and a representative from the Corporation for National and Community Service led off the call with a series of introductory remarks. Lynch showed himself to be nothing more than a dirty Massachusetts hippie by paying tribute to the late Senator Ted Kennedy, who had just passed away that week. We were treated to highly charged partisan instructions like a reminder that any projects we upload should actually be uploaded twice – both on and on – so that community art endeavors would be visible within the larger pool of service projects and also collected in one place. Seriously, this is what the call was like. The closest it got to anything political was when a caller asked about the future of the Artist Corps initiative that was promised in Obama’s campaign platform (Modi responded that, while he “wanted to keep the call focused” on the United We Serve campaign, the Artist Corps concept is something that the administration still supports and wants to see happen).

If you don’t believe me, a quick look at the actual projects featured on the website will convince you otherwise. Where are the “major areas of President Obama’s administration?” Is Alison Schwartz’s dancing to raise money for Dancers Responding to AIDS just a cover to convince Max Baucus to support a public option? Is Wynton Marsalis’s jazz education programming a complicated front for clean energy? Clearly, Cultural Crossroads’s four-acre arts farm in Louisiana must be some kind of Librul breeding colony.

So anyway, now Fox wants to write an article about it – yes, the same Fox who has had the hatchet out for the NEA for at least the last six weeks. A quick look at the question I was sent tells you where they get all of their material. The NEA “purportedly” wanted to commission art “within major areas of President Obama’s administration”? It would be kind of hilarious if it weren’t so disingenuous. As usual, Fox and facts don’t mix. For one thing, as far as I can tell, the NEA as an agency has no official role in the initiative whatsoever. Their logo is not on the website; it is mentioned nowhere on the NEA’s website; and no one from the agency participated in the second conference call. Secondly, the push was not for artists to “create” work in line with Obama’s political agenda–the real push was to highlight work that artists are already doing that fits in with the overall United We Serve initiative. Finally, the push didn’t come from Obama–it came from artists: Sergant, and earlier, the group of 60 arts community activists who met with the administration in May and asked to get more involved. If there is a political agenda, it is perhaps that in involving artists explicitly in an initiative of this magnitude, maybe it will help build the arts’ public profile and help convince Congress to move this country’s level of federal arts support a notch upward from “laughably miniscule” to “embarrassingly paltry.” That’s all there is to it. Well, unless you believe that getting out of the house and helping people who are less fortunate than you is a partisan political act. Sadly, this conservative movement seems to believe that caring about anyone who isn’t yourself or directly related to you is something to condemn.

[UPDATE: And just like that, Yosi Sergant gets thrown under the bus. Way to give Glenn Beck more power than he deserves. Arlene Goldbard has more.]


Around the horn: Laboring on Labor Day edition

  • WOW, that was fast. Mere days after announcing a $20 million cut in funding that impinged on previously made commitments and, in some cases, money that had already been spent, the government of British Columbia, Canada not only restored the funding that had been cut but threw another $12 million on top for good measure. The Vancouver Sun reports that the government faced a “furious public reaction” to the cuts, motivating the restoration. Imagine if we had that kind of clout here! (By the way, in case you’re wondering, the total provincial government support for arts groups in British Columbia, population 4.4 million, is about the same as the federal government support for arts groups in the United States, population 307 million.) [Update: sorry, I was reading the figures for all nonprofits getting money from the gambling fund, not just arts groups. And as Aaron Talbot points out in the comments, it looks like there have been some further developments since the Vancouver Sun story that have BC arts funding still very much in the woods.]
  • Scott Walters has an Open Letter to Rocco Landesman explaining his reaction to Landesman’s views on geodiversity in more detail.
  • It’s tough times for independent music and bookstores, but the ones that have survived are “playing up their roles as community centers that serve as unique cultural spaces rather than just a place to buy a quick CD or magazine,” according to The Wrap.
  • A year and a half after I took the plunge and tentatively wrote out my intuitive objections to my first economics class for what has become one of the most popular Createquity posts ever (I’m sure it has absolutely nothing to do with the Calvin and Hobbes toon that accompanies the piece…hey, whatever works), I have to admit that I feel a certain grim satisfaction that mainstream economics finds itself so deeply under attack from more mainstream corners these days. The latest takedown comes from no less than Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman in a gargantuan op-ed for New York Times Magazine. Krugman concludes,
    So here’s what I think economists have to do. First, they have to face up to the inconvenient reality that financial markets fall far short of perfection, that they are subject to extraordinary delusions and the madness of crowds. Second, they have to admit — and this will be very hard for the people who giggled and whispered over Keynes — that Keynesian economics remains the best framework we have for making sense of recessions and depressions. Third, they’ll have to do their best to incorporate the realities of finance into macroeconomics.

    Meanwhile, I find myself drawn more and more to the cornucopia of radically alternative ways of conceptualizing markets. In the Createquity post linked above, I suggested that

    There is an alternative way of looking at the above, which is that there is no such thing as something that’s not a free market. After all, the government systems we do have in place for human services, infrastructure, price regulation, and so on, are essentially the result of consumer action. They voted people into office to institute these reforms, a power no consumer had on his or her own. One could argue that these policies are the result of the “market” deciding, in aggregate, that prohibitions against certain industries might be a good thing. That environmental protection was worth setting limits on what large companies could put into the air or water. This view requires a broader conception of market activity that goes beyond merely buying and selling. It essentially says that whatever happens is part of the larger organism of humanity, that the actions companies and consumers take to affect the market are as much a symptom of the market as a driver of it. It says that markets will always be free so long as human beings are creating and living them.

    It seems the author of The Origin of Wealth, Eric Beinhocker, is way ahead of me on this (h/t Creative Class Exchange). Beinhocker and colleagues have defined a field called complexity economics that merges micro and macro into one discipline and takes its cues from biology rather than physics. There’s much more to read and contemplate, but so far color me intrigued.

  • The Chronicle of Philanthropy reports on a new collaboration that seeks to standardize social impact measurements, the Impact Reporting and Investment Standards (IRIS) initiative. It’s a collaboration between the Rockefeller Foundation, B Lab, Deloitte, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, and others.
  • Gene Takagi of Nonprofit Law Blog tries to read Sean Stannard-Stockton’s mind in determining why Tactical Philanthropy Advisors has been formed as a for-profit B Corporation (a kind of cousin to the L3c) rather than as a nonprofit. Phil Cubeta thinks he has a simpler answer. Meanwhile, B Lab (originators of the B Corporation concept) is urging the Obama administration to give tax benefits to their constituency, and the NonProfit Times reports on a war of words developing between L3C founders and the IRS.
  • Thinking about forming a nonprofit yourself? Be advised that the IRS is raising its rates for new applications effective January. Lest you think that this is aimed at stemming the tide of new nonprofit formations, however, fear/hope not: the IRS is in the process of developing a web-based “Cyber Assistant” to make applications easier for applicant and agency alike. Once it’s introduced, fees will drop up to 76% for those who use the new system.
  • Before we get on the “too many [small] nonprofits” horse again, though, let’s take a moment to consider Albert Ruesga’s admonition that
    There’s a tendency in nonprofit work to be a little too uncritical of the concepts we import from the business world. We sometimes get fetishistic about matters of “scale” and “replicability.” But there’s a k
    ind of nonprofit beauty that doesn’t scale well. And there are people whose extraordinary vision and passion we’ll never be able to replicate.

    You can read a seemingly endless (but great) interview with Ruesga, who is President and CEO of the Greater New Orleans Community Foundation, here.

  • A couple of months ago, I was asked to speak on a panel for the Arts & Business Council of New York in connection with an internship program that ABC/NY runs for college students. At one point during the discussion, I gave a bearish assessment of the job prospects faced by new graduates that apparently took some attendees by surprise. But sure enough, the statistics are out, and recent college graduates are getting absolutely killed by this recession. 31% uninsured. One-third living with their parents. 24% don’t make enough to pay their monthly bills. Ugly, ugly numbers. No wonder more and more of them are turning to post-graduate internships.
  • Very cool: the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, based in England, has gone back and digitized a report the foundation published in 1959. Mark Robinson has the details.
  • Is this the future of product development?
  • If you don’t follow Lisa Hoang on Twitter (@lisa_hoang), you are seriously missing out. Lisa trolls for arts stories all over the web and comes up with lots of stuff that even ArtsJournal misses. Here are two of her recent finds: Uganda is mapping its cultural industries with the help of UNESCO and Chicago is designating a new creative industries district.
  • Mmm….deep fried butter.