Hands, from Michelangelo’s “Creation of Adam,” at Italianrenaissance.org

In Createquity’s view, a healthy arts ecosystem maximizes the arts’ capacity to improve the lives of human beings in concrete and meaningful ways. As such, we have sought to better understand the various means by which one measures such improvements, the current state of research across areas of impact, and where there’s room to grow.

Why We Care

Since the evidence base for the benefits of the arts is continually developing and evolving, our investigations in this area have been fairly expansive. We began by grounding our work in the concept of wellbeing – an emerging, interdisciplinary field of study in the social sciences centering on a holistic definition of individual and societal health – to look at the impact of the arts across multiple dimensions of human life. We wanted to better understand how other sectors define and measure wellbeing and quality of life, and how arts and culture might fit into these existing frameworks. This foundational investigation led to a subsequent inquiry into the following questions:

• What are particular claims to the benefits of arts participation?
• Does the majority of available evidence support each claim?
• How strong is the quality of evidence?

What We Know

Grounding our research in the concept of wellbeing helped to shape our definition of meaningful benefits as a result of arts participation. We learned that although most wellbeing frameworks do not explicitly include arts and culture, some do. The one most closely matching Createquity’s worldview is the capability approach originally proposed by economist Amartya Sen, which frames wellbeing in the context of human beings’ freedom to make choices about how to live their lives. Philosopher Martha Nussbaum’s elaboration of the capability approach embraces the arts’ influence on overall wellbeing both directly and indirectly via the capabilities of “senses, imagination, and thought” and “play,”  which may include active arts participation and creation, as well as observation, reflection, absorption and enjoyment of arts experiences.

Our subsequent review of research into arts and wellbeing – focusing on the benefits of the arts on a range of different wellbeing impact areas – fits into four broad areas of impact: physical and mental health, education and personal development, economic vitality, and social cohesion. Following is a list of benefits claimed for arts participation across these areas, categorized based on the strength of the evidence backing those claims.

We are highly confident that:

• Participatory arts activities help to maintain the health and quality of life of older adults.  There is evidence that singing improves mental health and subjective wellbeing; taking dance classes bolsters cognition and motor skills; dancing and playing a musical instrument reduce the risk of dementia; and visual arts generate increases in self-esteem, psychological health, and social engagement.
• Arts therapies contribute to positive clinical outcomes, such as reduction in anxiety, stress, and pain for patients. Music interventions tend to dominate studies in this area, mostly characterized by passive forms of participation (e.g., listening to music).
• Arts participation in early childhood promotes social and emotional development. For example, teachers report fewer instances of shy, aggressive, and anxious behavior among preschoolers taking dance classes, and toddlers receiving music instruction demonstrate increased social cooperation with other children.
• Student participation in structured arts activities enhances cognitive abilities and social skills that support learning, such as memory, problem-solving, and communication. (While arts participation may improve academic attainment as well, any effects are fairly small. Traditional scholastic measures such as standardized tests and grades have produced mixed evidence.)

We are moderately confident that:

• Community arts activities probably contribute to healthy living habits and improved understandings of health. A few mixed-methods studies have found among participants increases in healthy eating, physical activity, positive feelings, and other areas of personal development. However, it is difficult to know if these habits were sustained over time. Even in the case of sustained arts engagement, there is mixed evidence that it reduces mortality risk in adults.
• Arts and cultural participation probably improves subjective wellbeing (self-reported happiness or life satisfaction). Studies among large population samples cite both passive and active forms of art participation as important determinants of psychological wellbeing.
• Low-income students probably benefit disproportionately from access to arts education. Benefits such as improved cognitive abilities from music participation, or improved measures of tolerance for museum attendees, tend to be higher for students from low-SES households.

We have lower levels of confidence in the arts’ contributions to social cohesion and economic vitality, based on research we reviewed. For example,  participation in the arts may promote pro-social or civic behaviors like voting and volunteering, but the direction of the relationship is unclear – i.e., do pro-civic behaviors engender arts participation or vice versa, or is there is an underlying hidden value driving both behaviors? Evidence suggests that cultural participation may also contribute to economic growth through promotion of innovative workforce, and urban regeneration, but economic impact research is complicated by various confounding factors (e.g., planning policy, availability of jobs, general health of economy), making it difficult to really isolate the specific relationship and intensity of benefits.

What We Don’t Know

• In the absence of longitudinal studies, it is difficult to know the longer-term effects of arts participation. This is most true in the areas of health and early childhood education.
• The potential to make the case for the benefits of the arts suffers from a paucity of experimental and quasi-experimental designs, particularly in the areas of economic vitality and social cohesion.
• Generally, measuring effects at a community level is difficult to do when there are confounding factors. However, greater understanding of how the arts promote quality of life at the community or regional level could help to illuminate potential strategies or interventions that might work at scale to support a healthy ecosystem.
• Createquity’s investigations on the benefits of the arts have focused broadly on general effects on a general population. It is likely that there is quite a bit of variation between disciplines, between different modes of artistic participation (e.g., passive, active, solitary, communal), and between participants (comparing demographic and other differences). Research syntheses and comparative studies looking across these differences are generally lacking.

How to Use this Information

A few action items to consider:

For funders:

• The potential of the arts to improve lives for older adults and those in clinical settings seems under-invested in relative to the strength of the evidence. Consider how age and health fit into your strategy for improving lives through the arts.
• Similarly, consider what proportion of your arts funding portfolio reaches very young children (pre-K and younger), as some of the strongest available evidence indicates benefits for that population.
• Invest in longitudinal studies into benefits of the arts, especially those that involve diverse population samples, varying geographies, and embrace multiple disciplines.
• Consider funding more meta-analyses that take stock of the current spate of literature already in existence. British researchers have published a few of these, but there is much more to be done, and research coming out all the time that could be added to the mix.

For researchers:

• Conduct studies looking at the impact of the arts in comparison to other leisure-time activities, to make effect sizes in the arts more intelligible.
• Seek ways to assess impacts of arts participation across longer time frames, and embrace more experimental study designs if possible.
• There is currently very little research on the benefits of subsidizing the arts, as opposed to the benefits of arts participation. In other words, what proportion of the benefit realized from arts programming can be specifically attributed to grants or donations with that purpose in mind?
• Be transparent in discussing methods and limitations of arts participation, to allow others to learn directly from the research experience (in other words, don’t give undue credit to the arts if there isn’t enough supporting evidence).
• Further explore hierarchies of evidence in arts research, including examples of rigorous qualitative designs.

For arts organizations:

• Foster partnerships with other sectors that might benefit from your arts organization’s work (e.g., community and civic engagement, public health, social justice), and work together to further the arts’ contributions for community-wide benefit.
• Use the evidence that is available to help guide your programming to be as impactful as possible in providing benefits to individuals in your communities.

Resource List

Everything We Know about Whether and How the Arts Improve Lives (2016)
The research could still use an upgrade in many areas. But what we know so far should cheer any arts advocate.
A summary of the benefits of various arts endeavors including participatory activities, arts therapies, and arts engagement by young children and students.

(Eng)Aging with the Arts Has its Benefits  (2016)
In fact, the best evidence we have of the arts’ impact is that they make older adults feel better.
Recent studies indicate that  the most compelling evidence of the value of the arts revolves around improving the lives of older adults.

Are the Arts the Answer to Our TV Obsession? (2016)
Television can wreak havoc on the brain and the body. But people who watch it the most don’t seem to mind.
This article explores how, from obesity to apathy, the side effects of America’s national pastime (watching the tube) are taking their toll. What else to do?

Part of Your World: On the Arts and Wellbeing (2015)
A concept that’s been making the rounds in other fields for decades provides fresh ideas about how to think about the benefits of the arts.
This piece explains how the relationship between the arts and wellbeing could earn the former a proper seat at the table in conversations about human progress.

Capsule Review: The Impacts of Culture and Sport (2017)
What are the relationships between cultural engagement, sports participation, and social wellbeing? A recent study sheds light.
A British study examines the impact of sports and cultural participation on outcomes including measurements of health, education, civic participation, and personal wellbeing.

Capsule Review: Music, Singing, and Wellbeing (2017)
Three reports explore the effects of music on quality of life.
The UK’s What Works Centre for Wellbeing recently commissioned one of the most thorough research syntheses we’ve seen on the benefits of the arts.

A New Way to Think about Intrinsic vs. Instrumental Benefits of the Arts (2015)
Which matters more, art for art’s sake or art for people’s sake? Neither, according to a recent report.
A Philadelphia-based study reveals patterns between cultural participation, economic and geographic factors, and wellbeing among citizens.

Empty stage in expectation of performance, by Flickr user renewleeds

If all the world’s a stage, who can compete with Broadway? While gathering research as a doctoral student at Rutgers University in Newark, NJ, Mirae Kim interviewed numerous arts organizations about funding issues. She spotted a pattern among local nonprofit venues: “Many theaters in New Jersey mentioned their need to compete against Broadway theaters in New York City – which perfectly made sense since they are only about ten to 20 miles away from Broadway,” Kim recalls. “They mentioned they cannot compete against Broadway theaters in the traditional way because of the different financial sizes, so several of them highlighted their community basis as a way of differentiating themselves from ‘commercial’ theaters.”

Kim’s curiosity about this distinction led to an intensive research study – Characteristics of Civically Engaged Nonprofit Arts Organizations: The Results of a National Survey – which she completed over a three-year period while working as an assistant professor at the University of Missouri’s Harry S Truman School of Public Affairs. She broadened her inquiry to survey myriad nonprofit arts organizations throughout the United States, focusing on what differentiates the groups with a 501(c)(3) status from commercially driven ventures.

“It intrigued me whether the need for survival prompted nonprofits to highlight their civic engagement role – or if there were other reasons,” Kim explains. “One of the findings I didn’t expect was the role of associations and collaboratives in encouraging nonprofit arts organizations to recognize ‘civic and community engagement’ as one of the critical factors they should embody.”

A Winning Formula

Another unexpected outcome for Kim: her study won the inaugural Createquity Arts Research Prize, entitling her to a $500 cash award and a platform for sharing her work with a wider audience. In our review of more than 500 arts research studies for the Research Prize, Kim’s publication rose to the top for several reasons: a high-level methodological design, the use of previously validated survey instruments, a widely representative sample, and a topic with resonance in the arts community. This work exemplifies Createquity’s interest in encouraging arts institutions to prioritize community needs ahead of their own prosperity.

First published in 2016 in the Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Kim’s article includes and draws on a wide-ranging literature review. The study relies on a varied and robust combination of instruments and data sources including:

• structured interviews with 21 nonprofit arts organization directors
• a survey of 900+ arts organizations, with questions based on the qualitative interview results
• financial data from the National Center for Charitable Statistics to uncover income-source patterns

The survey was used to place arts organizations on a matrix measuring “civic roles” and “market roles,” based on a validated index of organizational behaviors developed by other researchers. Kim used the above methods to test hypotheses about the relationships nonprofit arts organizations have with other types of community organizations, their peer organizations’ emphasis on civic duties, the level of bureaucracy in their governance, and their reliance on program fees for revenue.

Key Findings

Kim uncovers several notable ways in which civically engaged arts organizations differ from more market-driven arts organizations, including:

• they maintain stronger networks with other community organizations such as schools, senior centers, etc.
• they consider civic engagement a key force driving the mission
• they’re consciously aware of their nonprofit status

The study finds that charging and receiving a higher share of program revenue negatively correlates with civic engagement. Indeed, revenue sourcing is one of the inquiry’s driving concerns. Noting that arts nonprofits often rely on a mix of contributions and selling tickets, Kim poses a central question that arts nonprofits confront: “How can they maintain marketable programs and share responsibility for the wellbeing of their community without compromising either?”

Many nonprofits surveyed reported high levels of involvement in both market roles and civic roles, so Kim conducted additional analysis taking market roles into account. She finds a greater correlation between network diversity (the number and variety of other organizations worked with in the past year) and civic engagement, when an organization performs both roles. Interviews with directors reveal that work with outside community groups and organizations helps arts nonprofits implement civically relevant programming and reach new audiences within their markets.

Perhaps surprisingly, “Characteristics” does not find a significant correlation between an arts organization’s reliance on government funding and its level of civic engagement. Kim points out in her literature review that several studies hypothesize a negative relationship between the two, while others argue for a positive correlation – and that empirical results are mixed. (At any rate, as Createquity has noted, the vast majority of arts organizations’ budgets comes from the private sector rather than government funding.)

Kim also hypothesized that a rigid and bureaucratic governance structure would be negatively associated with civic engagement. In fact, however, the survey responses indicate the opposite relationship. Because this finding conflicts with some of her interview data, Kim recommends more research in this area before a conclusion is reached, noting that this study does not establish a causal relationship between these factors.

Room for Growth

Kim notes that these findings cannot tell us definitively whether collaborating with other organizations causes nonprofits to be more civically engaged, or if civically engaged organizations are more likely to seek out collaboration. It also does not shed light on how effective the efforts of civically minded nonprofits are in achieving outcomes. However, the article does make a strong argument that partnering with other types of organizations will strengthen ties with communities and potential audiences.

The study’s survey instruments themselves contain a bit of wiggle room in terms of reliability. For example, respondents were asked to rate their involvement in various activities on a scale of 0 to 100, a huge range with no clear benchmarks that may have been vulnerable to bias in unpredictable ways. Future research on this topic would benefit from a lower reliance on self-reported, subjective measures like these.

Nevertheless, we find much to praise about the innovative approach that “Characteristics of Civically Engaged Nonprofit Organizations” uses to uncover and elucidate some of the key questions and priorities that nonprofit arts organizations face in the real world.

“I hope this encourages researchers to study the role of arts nonprofits, as they are critical elements to improve our civic life,” says Kim, now an assistant professor at Georgia State University’s Andrew Young School of Policy Studies. “And I hope it helps arts nonprofit managers recognize the role of associations and informal networks in influencing program decisions at individual organizations.”

As a think tank and online publication investigating the most important issues in the arts and what we can do about them, Createquity continually gathers and reviews research in the arts sector. With the Createquity Arts Research Prize, we set out to highlight and celebrate the groundbreaking research that we see as essential in maximizing the good that the arts can do.

Arts research occupies no single, well-defined space in either higher education or the wider world; it has roots in many different academic disciplines and intellectual traditions, and it stems from a variety of sources. Candidates for the Createquity Arts Research Prize were drawn from Createquity’s ongoing internal review of hundreds of publications as well as from external nominations, and the winner was selected via two rounds of evaluation. The first was conducted internally by Createquity’s research team using the three criteria of relevance, rigor, and the extent to which the research adds to existing knowledge. The top scoring studies from this round were then evaluated by an external panel comprised of some of the foremost research minds in the country, basing their choices on the criteria above as well as inventiveness, transparency, courage displayed in the choice of topic or approach, and the extent to which the prize would represent a significant opportunity for the author. (See more information on the selection process here.)

Winner of the 2017 Createquity Arts Research Prize, Mirae Kim

Mirae Kim’s prize-winning publication explores one aspect of the important and under-studied question of what sets civically engaged nonprofit arts organizations apart from those whose behaviors are more responsive to market forces. The topic is increasingly resonant within the arts sector, and directly addresses Createquity’s interest in the willingness of arts institutions to prioritize community needs ahead of their own growth and prestige. To investigate this topic, Kim applies a mixed methods approach, robust in its combination of interviews with 21 arts nonprofit directors to inform a survey of approximately 900+ arts organizations, and the integration of key financial data reported on 990 forms to try to uncover patterns related to income sources. The findings of the study suggest that arts organizations that are more civically engaged (as opposed to market-driven):

• Have stronger networks (i.e., work with a greater range of other organizations like schools, senior center);
• Consider civic engagement as an industry norm (i.e., nonprofits are inherently civic-minded institutions); and
• Are consciously aware of their nonprofit status.

Kim also found that earned income negatively correlates with civic engagement behaviors, whereas no correlation between government funding and civic engagement was observed.

Originally, Kim was drawn to this research topic by looking at commercial versus nonprofit theaters in New Jersey, investigating what makes the nonprofits inherently different from commercial theatres. She questioned what is it about the 501(c)(3) identity that is different from commercial ventures.

At the time of her selection, Kim was aware of Createquity but not aware of this inaugural prize. Receiving the congratulatory email in a car driving to Georgia for her new assistant professor position, she was thrilled. She had worked for three years on her research, in some isolation in Missouri. Now, she’s excited by the opportunity to discuss her work and what it means, especially with practitioners. “I love the idea of condensing research into concise briefs and sharing research,” Kim explains. “I am excited about this and looking to connect with people who might want to have a more in-depth discussion about the research and what they see in the real world. This is a great opportunity for researchers who are studying in their offices trying to work on datasets and understand the world better to convey what they find to the people who are out there making real changes.”

This is the first time Createquity (or anyone else, to our knowledge) has attempted to review a year’s worth of arts research with anything approaching this level of comprehensiveness. Congratulations go out to Mirae Kim!

* * *

Additional finalists for the 2016 Createquity Arts Research Prize included:

Runner-Up

“Artistic education matters: survival in the arts occupations”
Trine Bille and Søren Jensen
Does a formal arts education matter in one’s potential for success as an artist? We have published several articles on the role of socioeconomic status in access to arts careers, so this title immediately stuck out as relevant. The research focuses on a group of artists in Denmark, and looks at the influence of their artistic education on survival in the labor market, comparing across different artistic disciplines using detailed statistical procedures. Createquity has published a Research Spotlight of this work.

Honorable Mention

”Does “Strong and Effective” Look Different for Culturally Specific Arts Organizations?”
Zannie Giraud Voss, Glenn Voss, Andrea Louie, Zenetta Drew, and Marla Rubio Teyolia
This working paper, from SMU’s National Center for Arts Research, was a timely response to the controversial 2015 DeVos Institute of Arts Management study that recommended funders consider consolidating grantmaking to organizations of color among a smaller number of institutions. This study was a key source for Createquity’s 2016 article “Making Sense of Cultural Equity.” Its approach of looking at quantitative data to track performance on key indicators, including access to funding, is a fresh lens through which to understand the effectiveness of culturally-specific organizations.

”Do Donors Care About Results? An Analysis of Nonprofit Arts and Cultural Organizations”
Cleopatra Charles and Mirae Kim
This study addresses Createquity’s interest in understanding what motivates decision-making by arts organizations. One of our hypotheses is that donors often dictate what arts institutions do, which may or may not be in alignment with a goal of improving the overall health of the arts ecosystem or maximizing wellbeing benefits from the arts. “Do Donors Care” looks at the important question of whether or not donors change the way they give (e.g., size of donation) based on how an organization performs on outcomes such as attendance via a regression analysis that controls for things like size of organization, age, and fundraising efficiency.

”Showcasing Creativity: Programming and Presenting First Nations Performing Arts”
Jackie Bailey and Hung-Yen Yang, BYP Group; Mandy Whitford and Marija Vodjanoska from the Australia Council for the Arts
One of the few studies on this list that focuses on populations outside of the United States, “Showcasing Creativity” focuses on the the barriers Aboriginal artists face in being able to reach broader audiences in Australia. The methodology combines data visualization techniques to describe frequency of presentations of Aboriginal artists, interviews with presenters, and survey data. Createquity has published a Research Spotlight of this work.

Music, Singing, and Wellbeing – What Works?
Norma Daykin, Guy Julier, Alan Tomlinson, Catherine Meads, Louise Mansfield, Annette Payne, Lily Grigsby Duffy, Jack Lane, Giorgia D’Innocenzo, Adele Burnett, Tess Kay, Paul Dolan, Stefano Testoni, Christina Victor Dolan
We came across this systematic evidence review project from the UK think tank What Works Wellbeing just as Createquity was getting ready to publish “Everything We Know About Whether and How the Arts Improve Lives.” It immediately impressed us as a major resource about the evidence of the effect of music on the wellbeing of adults, both healthy and with dementia (the main focus of the literature under review). Although it is not the first research synthesis covering the topics in question, its comprehensiveness and elegance of design struck us as a model of the genre.

”Well, if They Like it… Effects of Social Groups’ Ratings and Price Information on the Appreciation of Art”
Jon O. Lauring, Matthew Pelowski, Michael Forster, Matthias Gondan, Maurice Ptito, and Ron Kupers
This study looks at the impact of social and monetary contextual information on how people respond to art, potentially adding to our understanding of both the development and cultivation of artistic taste and social constructions of artistic excellence. For Createquity, these ideas are relevant to the question of how a healthy arts ecosystem matches arts participants with experiences that they are likely to find meaningful.

Featured image: South Dunedin community art project. Photo: Flickr user Paul S Allen.

“Harmony,” by Flickr user Thad Zajdowicz

Title: Characteristics of Civically Engaged Nonprofit Arts Organizations: The Results of a National Survey

Author(s): Mirae Kim

Publisher: Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

Year: 2016

URL: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0899764016646473

Topics: Non-profit management, arts organizations, civic engagement, arts management

Methods: Survey, Structured interviews, correlation analysis

What it says: The study uses data from a U.S. survey, structured interviews and IRS forms to test four hypotheses about characteristics of civically engaged nonprofit arts organizations. After a series of interviews with 21 nonprofit directors, a survey was developed where respondents reported the extent to which their organization is involved with different nonprofit roles, some of which are market oriented (e.g. producing artistic products) and some of which are civically oriented (e.g. promoting community engagement or bringing together people of different backgrounds). The survey was completed by a stratified sample of 1,049 nonprofit arts directors. Additional organizational characteristics were measured by survey items in the same survey or federal data from the National Center for charitable Statistics (NCCS).

Author Mirae Kim finds that civic engagement among nonprofits strongly correlates with network diversity (i.e. working with a range of types of other organizations like schools or senior centers), and a perception of civic engagement as an industry norm. Both of these findings are validated by the structured interviews. Because many of the nonprofits surveyed reported high levels of involvement in market roles and civic roles, the author conducts additional analysis taking market roles into account. The positive correlation between network diversity and civic engagement is heightened when an organization also performs market roles. This also means that increased network diversity predicts a complementary relationship between the two roles. This is explained through interview statements about how work with outside community groups and organizations helps arts nonprofits identify and implement civically relevant programming, and simultaneously exposes their work to new audiences within the market.

Receiving a higher share of program revenue negatively correlates with civic engagement (though the connection is not as strong) and reliance on government funding is not correlated with civic engagement at all. The author also hypothesizes that a rigid and bureaucratic governance structure would be negatively associated with civic engagement. The study finds an opposite relationship in the data, but because this finding conflicts with some of the interview data, the author recommends more research in this area before a conclusion is reached. The authors note that this study does not establish causality between these factors, and more importantly it does not delve into the outcomes of the work of civically engaged nonprofits, only the extent that they pursue this role.

What I think about it: This study demonstrates how effective familiar (and relatively affordable) methods in arts research (surveys, structured interviews, NCCS data) can be when part of a sound and well-thought-out study design. This particular model includes a theoretical and literature review which directly informs the study design, the use of previously validated survey instruments whenever possible, care taken to achieve a representative sample, and triangulation between interview and survey data. In addition, the study poses questions relevant to real tensions in arts management, which do not already have obvious answers.

What it all means: Beyond the promising study methodology, this work offers some actionable insight about an ongoing discussion in the nonprofit arts sector: how does the role of supplying quality arts products and experiences interact with expectations to positively influence civic life? This study creates a theoretical map of the different components of this complicated question, demonstrates that the two functions interact, but don’t necessarily need to compete, and offers a clear action that correlates with civic engagement, which is even more pronounced for organizations who are also actively playing a market role. It also suggests that hearing about other organization’s effort to promote civic engagement, at a national conference, for example, does actually cause other nonprofits to increase their civic engagement in turn.

As the author notes, the findings cannot tell us definitively whether collaborating with other organizations causes nonprofits to be more civically engaged, or if civically engaged organizations are more likely to seek out collaboration. It also does not shed light on how effective the efforts of civically minded nonprofits are in their communities in terms of outcomes. However, the action that the study recommends (partnering with other types of organizations) is not such a departure from the missions or practices of most arts nonprofits to necessitate stronger evidence before nonprofits seeking to increase their civic engagement consider doubling down on it as a tactic. Even arts organizations doing this already can take away from this research increased confidence that their time and effort to collaborate across sector boundaries set their work apart.

This research also identifies a few bright areas for research going forward, including: examining the conflicting evidence related to organizational structure and governance, further research on outcomes, and deeper investigation about the effects of the quality or depth of collaboration or the type of collaborative organization on civic engagement and civic outcomes.

“2016 #PSOTU” by flickr user Ted Eytan

Title: Standing for Cultural Democracy: The USDAC’s Policy and Action Platform

Author(s): Arlene Goldbard

Publisher: The U.S. Department of Arts and Culture

Year: 2016

URL: https://actionnetwork.org/user_files/user_files/000/010/392/original/Standing_for_CD_12-7-16.pdf

Topics: cultural democracy, arts policy

Methods: participatory action research, policy analysis

What it says: “Standing for Cultural Democracy” is the U.S. Department of Arts and Culture’s (USDAC) official policy platform. The USDAC is a participatory art and community organizing project designed to open up space for public dialogue about cultural policy. “Standing” is a follow-up to 2015’s “An Act of Collective Imagination,” which offered a look back at the USDAC’s first two years of existence along with a preview of a number of the policy ideas included in the current report.

The USDAC defines culture as “all that is fabricated, endowed, designed, articulated, conceived or directed by human beings,” and thus in USDAC’s view, topics as diverse as racism, human rights, and social attitudes toward climate change are all cultural issues. Its definition of cultural policy is similarly broad: “the aggregate of values and principles guiding any social entity in matters touching on culture.” The USDAC engages in participatory action research, instigating events such as locally distributed “Imaginings” and the national “People’s State of the Union” to source first-person, often arts-based narratives about what is culturally important and what an ideal future might look like. The “Standing” cultural policy platform purports to be inspired by this action research, though the exact mechanisms by which this crowdsourcing took place are not made clear in the report.

The ten-point policy platform includes the following recommendations:

1. Institute a new public service jobs program. In addition to direct funding for jobs that address cultural infrastructure, the platform recommends that percent for art initiatives be expanded to include community-engaged art projects and that existing public service job programs target artists for outreach.
2. Support a culture of justice and equity by distributing resources in representative fashion for the benefit of all communities, and by creating a “national learning community” for allies for social justice.
3. Redeem democracy with creativity by integrating arts modalities into political dialogue and democratic decision-making processes, and organizing hackathons aimed at designing political reforms.
4. Reform the culture of punishment by adopting Campaign Zero’s ten-point policy platform, supporting prison arts programs, and creating art that spreads awareness of related issues and potential solutions among the broader public.
5. Invest in belonging and cultural citizenship by encouraging governments and private institutions to adopt a “policy on belonging,” supporting long-term artists’ residencies at the neighborhood level, supporting community arts centers, and repurposing disused and underused spaces for creative activities.
6. Integrate community cultural development and the work of artists into all social programs affecting culture. In addition to direct involvement of artists, “Standing” advocates developing curricula for explaining the value of artists to professionals in “community building, social service, and public policy” settings.
7. Support artistic response to artistic and natural cultural emergencies by promoting the value of arts-based interventions in crisis situations, offering training to artists to provide these services, and integrating artists into emergency planning processes.
8. Adopt a cultural impact study in communities where physical developments are planned that might disrupt the existing cultural fabric.
9. Reconceive education to support creativity’s central role by advocating for arts integration at the national and local levels, bringing teaching artists into schools, and training artists to work in educational settings.
10. Adopt a basic income grant at the federal and state levels to increase the social safety net for artists and everyone else.

Since most of the policy recommendations require (in some cases substantial) new resources, “Standing” offers several ideas for how those resources might be acquired. The ideas include a tax on media advertising, a “Robin Hood tax” on bank transactions, a Creative Breakthrough Fund that functions as a kind of venture philanthropy resource for arts-based social innovation, and social impact bonds in which private investors pay for the success of social programs that would otherwise be sponsored by local governments.

In an appendix, “Standing” provides model resolutions for two of the policy ideas: the cultural impact study and the policy on belonging. A call to “hack democracy with creativity” is also included, elaborating on idea #3 in the list above.

What I think about it: “Standing for Cultural Democracy” functions as a kind of revision and extension of the USDAC’s first publication, “An Act of Collective Imagination”; indeed, a substantial amount of text is shared between the two documents. But whereas “An Act of Collective Imagination” was framed first and foremost as a case study of the USDAC as an organization with a handful of policy ideas tacked on at the end, in “Standing for Cultural Democracy” the policy platform takes center stage. And appropriately so: the platform now covers far more ground and feels reasonably comprehensive, and some of the zanier or more random ideas in the first edition have been jettisoned or folded into larger categories.

This is not to say that “Standing” is an unqualified success. For one thing, there is still little reason to trust that participants in USDAC programming are fully representative of the United States population, especially with respect to geography and political orientation, and if anything “Standing” is even less clear than “Collective Imagination” about the connection between the organization’s participatory action research and the final product. As for the platform itself, while on the whole it represents a step forward from the previous edition, the proposals still vary widely in quality. Some are premised on highly questionable assertions backed by the flimsiest of evidence; for example, the policy on supporting artistic response to natural and civil emergencies claims that community-based artists “[help] communities to heal in the aftermath of a crisis.” That is an impressive superpower if true, but “Standing” seems to take it completely on faith that it is: it mentions a few case studies of artistic interventions following Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy and the unrest in Ferguson, but discloses only what the activities were – not whether those activities led to any sort of outcome as meaningful as “healing a community.”

Even when the logic behind them is clearer, most proposals offer little clue about how exactly the ideas should be implemented or who is best positioned to do so. While extending the platform to 10 topic areas and dozens of specific proposals makes its coverage more robust, that advantage is accompanied by a corresponding decrease in focus. The USDAC might enjoy more success bringing its ideas to fruition if it chose two or three priority initiatives to emphasize in its initial phase.

Of the ideas presented, I remain most bullish about the Cultural Impact Study, a smart and easily envisioned add-on to any creative placemaking project. In addition, I give the USDAC credit for being smart enough to realize when it doesn’t need to reinvent the wheel: Signing on to Campaign Zero’s policing reform agenda and the substantial literature and practice around Universal Basic Income are savvy choices that broaden the accepted circle of what is relevant to culture and the contexts in which culture is relevant. Among the ideas for raising revenue, the Creative Breakthrough Fund is the one that I find most appealing – its utility is obvious, it could relatively easily be set up with support from private funders, and the resources required could be fairly modest.

What it all means: “Standing for Cultural Democracy” well epitomizes both the value and the limitations of the USDAC’s participatory approach to policy development. As a standalone document, the platform disappoints: the uneven quality is a distraction, and at times it comes across as overly optimistic about the value of integrating arts-based approaches into contexts and spaces where they’re not usually seen. Moreover, though the document purports to be an example of the sort of arts-based, people-powered democracy-hacking that the platform itself calls for, we’re not given much reason to believe that its authorship is all that democratic in the end. Indeed, the very notion of having a “Chief Policy Wonk” who is the platform’s sole credited author seems a bit of a mismatch with the ideals and rhetoric that drive the enterprise. (One wonders: Is the Chief an elected position?)

But if we think of the USDAC and “Standing” as existing within a larger ecosystem of analysis, dialogue, and thought leadership around cultural policy, their added value becomes much clearer. The USDAC’s broad definitions of culture and cultural policy, despite stretching the boundaries of usefulness on their own terms, serve as a needed counterbalance to the professional nonprofit arts sector’s bias toward looking after the interests of specific institutions and art forms. Its welcome-all-comers engagement strategy helps to establish the relevance of cultural policy with a potentially greater and far more diverse audience than any traditional think tank or foundation-commissioned white paper will ever reach. And even if most of the actual ideas in the platform turn out to be dead ends, that hardly matters if the remaining ones offer real potential for impact.

It would be interesting to think how the USDAC’s creative, brainstorming-driven approach can be deployed within that larger ecosystem to the maximum benefit of all. “Standing” offers ideas for how to improve the world without a whole lot of evidence to back them up; others wait for evidence to arrive and may leave promising ideas on the table in the meantime. Much like Y Combinator’s basic income pilot with 100 Oakland residents, an environment where generative cultural policy proposals can be tested and evaluated before receiving a wider rollout could give us the best of both worlds. Combining the kind of creative energy and willingness to think outside the box demonstrated by the USDAC with an appropriate degree of skepticism and open-mindedness around treasured assumptions sounds like an ideal way to develop any kind of policy.

“2016 #PSOTU” by flickr user Ted Eytan

Title: An Act of Collective Imagination: The USDAC’s First Two Years of Action Research

Author(s): Arlene Goldbard

Publisher: The U.S. Department of Arts and Culture

Year: 2015

URL: http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5220c2ece4b0407999540a76/t/560ca93ee4b093206c084ed8/1443670334742/An+Act+of+Collective+Imagination+9-30-15.pdf

Topics: cultural democracy, arts policy

Methods: participatory action research, policy analysis

What it says: “An Act of Collective Imagination” is a look back at the first two years of the U.S. Department of Arts and Culture’s (USDAC) existence. The USDAC is a participatory art and community organizing project designed to open up space for public dialogue about cultural policy. The USDAC takes the position that everyone is naturally interested in cultural policy, they just don’t have the lingo to realize that that’s what it is. This is in part because the USDAC defines cultural policy broadly, not just as actions by the government, and not just about “the arts.” For example, the USDAC views racism, human rights, etc. as cultural issues. The USDAC espouses values that are mostly about full representation and freedom of expression, but also include some explicitly progressive ideas such as “equitable distribution of public resources, particularly to correct past injustices and balance an excess of commercialization.”

The USDAC engages in participatory action research, instigating events such as locally distributed “Imaginings” and the national “People’s State of the Union” to source first-person, often arts-based narratives about what is culturally important and what an ideal future might look like. A synthesis of the most popular topics arising from these activities is included in the report, as follows:

• Community and Belonging
• Racial and Cultural Equity, Inclusion and Justice
• Displacement and Placekeeping
• Migration and Immigration
• Education and Youth
• Macro-economy and Creative Economy
• Environment and Climate

The report offers a selection of six “generative policy ideas” in anticipation of the USDAC’s more fleshed-out policy report (“Standing for Cultural Democracy,” published in 2016). These specific ideas appear to have come primarily from the report’s author, USDAC’s “Chief Policy Wonk” Arlene Goldbard, though they may have been influenced by the action research. The policy ideas are as follows:

• A Bureau of Cultural Citizenship supporting long-term neighborhood artist residencies and both permanent and pop-up community cultural centers
• A Rapid Artistic Response Manual to help artists mobilize direct action and institutional support in the face of natural disasters and cultural crises like the Baltimore Uprising
• A requirement for government and other planning agencies considering actions like transportation initiatives, real estate development, etc. to conduct a Cultural Impact Study analogous to environmental impact reports
• A Bureau of Teaching Artistry that would work with school districts to create funding for teaching artists in schools and promote arts integration in all subject areas
• A Universal Basic Income Grant to bolster the social safety net for artists and everyone else
• A public-private EcoArts Fund that would employ arts-based strategies to shift public attitudes toward climate change

“Collective Imagination” concludes with a few proposals to pay for the initiatives above, including a tax on advertising, a “Robin Hood” tax on bank expenditures, and having federal agencies hire artists to help with things like disseminating public information. An appendix includes a full model resolution for adopting a Cultural Impact Study policy in one’s community.

What I think about it: “An Act of Collective Imagination” is several things at once, but for the purposes of this review it is most useful to think of it as a policy brief. Viewed through that lens, it makes several contributions of note:

1. It offers an example of a novel method by which to crowdscource areas of policy concern and policy ideas;
2. It offers several specific policy ideas, a mix of original creations and adaptations from other sources; and
3. It offers a few strategies to create funding streams for the policies in #2.

Of these three, the first contribution is arguably the most intriguing in concept. The USDAC sets itself apart by pursuing a radically different method for understanding public attitudes toward policy than traditional think tanks and research initiatives. Unapologetically qualitative, decentralized, and improvisational, it coopts the language and methods of art in the pursuit of knowledge, resulting in rich, overlapping narrative tapestries on a wide range of topics. That said, the weaknesses of this approach are at least as salient as its strengths. Two in particular threaten to drain the usefulness of the exercise. First, given that there is no formal sampling method employed and no information is provided about the participants other than their total number and some of the locations, it’s a strong bet that participants in the Imaginings and other USDAC events are not representative of the US population as a whole. Given the political leanings of the founders and their networks, for example, along with the project’s generally urban focus, I would be very surprised to learn that there were more than a handful of self-identified conservatives included in the action research – a philosophical conundrum for a project that prizes inclusion and holds “culture is created by everyone” as a core value. This is especially so since political identification is presumably more likely to correlate with differences in one’s priorities and vision for the future than other vectors of diversity such as race, gender, geography, or age. An Imagining session held exclusively among Donald Trump supporters might well yield some very different narratives and areas of concern.

Second, the funnel from the action research to the policy ideas is never fully explained, leaving one to wonder whether there is much connection at all. Some of the ideas, such as Universal Basic Income and the Robin Hood tax, are borrowed from other sources not specific to the arts; others, like the Bureau of Teaching Artists, appear to have been generated by the USDAC’s own leadership. If part of the point of doing the action research in the first place is to learn from the people, it would have been more compelling to see the people’s thinking transparently represented in the policy proposals.

As for the proposals themselves, they are a mixed bag. The Cultural Impact Study is the clear highlight here, as it is among the most realistic, innovative, and fully fleshed out of the ideas presented. Though there are inevitably details to be worked out, I would love to see a version of the CIS piloted somewhere and evaluated. While not as original, connecting Universal Basic Income to cultural policy is another wise move. By contrast, many of the other suggestions, like the Rapid Artistic Response manual and the proposal to hire artists to organize public meetings, come across as half-baked.

What it all means: “An Act of Collective Imagination” paints a portrait of a promising and inventive organization that is figuring things out on the fly. The notion of democratizing policy development is a tantalizing one, and while there are legitimate questions and concerns to be raised about the way in which that process has unfolded to date, it’s not difficult to imagine a more seasoned (and perhaps better-resourced) iteration of the USDAC successfully addressing some of these concerns in the future. That said, it’s probably best to consider this kind of participatory approach a complement to traditional, expert-driven policy analysis rather than a replacement for it. Citizens of the world are very good at being experts on themselves, but it takes specialized skills to bridge the disparate narratives to construct truly collective wisdom and broker difficult compromises between competing values, interests, and worldviews. It may be true that everyone cares about cultural policy, but USDAC hasn’t (yet) made a convincing case that everyone should be developing it.

Photo credit: EKG Technician Salary

Title:  Nonprofit organizations and the Intersectoral division of labor in the arts

Author(s): Paul J. DiMaggio

Publisher: Yale University Press (in The Nonprofit Sector: A research handbook)

Year: 2006

URL: https://www.princeton.edu/~artspol/workpap/WP30-DiMaggio.pdf

Topics: Nonprofit arts sector, commercial arts sector

Methods: Analysis of economic census data, literature review

What it says: The article explores the division between nonprofit and commercial organizations within particular sub-fields within the arts. DiMaggio primarily uses data from the 1997 US Economic Census, which collects data on tax exempt (nonprofits and public) and taxable (for profit) entities in multiple categories. DiMaggio acknowledges several limitations of this data set, most notably that it tends to exclude or underestimate small or unincorporated arts organizations as well as those embedded within larger institutions like universities. DiMaggio relies on the data set despite these drawbacks, since he believes that it is the single best source to determine how arts activities are divided between the for profit and nonprofit arts sectors in the United States.

DiMaggio’s analysis finds that art and history museums are primarily non-profit. Within the performing arts, he finds that fields with the longest history of prestige and recognition as high art (symphonies, resident theatres, operas) tend to adopt non-commercial form while other less prestigious fields (popular music, dinner theatre) tend to adopt commercial status. Fields that have recently gained respect from critics and scholars, such as ethnic dance or Jazz, contain either a mix of organizations of both types, or skew toward the commercial. Overall, the majority of the categories DiMaggio examines are largely dominated by tax exempt organizations.

The author reviews three theories frequently cited in the literature to explain this division between nonprofit and commercial structures, or more specifically the dominance of the nonprofit form in the majority of many arts fields.  The first theory is market failure, or the idea that certain arts activities are not feasible as commercial enterprises and so can only thrive with private or public subsidies (Baumol and Bowen’s landmark work on cost disease in the performing arts is cited). DiMaggio points out that cost disease explains why subsidy is needed, while theories about collective or public goods, or goods which have benefits that accrue beyond those who utilize them, help explain why subsidy is made available.

The second group of theoretical approaches that DiMaggio examines are industrial-organizational in nature. These theories focus on the specific characteristics about the nonprofit organizational form that make it a well-suited for artistic endeavors. DiMaggio discusses literature focused on  variable demand for products, with some patrons willing to pay high amounts to subsidize the availability of the arts product (this “demand” is met by accepting donations from individuals) while  another segment of patrons with less interest or ability to pay have a drastically lower price point and contribute via ticket sales.)  He also discusses “club theory,” which discusses how the governance models of nonprofits are particularly suited to a small group seeking to ensure that their aesthetic sensibility is privileged over business needs. He also discusses theories positing that nonprofit status is useful for organizations in order to signal their commitment to artistic excellence and thereby attract and retain high caliber artists.

Finally, DiMaggio turns to historical and political analyses, which he identifies as an important addition to the theoretical explanations listed above. DiMaggio describes the establishment of nonprofit cultural organizations like museums and symphonies in the 19th century by elites, and then the slow diffusion of this model to other geographic areas as well as additional disciplines like opera or theater. DiMaggio states that, by the mid-20th century “the contours of the intersectoral division of labor in the arts were well defined. All that remained was to fill them in.” According to DiMaggio, this began to happen through the arts funding and field building programs led by the Ford Foundation, as well as the establishment of the NEA and other public funding sources. Public funding also served to broaden the range of arts activities likely to receive institutional subsidies, to include new types of activities like photography or ethnic dance. DiMaggio posits that the availability of private or public subsidies may have made organizations pursuing these activities more likely to be established as or become nonprofits. DiMaggio also references larger demographic shifts that made Americans more educated and prosperous, which in turn created a wider audience for more serious art forms. DiMaggio suggests that these three historical analyses, taken together, provide a solid overall explanation for the intersectoral divisions that appear in his data analysis.

DiMaggio concludes his paper by exploring patterns in the data not accounted for by these theories which also serve as potential areas for further research. He leads with a discussion of efficient boundaries, or tendencies  of organizations to form different types of employment relationships, i.e. long term employment relationships or shorter term contracts with workers (in this case artists). He notes that nonprofit organizations tend to dominate in fields which pursue long term employment arrangements, both in the arts and other sectors. DiMaggio suggests that for those types of organizations that gained an early foothold within the system of philanthropic support as it was being built, the nonprofit form provided an opportunity for managers and artists to limit risk. In fields without this longstanding access to grant support, DiMaggio notes that managers limit risk by decoupling presenting  and artistic activities, while many artists limit risk by subsidizing arts activities through alternate employment, or day jobs.

Next, DiMaggio raises the question of whether cost disease can be addressed in the future, citing recent methods to lower costs within some traditional disciplines, such as delivering symphony music through technological means. Finally, he returns to the importance of arts organizations and programs embedded within universities, churches, and other larger organizations as well as unincorporated organizations and hybrid organizations, which combine characteristics of multiple forms. DiMaggio recognizes that these groups are not fully accounted for in the theories in the article but make up a significant portion of arts activities. He also discusses the division of labor between the public and private sectors, noting that there are few arts fields where public and commercial institutions compete.

DiMaggio’s final question is this: Does organizational form matter? How does it affect the actions of decisions made by organizations? He notes that while there are numerous comparative studies on the differences between nonprofit and commercial organizations for fields like healthcare and education, these are few such studies related to cultural organizations. This means that case studies and theory provide the only available set of literature.

To conclude, DiMaggio highlights larger changes that may affect the sectoral division of labor in the arts going forward. He discusses demographic changes such as new waves of immigration that will lead to a boom in arts activities presenting and furthering the cultures of immigrant groups. These organizations may adopt the nonprofit or the commercial form. He also discusses the eroding boundary of high and popular culture and a gradual erosion of ideologies which privilege European culture over other forms. These trends could lead to future growth areas. He also notes the erosion of clear boundaries between nonprofits and commercial organizations, as many nonprofits are adopting language and practices from the commercial world, and embracing modes of distribution or business endeavors previously seen as too market-based. Lastly, DiMaggio discusses the disruption that new technologies are likely to produce. He predicts that these technological shifts may result in some services currently provided by arts nonprofits shifting to commercial arts firms and vice versa.

What I think about it: DiMaggio’s use of intersectoral division of labor as a framework to examine the contours of the arts sector proves to be a rich investigation, as evidenced by the number of critical arts issues that come up in his theoretical exploration of this one data set. While there are issues inherent in the data used for his analysis, DiMaggio fully acknowledges these limitations and takes time to explain how they may limit his sector analysis and where they may point to further research. DiMaggio’s literature review is particularly helpful since it combines theories and approaches from economics, organizational theory, and history.

What it all means: While Createquity understands that organizations as such are not a prerequisite for a healthy arts ecosystem, they can be important factors in the success of the ecosystem. DiMaggio acknowledges the influence that organization types have on the arts sector while refraining from assuming a  default or obvious form for organizations. Instead of letting the current boundaries within the arts sector frame his inquiry, DiMaggio probes them, and in the process identifies multiple avenues of inquiry that may be able to provide insight into critical major arts issues.

“People of color(s)” by darwin bell

Title: Shaping a triple-bottom line for nonprofit arts organizations: Micro-, macro-, and meta-policy influences

Author: Wyszomirski, Margaret Jane

Publisher: Cultural Trends

Year: December 2013

URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09548963.2013.817645#.VuRi_fkrLIU

What it says: The article provides a recounting of the evolution of NEA policies since its founding in 1965 and those policies’ impacts on the nonprofit arts sector. Wyszormirski describes how major NEA policies were conceived and implemented by NEA Chairs in response to political or societal pressures as well as perceived deficiencies in the U.S. arts ecosystem. As these agency-wide policies were gradually integrated into the grant making culture of the NEA and the work of arts organizations, a standard set of metrics for organizational performance emerged: a triple bottom line including financial sustainability, artistic vitality, and recognized public value. The author notes that the original NEA legislation did refer to each of these “bottom line” metrics but the integration of these metrics into the arts nonprofit system was a result of the priorities and improvisations of each NEA chair, as opposed to an overarching plan.

The author states that wide adoption of each of these three metrics happened in an ad hoc and incremental manner, with matching grants and peer panel review as the instruments. As a result of interactions between grantees, panel members, NEA staff, and other funders, these metrics became standard for all arts NGOs, whether or not they were grantees of the NEA. The author also notes that policies combining multiple goals exist in other arenas, and specifically mentions terminology of the “triple-bottom line” of profit-making, social responsibility, and environmental sustainability described in business management literature. On financial sustainability, Wyszomirski puts the NEA at the center of the gradual consolidation of standards. Wyszomirski recounts how the NEA’s understanding of its financial role changed over time from providing direct support, such as a 1966 emergency grant to the American Ballet Theater, to funding that encouraged the ability of nonprofit arts organizations to maintain financial stability. Wyszomirski says that this evolution resulted in the financial sustainability “bottom line” for the arts sector.

Wyszomirski describes three different evolutions of the NEA’s position on artistic merit. In the first phrase, the NEA innovated by departing from an elitist definition of excellence to welcoming a broader range of art forms. Subsequently, the NEA pursued policies that emphasized promoting experimental work by being the funder of last resort. Lastly, the culture wars period from 1989 to 1997 put pressure on the ideal of experimental work. The result was a move by the NEA to link community “buy-in” to the concept of artistic value.

The article notes that the public benefit “bottom line” was present in the NEA’s founding legislation but evolved to become more important and more prominent over time. Wyszomirski says the NEA had always valued both the intrinsic and the instrumental benefits of the arts but describes a shift toward instrumentalism in arts policy in response “to threatened funding reductions and the culture wars” following the 1980s. The study goes through the history of NEA work in arts education and more recently “creative placemaking” activities. Wyszomirski stresses that, after the late 1990s, NEA chairs have pushed instrumental arts activities that produce visible public benefits – activities that enable advocacy efforts of the NEA and the larger arts advocacy community.

What I think about it: The study explains the interplay of different mechanisms that create and disseminate arts policy through the NEA and arts nonprofits in a persuasive way. The assertion that the evolution of standards was driven by ad hoc policy responses, rather than as part of a policy master plan or theory of change, remains important to bear in mind for those who seek to shape arts policy in the future. The aphorism “no battle plan survives contact with the enemy” springs to mind. The study includes an assertion that when the NEA chair did not lead on overall policy development for the arts sector, outside actors, such as foundations, took the lead and drove policy. Wyszomirski states that, with the beginnings of the culture wars, “the NEA…was in no position to articulate macro-policy” and “the next reframing of this [financial sustainability] bottom line as a search for sustainability came from private foundations outside the NEA.” However, the study provides less texture on influences and competing or complimentary ideas from these other actors. This paper leaves open the potentially vital question of how private foundations and other non-governmental actors have formed arts sector policy.

What it all means: There is an underlying implication in the study that the arts community ultimately got to the right overall mix of these three bottom lines, even if Wyszomirski stresses that the exact balance will remain in flux. In the future, however, debates over the instrumental versus intrinsic value of the arts, the diversity in the arts, and the mix of nonprofit versus for-profit arts may impact the definitions of financial sustainability, artistic vitality, and recognized public value. Further analysis and research is needed on how other actors, especially private grant makers, are shaping the benchmarks for success in the arts ecosystem in the U.S. Understanding the mechanism for defining success in the arts remains important to Createquity’s investigation on the capacity to create change.

Books! by Kirrus

Our research on the history of the arts ecosystem continues with our investigation of the expanding definition of the arts and the recent history of support and recognition for artists of color. We have decided to focus this research on the period covering 1980-today, with an emphasis on trends related to equity and multiculturalism within the arts ecosystem.

Here are the resources we have reviewed last month.

Bryan, B. (2008). Diversity in Philanthropy: A Comprehensive Bibliography of Resources Related to Diversity Within the Philanthropic and Nonprofit Sectors. Foundation Center. Retrieved from http://foundationcenter.org/getstarted/topical/diversity_in_phil.pdf

Campbell, M. S. (1998). A New Mission for the NEA. TDR: The Drama Review, 42(4), 5–9.

DeVos Instititute of Arts Management. (2015). Diversity In The Arts: The Past, Present, and Future of African American and Latino Museums, Dance Companies, and Theater Companies. Retrieved from http://www.devosinstitute.umd.edu/What-We-Do/News-and-Announcements/Announcements/Announcements/Diversity%20in%20the%20Arts%20paper

Garfias, R. (1991). Cultural diversity and the arts in America. In Public money and the muse, ed. Stephen Benedict. New York: Norton.

Gordon, A., & Newfield, C. (1996). Mapping multiculturalism. Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota Press.

Haft, J. (n.d.). Article: Voices from the Battlefront: Achieving Cultural Equity Through Critical Analysis. Retrieved from https://roadside.org. October 22, 2015. https://roadside.org/asset/article-voices-battlefront-achieving-cultural-equity-through-critical-analysis

Hartmann, D., & Gerteis, J. (2005). Dealing with Diversity: Mapping Multiculturalism in Sociological Terms. Sociological Theory, 23(2), 218–240.

Jensen, R. (1995). The Culture Wars, 1965-1995: A Historian’s Map. Journal of Social History, 29, 17–37.

Jewesbury, D. D., Singh, J., & Tuck, S. (2009). Cultural Diversity: Language and Meanings. The Arts Council of Ireland. Retrieved from http://www.artscouncil.ie/uploadedFiles/Main_Site/Content/Artforms_and_Practices/Arts_Participation_pages/Cultural_Diversity_language_meanings.pdf

Koch, C. (1998). The NEA and NEH Funding Crisis. Public Talk: Online Journal of Discourse Leadership, (2). Retrieved from http://www.upenn.edu/pnc/ptkoch.html

Lowry, W. M. (1991). How many muses? Government funding for the multicultural. Journal of Arts Management & Law, 21(3), 264.

Marta Moreno Vega. (1993). Voices from the Battlefront: Achieving Cultural Equity. Trenton, N.J: Africa World Pr.

Matlon, M. P., Ingrid Van Haastrecht, & Kaitlyn Wittig Mengüç. (2014). Figuring the Plural: Needs and Supports of Canadian and US Ethnocultural Arts Organizations. Chicago, IL: Plural. Retrieved from http://www.pluralculture.org/programs-services/figuring-the-plural-book/

Moore, M. (1990). The politics of multiculture. Journal of Arts Management and Law, 20(1), 5–15.

Pankratz, D. B. (1993). Multiculturalism and public arts policy. Bergin & Garvey.

Race & Ethnicity in Independent Films: Prevalence of Underrepresented Directors and the Barriers They Face. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/Research-Art-Works-Sundance.pdf

Sidford, H. (2011). Fusing Arts, Culture, and Social Change. National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. Retrieved from http://www.ncrp.org/files/publications/Fusing_Arts_Culture_Social_Change.pdf

Ravitch, D. (1990). Multiculturalism: E pluribus plures. American Scholar, 59(3), 337.

Voss, Z. G., Voss, G., Louie, A., Drew, Z., & Teyolia, M. R. (n.d.). Does “Strong and Effective” Look Different for Culturally Specific Arts Organizations? Retrieved from http://www.smu.edu/~/media/Site/Meadows/NCAR/NCARWhitePaper01-12

Meanwhile, we have also focused our literature review and searching on artists’ labor markets and on entrepreneurship. Studies that we reviewed last month appear below:

Alper, Neil O. (n.d.). ARTISTS’ CAREERS AND THEIR LABOR MARKETS*. Retrieved from http://faos.ku.dk/pdf/undervisning_og_arrangementer/2010/ARTISTS__CAREERS_191010.pdf

Abbing, H. (2008). Why Are Artists Poor? : The Exceptional Economy of the Arts. Retrieved from http://www.oapen.org/search?identifier=340245

Caves, R. C. (2000). Creative Industries: Contracts between art and commerce. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=imfTUHj8uVcC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=poor+students+pursue+art+careers&ots=1ETnN5opB8&sig=Ra2jkWr15h47wDmdwJjpfhBmKcY#v=onepage&q&f=false

Dimitrialdi, N. (2009, May). THE EMERGENCE OF PRACTICE: MOTIVATION AND DECISION MAKING AMONG CONTEMPORARY VISUAL ARTISTS. University of Brighton. Retrieved from http://eprints.brighton.ac.uk/12291/1/Thesis_%20Nina_Dimitriadi.pdf

Galligan, A., & Alper, N. (2000). The Career Matrix: The Pipeline for Artists in the United States. In The Public Life of Arts in America.

Jackson, M.-R. (2004). Investing in Creativity: A Study of the Support Structure for US Artists. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 34(1), 43–58. Retrieved from https://phillyartistssummit.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/investing-in-creativity.pdf

Menger, P.-M. (1999). Artistic Labor Markets and Careers. Annual Review of Sociology Vol. 25, 25. Retrieved fromhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/223516.pdf

Throsby, D., & Zednik, A. (2011). Multiple job-holding and artistic careers: some empirical evidence. Cultural Trends, 20(1), 9–24. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09548963.2011.540809

Wadhwa, V., Aggarwal, R., Holly, K., Salkever, A. (n.d.). The Anatomy of an Entrepreneur: Family Background and Motivation. Retrieved from http://www.kauffman.org/~/media/kauffman_org/research%20reports%20and%20covers/2009/07/anatomy_of_entre_071309_final.pdf

Our research questions include:

• How does economic disadvantage decrease access and knowledge of working arts opportunities?

• How many low-SES people who might want to be artists cannot be artists because of barriers to participation?

Literature from our initial scan includes:

Anderson, A. R. (2003). Class matters: human and social capital in the entrepreneurial process. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 32(1), 17–36. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105353570300009X

Beattie, I. R. (2002). Are All “Adolescent Econometricians” Created Equal? Racial, Class, and Gender Differences in College Enrollment. Sociology of Education, 75(1), 19–43. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3090252?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Benhamou, F. (n.d.). Artists’ labour markets. In A Handbook of Cultural Economics (pp. 53–57). Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=eyXQbYAXCBQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA53&dq=time+and+money+required,+successful+artist,&ots=808sTBgr7J&sig=p1sN51mGV3lieGBaFekB8ppBHLM#v=onepage&q=time%20and%20money%20required%2C%20successful%20artist%2C&f=false

Bui, Q. (2014). Who Had Richer Parents, Doctors Or Artists? NPR Planet Money. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/03/18/289013884/who-had-richer-parents-doctors-or-arists

Cox, R. D. (2016). Complicating Conditions: Obstacles and Interruptions to Low-Income Students’ College “Choices.” Journal of Higher Education, 87(1), 1–26. Retrieved from https://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/journal_of_higher_education/v087/87.1.cox.html

Filer, R. K. (1986). The “Starving Artist”–Myth or Reality? Earnings of Artists in the United States. Journal of Political Economy. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1831960

Hans, A. (2008). Why Are Artists Poor? : The Exceptional Economy of the Arts. Retrieved from http://www.oapen.org/search?identifier=340245

Jahoda, S., Murphy, B., Virgin, V., & Woolard, C. (n.d.). Artists Report Back: A National Study on the Lives of Arts Graduates and Working Artists. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/N2AYyx

Luftig, R. L., Donovan, M. L., Farnbaugh, C. L., Kennedy, E. E., Filicko, T., & Wyszomirski, M. J. (2003). So What Are You Doing after College? An Investigation of Individuals Studying the Arts at the Post-Secondary Level, Their Job Aspirations and Levels of Realism. National Arts Education Association, 45(1), 5–19. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1321105

Minniti, M., & Nardone, C. (2007). Being in Someone Else’s Shoes: the Role of Gender in Nascent Entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 28(2), 223–238. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11187-006-9017-y

Mullen, A. L. (2014). GENDER, SOCIAL BACKGROUND, AND THE CHOICE OF COLLEGE MAJOR IN A LIBERAL ARTS CONTEXT. Gender & Society, 28(2), 289–312. Retrieved from http://gas.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/12/17/0891243213512721

Rampell, C. (2014). The Most Expensive Colleges in the Country are Art Schools, Not Ivies. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2014/03/28/the-most-expensive-colleges-in-the-country-are-art-schools-not-ivies/

Simon, R., & Barry, B. (2013). A Degree Drawn in Red Ink. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324432004578306610055834952?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424127887324432004578306610055834952.html

SNAAP. (2013). An Uneven Canvas: Inequality in Artistic Training and Careers. Retrieved from http://snaap.indiana.edu/pdf/2013/SNAAP%20Annual%20Report%202013.pdf

Strategic National Arts Alumni Project. (n.d.). Spotlight on First-Generation Artists (PART 2). Retrieved from http://snaap.indiana.edu/databrief/vol4no1.html

Meanwhile, we have also begun work on a new research area, continuing our investigation into the history of the arts ecosystem.

History of the Arts Ecosystem: expanding definition of the arts

Arts institutions and organizations that constitute the core of the formally recognized “cultural sector” were—and continue to be—dominated by Eurocentric artists and art forms. While this bias persists, the definition of what counts as art, and what is deemed worthy of study and support by formal institutions, appears to have expanded considerably over the past 50 years.

Createquity is investigating this shift as part of our larger project on the history of change in the arts ecosystem, with an emphasis on the role of changemakers. A few of the questions we will be exploring in this research process are:

• What are some examples of artistic activities and traditions pursued by artists or communities of color that have seen an increase in prestige and recognition from the 1950s to today?
• Is there any data or method of quantifying this increase in prestige?
• How much has the amount of monetary support available for noncommercial artistic activities and traditions pursued by artists or communities of color changed from the 1950s – today?
  • How does this contrast this with the general increase in support available for nonprofit arts activities, and with demographic shifts in the same period?
• Have artists of color working in the commercial sector seen increases in the resources they personally gain as a result of their artistic work?
• Who are some of the most important actors from within communities of non-Eurocentric artistic practice who have deliberately organized to increase the visibility of their work and their peers?
  • What was their original intention when they started the work that led to this change?
  • How did they gain attention or resources for their activities beyond the norm for their time?
• What are some identifiable moments of reform from within institutional funding communities?
  • How did they start?
  • Who made the ultimate decision to change institutional policies and why?
• Has the bulk of this shift been in recognition and prestige as opposed to monetary resources?
• How have artist-driven movements or projects and funder-led initiatives interacted with one another on this issue?

We have begun our initial literature search, and we are also looking for suggestions from our readers. Read more about that here.