Arts Advocacy Day 2010 – recap and reflections

I realize a posting at this point about Arts Advocacy Day is about a week and a half too late, but I’m in graduate school, cut me some slack.

This year I attended my first Arts Advocacy Day, and helped represent the delegation from Virginians for the Arts.  Every year, Americans for the Arts (AFTA) spends two days “rallying the troops” in an effort to convince our Representatives in Congress that yes, the arts DO matter for many reasons, and yes, they DO deserve public funding.  This year’s special guests included actors Jeff Daniels and Kyle MacLachlan, OVATION CEO Charles Segars, NEA Chair Rocco Landesman, and various well known Congressman such as Rep. John Lewis,  Rep. Louise Slaughter, and Rep. Jim Moran (my representative), who chairs the House Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior and the Environment that decides NEA appropriations .  Even the ol’ battle-ax herself, Nancy Pelosi, still reeling off her victory in the health care reform battle, took time from her busy schedule to address the group of us supportive arts advocates and to accept the AFTA Arts Leadership Award.

After the first day of meeting and getting to know our delegation, familiarizing ourselves with the facts and figures and going through a crash course in “Lobbying 101″, I found myself the second day walking the halls of Congress eager and ready.  I will admit, it is a touch intimidating, walking those halls and passing doors reading “John Kerry”, “John McCain”, ” Joseph Libermann”, and knowing that you’re playing with the big boys now.  Being from Virginia I met with my district representative, Jim Moran, as well as various other State Representatives, including the now infamous Minority Whip, Eric Cantor.  Eric Cantor by the way has a an F score from Americans for the Arts, i.e., he votes against every bill that in any way would have supported arts related initiatives.  My delegation also met with the offices of both senators from Virginia, Jim Webb and John Warner.

Okay, some observations:

Who you meet with shows your issues’ importance to that representative’s agenda – I realize members of Congress are busy people, but this was a highly scheduled and planned lobbying day, and not ONE representative met with us personally.  Instead, we met with a member of their staff.  What got really interesting was breaking this down even further by seeing what level staffer we were relegated to.  In the case of generally supportive Congressman, i.e., every Democrat we met with, we were received by usually no less than their primary legislative aide.  In the case of Eric Cantor’s office, (remember, he gets an F), our entire delegation of six pitched arguments, facts and figures to someone who amounted no more than the secretary.  Would it surprise anyone if I told you his office had Fox News on the television?

Support for the arts was argued based on extrinsic value indicators – A review of the Arts Advocacy Day handbook provided to each delegate contained a plethora of facts and figures about the economic impact of the arts, as well as numerous other charts and graphs showing ways in which the arts and “creative industries”(buzz word), all impact the economy.  Now, I’m not stupid.  I get why we’re going for the economic angle.  In obvious times of economic hardship, it is important to show how government subsidy can support an industry, but  also how that industry can bring money back to the government.  Our argument is that the arts and creative industries do that exceptionally well.  Naturally, there are facts and figures used to support this, but I don’t want break up my writing flow with that.  If you want to read for yourself, you can find the info here.

While understanding one’s audience is key to an effective argument, I wonder, are we trying to “sell” the arts based on external effects caused by arts activity?  In other words, by arguing for the extrinsic benefit of the arts, are we taking something away from their intrinsic value, and thus further relegating art and artists into just another profession like steel workers who make a product for consumption?  Call me idealist or naive, but I really think the arts and the experiences and emotional connections they afford people are worth more in “social capital” than they could EVER be worth in “monetary capital”.  But then again, I recognize who my audience is and what the political climate calls for right now.  Thus, the appropriate buzz words must be used in order to be heard.

Even with all the facts and figures in the world showing the economic impact of the arts and their seven-fold return in tax revenue to the government, there will always be those who just don’t get.  After my long day on the Hill, and promoting these figures ad nauseum, I came home to see this video on my local evening news and literally wanted to throw something at the t.v.  I understand there are those who take issue with government funding of ANYTHING non-military.  For those people, I choose to count my losses and realize convincing them is a waste of time.  However, for those who do believe domestic government funding can be effective, I ask why more support for the arts is not there.  Why is it that an Urban Institute Study surveyed Americans to find that they hold art in high regard, while at the same time do not see its public benefit?  This “American paradox” as it was aptly called in the study is quite perplexing and what, I believe, lies at the root of our public art funding dilemma.  Americans simply have a disconnect between art as entertainment that they want to consume, and art as facilitator of expression, personality, education, well-being, community, etc., etc., etc.,

It is at this point I shake my head and wonder, will Americans ever have the kind of public support seen in Finland or Germany?  But then I also wonder, is public funding the answer to the current problems facing the arts? Aside from funding issues, will increases in government funding make classical music “popular”, opera accessible, and modern art palatable?  Sadly, I believe the answer is no.  The problem with the arts in America goes well beyond the problem of money.  It is a matter of education and cultural relevance.  Arts education is increasingly being cut from our schools and thus not exposing kids to art at an age when they are most impressionable.  Culturally, arts organizations are struggling every day to remain relevant in a world where art is just one “app” or “I-pad” away.

The current situation is bleak.  The challenge we face as educators, arts administrators and policy makers is daunting.  Yet, I remain optimistic.

Highlights from 2010 Arts Education Partnership Conference

This weekend I am volunteering as a note taker at the 2010 Spring Conference for the Arts Education Partnership (AEP).  The theme of this year’s conference is State of Change: New Leadership in Arts Education.  The mission of AEP is as follows:

The mission of the Arts Education Partnership is to demonstrate and promote the essential role of the arts in enabling every student to succeed in school, life and work in the diverse and global economies and societies of the 21st century.

Being that this year’s conference is in D.C., AEP was able to bring out the “big dogs” in policy for arts advocacy and education.   NEA Chairman, Rocco Landesman and U.S. Education Secretary, Arne Duncan both opened the conference yesterday morning.  One thing Mr. Landesman said about arts education that struck me were his comments about failure and not being afraid to fail.  The crux of his message about failure indicated that education nowadays is want for teaching young people how to fail.  Not only does traditional modern educational structure  ”fail” to teach students how to LEARN from their failures, but it also fails to embrace and teach the idea that it is, in fact, OKAY to fail.  This sounds like a paradox of sorts, but it is not.  These life lessons are something best taught through arts education where learning through failure can be done in a safe space.  Overall, Landesman was, I think, well received and quite personable in his approach to the subject.

The second big name of the morning was Education Secretary, Arne Duncan.  The room was eager to here his commensts, with the hopes that he would have some encouraging and supportive words about the value of arts education and his plan as education secretary to support arts education initiatives.  The sentiment in the room seemed to be: what would the new education secretary do in the near future to publicly support the importance of arts education, arts integration, and how the arts can teach STEM education. Like any good public speaker, he understood who is audience was, and therefore spoke to the importance of arts education.   Ultimately, however, some felt he left the responsibility of advocating for these ideas too much on the shoulders of those listening in the room.  After speaking with some of the attendees, the sentiment was that Secretary Duncan acknowledged the plight of arts education and arts educators, but that he didn’t really plan on doing anything about it personally.

Day two was met with a whirlwind series of large and small breakout sessions on diverse topics ranging from the successes of a new hip-hop recording academy in Portland, to how to begin to develop creative networks, to the theory of collaborative learning. My personal favorite session was the hip-hop school in Portland that, as the founder and guest speaker indicated, “meets kids where they are in their lives, and goes from there.”  Simple, but wise words of wisdom.

Many good and productive things were discussed, and the director of AEP, Sandra Ruppert, as well as her staff deserve many lauds of praise for their hard work in putting together a successful and productive conference.

Emerging Arts Leaders Symposium – Mark your calenders!

Save the date for the American University Emerging Arts Leaders Symposium, April 11, 2010.

All essential details and registration information can be found by visiting the event site.

There will be panels covering topics such as cultural policy, arts business models, and career development.   Panelists will be experts  in both academia and the arts management field.  The keynote speaker is Ben Cameron from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation. The keynote last year was given by Robert Lynch, CEO of Americans for the Arts.This symposium falls on the Sunday before the 2010 Arts Advocacy Day, and is considered the ‘kick-off.’ This is a GREAT networking event, and a wonderful opportunity for those in the field under 35 to keep updated on best practices and refine their skills in the workplace.

We will be having a networking happy hour on March 4th, location TBA.  REGISTER NOW!  And, STAY TUNED!

Please, save me from my cynicism!

Welcome readers of The Clyde Fitch Report.

So, you know how sometimes you read something significant, but the significance of it doesn’t strike you until later?  WELL, I just had one of those moments.

Last semester,  I read former NEA Chair Bill Ivey’s book, “Art’s Inc.”  It is a great book about many things including cultural policy and our cultural rights as Americans.  Towards the end of the book, in his aptly titled chapter “The Failure of Government”, he recalls a discussion he had with a Republican senator whilst trying to garner Congressional support for the NEA’s Challenge America Initiative.  To grasp the full effect of this conversation one must read the entire exchange for themselves.  Try not to cringe.

As NEA chairman working to restore good relations with the Hill, I met one-on-one with well over two hundred members of Congress.  One afternoon I’d taken a meeting with the chief of staff serving John Shadegg, a conservative Republican from Arizona who was then head of the “CATs” – the secretive Conservative Action Team (now called the Conservative Study Group) that set the informal agenda for far-right Republican members of the House.  I patiently explained the changes that had been made at the agency, how we were helping communities realize their dreams through the arts with our Challenge American Initiative.  He was nodding his head in agreement as I made my points and seemed to be getting the message.  About fifteen minutes into the meeting I asked what he thought; would his boss support us?  As I remember it, he said: “You’re doing a great job, but we’re still going to oppose you: you’re just too good an issue for us.”

Obviously this part of the book made an impact on me, because I wrote a note in the margin saying “how much harm are attitudes likes this having on important issues facing Americans?”  Ivey apparently learned his lesson as well.  He says, “…I’d been given a valuable lesson in the politics of culture: members of Congress don’t go to the mat over “grace note” issues, but they will – angling in from the left or the right – speak out if there’s an opportunity to score political points.”

Does reading this cause anyone else to feel discouraged or cynical?  It certainly has that effect on me.  How can we as a country, with a representative republic form of democracy, ever hope to achieve noble causes like quality education, viable healthcare and a burgeoning arts and culture scene, if we have people representing us who only look at these issues as opportunities for their own political gain.  Is it too much to ask that they simply be honest and follow what they think is right and not what they think will get the elected?

Go ahead.  Think of the cliche statements that come to mind: “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”, “You can’t always get what you want.”, “Everything happens for a reason.”.  Well, those don’t make me feel any better in this instance.  How are we, as current and future arts and cultural leaders going to argue our case for support with those who have these types of political attitudes?  In a culture that is becoming ever increasingly segmented and niche focused, how can we break through the clutter and garner support for solid and supportive arts and cultural policy?  Policies that foster growth and expression rather than limit and obscure it.

Some may say I am being a segmented, niche lobbyist in my own right, fighting for issues I may believe are important but others do not.  To those I say, “Point taken. But you’re wrong, and I’ll tell you why.”  The vast majority of people in this country derive pleasure, enjoyment, even inspiration and enlightenment from some kind of arts or cultural activity.  The real die hards get it.  They know that those organizations who provide arts and cultural activities don’t simply create money out of thin air.  It takes massive amounts of support both financially and in human talent to keep those organizations afloat.  It is the vast majority of casual arts patrons who simply don’t realize this.  This is why funding and research are needed to not only support organizations that help bring this enjoyment and inspiration to millions of people’s lives, but also discover how these organizations will develop and adapt to best meet the needs of a 21st century audience.

Is this all too “idealistic”? Too, “dreamy”?  Or, should I just go back to being a cynic?