Can arts save their way to health?

July 1, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

"Arts organizations that consistently do good work and are aggressive about their marketing are the ones which succeed, both programmatically and financially."

So says Michael Kaiser, President of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in a recent item at Huffington Post. Kaiser will be hitting the road, visiting all 50 states, to lead "Arts in Crisis" discussions. Included is an August 11 stop in Indy. Details here.

He states that canceling performances, eliminating educational programming, shortening seasons, or "dumbing down" product in the name of accessibility is wrongheaded.

"These approaches to dealing with the current recession all assume that cost is the underlying problem of the arts; conventional wisdom suggests that an arts organization can 'save its way to health.' But this is wrong, dangerously wrong."

Is Kaiser right? If quality stays up and the message gets out, will audiences (and donors) show up? Does what he says apply perhaps to the Kennedy Center's home in Washington, D.C., but not to Indianapolis?

Your thoughts?

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Why wouldn't his comments apply to Indianapolis? Of course they do. Or, should we just dumb down what culture we have left out of existence here in corn country? Maybe the ISO could have an evening of Bob Seger music...
  • Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes! Once one heads down the road of dumbing down the product, in effect talking down to one's audience, the road back becomes awfully hard to find. I see it all over, not just in Indiana. This holds true in the political/governmental realm, too, but that's a discussion for another time and place.
  • The problem with cutting programs to reduce overall expenditures is the assumption that the programs are not necessary in the first place. I know of no arts organization that develops a program just for the heck of it--it ALWAYS serves an expressed or observed need. The need will remain whether or not the program exists. The key is to carefully do a needs review to identify programs that are happening just because they've been institutionalized--they once served a need that is no longer there. Then the impact of removing the program(s) should be assessed, both financially (since people have come to expect the program and may stop coming if it is no longer provided) and mission-related.

    Making programs more accessible (i.e., dumbing down the content) is unacceptable. Altering quality to remove controversy and attract a wider audience is likewise unacceptable. Cuts can be made by reducing overhead; unfortunately, at this time, reducing marketing overhead is tempting but wrong as well.
  • I think its presumptious to assume that if you have a good product and get the message out, audiences and donors will just continue to show up - at least in the same way they have been. They may want to show up, but if they don't have the cash, it won't matter.

    However, I do think you can carefully analyze how and what your organization is doing and determine ways to keep your programs and quality, while cutting costs - and it's not necessarily cutting overhead. For some organizations, there is little overhead to cut - i.e. volunteer based organizations. It's more of focusing efforts and being realistic about what will and will not pay for itself. It may be necessary to do more things for a less amount of time - fewer performances - shorter gallery time - etc. This may actually cost more - more time and overall more money because things are changing out more frequently- but can widen your appeal with variety, and mean more people come through the door - balancing it out.
    But, you still have to get the word out.

    Don't dumb down the content. That's just a bad idea all the way around.
  • Making content accessible does not mean the same thing as dumbing it down. The ISO's Symphony on the Prairie season is a good example: Throughout the summer, you can hear music from the Grateful Dead and the Beatles, and you can hear Mozart, La forza del destino and Bolero. At the Eiteljorg Museum, you've had the chance to see art from popular, blockbuster artists such as Dale Chihuly and Ansel Adams, and you can see the work of classic Western artists such as Frederic Remington every day.

    Accessibility simply lowers the intangible barriers people unused to visiting cultural institutions build up in their minds. Once you get them in the door, you have the chance to convert them. But you have to get them in the door first. I don't call that dumb at all. I think it's pretty smart.

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. How much you wanna bet, that 70% of the jobs created there (after construction) are minimum wage? And Harvey is correct, the vast majority of residents in this project will drive to their jobs, and to think otherwise, is like Harvey says, a pipe dream. Someone working at a restaurant or retail store will not be able to afford living there. What ever happened to people who wanted to build buildings, paying for it themselves? Not a fan of these tax deals.

  2. Uh, no GeorgeP. The project is supposed to bring on 1,000 jobs and those people along with the people that will be living in the new residential will be driving to their jobs. The walkable stuff is a pipe dream. Besides, walkable is defined as having all daily necessities within 1/2 mile. That's not the case here. Never will be.

  3. Brad is on to something there. The merger of the Formula E and IndyCar Series would give IndyCar access to International markets and Formula E access the Indianapolis 500, not to mention some other events in the USA. Maybe after 2016 but before the new Dallara is rolled out for 2018. This give IndyCar two more seasons to run the DW12 and Formula E to get charged up, pun intended. Then shock the racing world, pun intended, but making the 101st Indianapolis 500 a stellar, groundbreaking event: The first all-electric Indy 500, and use that platform to promote the future of the sport.

  4. No, HarveyF, the exact opposite. Greater density and closeness to retail and everyday necessities reduces traffic. When one has to drive miles for necessities, all those cars are on the roads for many miles. When reasonable density is built, low rise in this case, in the middle of a thriving retail area, one has to drive far less, actually reducing the number of cars on the road.

  5. The Indy Star announced today the appointment of a new Beverage Reporter! So instead of insightful reports on Indy pro sports and Indiana college teams, you now get to read stories about the 432nd new brewery open or some obscure Hoosier winery winning a county fair blue ribbon. Yep, that's the coverage we Star readers crave. Not.

ADVERTISEMENT