Well, here's a surprise - my declaration here on Wednesday, that artistic non-profits will be dead within the next 30 years, generated a bit of dissension from the non-profit community! One of them, in fact, is my old friend Jude Baker (yes, the woman I'm dog-sitting for these days, whenever she's out of town). Jude actually went to graduate school for non-profit administration, and has been involved in this side of the business world for something like a decade now; so I figured that if anyone in my life's going to have a clear argument against what I said earlier this week, it'd be her. Anyway, Jude asked if I might run a rebuttal from her here at my journal if she wrote one; and I'm happy to do that, because I know this is a rather volatile subject, and thought it only fair to present an opposing viewpoint in this case. Remember, I am never against opposing viewpoints at this journal, as long as they're intelligent and well-thought-out; what I'm opposed to is moronic, kneejerk reactions to what I write, which is why for example I don't allow commenting here.

Now, that said, please be aware that I disagree with much of what is said below; and worse, I think the entire essay actually proves my original argument, that most non-profit executives are so out of touch with what their audience and artists actually want as to be laughable. Also, please be aware that Jude and I are arguing two very different things here, that sometimes can't be directly compared to each other: Jude is talking here about the world as it currently exists, whereas I talk in my entry about the world as I want it to be. One of the things I want to do with CCLaP, for example, is create a situation where volunteerism, financial donations, a well-chosen customer base and commercial merchandise are combined into one organization, so that we actually can support avant-garde artists whose projects don't have a chance of turning a profit, without having to suck on the teat of some federal employee to do so (or risk shutting down, either, when a couple of religious extremists decide to get offended by that avant-garde artist). So this, for example, sorta invalidates Jude's argument on the subject, that commercial ventures simply aren't able to support avant-garde artists; I agree with such a statement, when talking about the world as it currently exists, but I was talking on Wednesday about the world as I want it to be, in which case we will be able to directly and successfully tackle such an issue, and provide an alternative way of thinking about this subject, an alternative that Jude doesn't even mention as a possibility. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, mind you; I'm just saying that today's essay talks about changing the system that currently exists, while mine on Wednesday argues for dumping the current system altogether and starting over with a new model, a model that doesn't yet currently exist. Jude's essay doesn't address much of that, of the new things I'm proposing; it instead mostly critiques what already exists, much of which I think deserves critiquing too.

Nonetheless, today's exercise is a good example of why I think blogs are so great - that one can simply present one's opinion to the general public, and that all of you can simply read it and make up your own mind. (In fact, I normally would've just told Jude to publish this at her own blog; but she doesn't have a blog, actually, which is why I agreed to publish it here.) Anyway, enjoy!

There is certainly a stench arising from some unidentified location, but I am not so convinced that it is coming from the rotting corpses of failed cultural nonprofit ventures, as it is coming from building a box made of bullshit to contain the arts in a neat, organized package. For-profit ventures in the arts are not new. One need only to look at cooperative venture craft or barter fairs, art galleries, pay per show Vegas acts, and Hollywood. The great benefit of the traditional model of nonprofit cultural organizations; that have generally only been around for the past 40 years, is that arts organizations have infrastructure and legitimacy that allow them some semblance of sustainability.

Sure, the heady intoxication of starting up a new arts organization can by stymied by the reality of having to form a board, raise funds, and complete the mountains of paperwork needed to report on their tax-exempt status. However, nonprofit arts organizations have been exempt from all levels of property taxes for over a century. Additionally, tax exemptions on private gifts to nonprofit organizations are a form of indirect public support and are measured by the cost to the government in terms of lost tax revenues. These two great benefits are offset by the central definition of a not-for-profit, meaning that rather than there being shareholders, or individuals, that directly pocket any profit that occurs from people buying what the organizations are selling...a not-for-profit organization generates income, or revenue, that first pays off expenses and then gets directly channeled back into fulfilling the mission of the organization. A nonprofit is accountable to its stakeholders. A major misconception is that nonprofit organizations are restricted from raising revenue over and above their operating budget. This is just not so. Nonprofit organizations can even operate income generating enterprises, or exist to raise a "profit", so long as the money that is being generated does not substantially come from or go to something that does not directly contribute to the mission of the organization. In point of fact, arts and culture organizations are more likely to operate earned-income ventures than other types of organizations. Enterprising Nonprofits: Revenue Generation in the Nonprofit Sector details survey results that included 519 nonprofit respondants. (1) According to the data, 60 percent of arts and culture organizations are operating ventures compared to 47 percent of health organizations operating businesses, 43 percent of health service and public society organizations, 42 percent of environmental groups, 33 percent of educational institutions, and only 26 percent of religious organizations are operating ventures. (2)

Let's not kid ourselves; we're talking about privatizing the arts. Seeking to fund organizations by private investors or by direct revenue for services performed is synonymous with privatization. I firmly believe that creative work should be for audiences, but also for the artist. Artists should not be restricted to produce only commercial work - if they were they'd be called "advertisers" instead of artists. Who exactly are these magical people who will always support the arts? Aren’t they mostly white, middle aged, middle to upper income, and highly educated? (3) It is well established that the upper and middle classes have an inherent advantage in participating in the arts, given that their children are more likely to be exposed to high arts at an early age, in art classes and at home. (4) Given the changing demographics of this country and the rise in the minority populations, and the ever widening gap between the rich and the poor, how can we safely rely on arts' traditional "old white lady" customers to keep on coming? Thanks to the nonprofit sector, studies are now showing that low socio-economic and certain ethnic groups' participation and/or at cultural events may be rising. Why? Could it be due to advances in state funded arts education? Funding requirements that require organizations to serve targeted populations? Massive amounts of school children who are given free passes every year to attend museums, plays, dance, music, etc. coming from grant proposals written by these organizations and funded by foundations?

Individual donors, or let's call them what they really are: customers, generally heed their own insights on what type of art is acceptable, and the "public," either taxpayers who rely on the NEA, NEH or state arts agencies to fund on their behalf or consumers who are funding by purchasing tickets, works, or merchandise are individual spenders influenced by what? Popularity! At this point, public arts funding is at a crisis with states like New Jersey and California either doing away altogether with funding art, or cutting back so deeply that not even $1 per state resident is devoted to the arts. (5) Additionally, individuals and foundations generally give predominantly to religious organizations, social service organizations, emergency needs, education and then to the arts. The explosion of arts organizations from about 8,000 in 1965 to 50,000 in 2004, has presaged a rise in competition for revenue, not only with other "high" arts organizations but also with the seemingly endless supply of substitutes brought to us courtesy of the entertainment industry, sporting and athletic events, and yes, the internet. (6) Despite that, the number of people making their living as artists, according the Bureau of Labor Statistics, quadrupled from roughly one-half million in 1965 to about two million in 2003. (7)

Now figures and statistics have their place, but quantifying the arts has always been a tricky business. Trying to determine what it is that the arts actually provide all of us and then putting a dollar amount to those social benefits has smarter people than us tearing their hair out. To break it down, the arts in America are subsidized by the government because the arts produce unpaid for benefits enjoyed by members of our society. Among some of these unpaid for benefits are national pride and identity, cultural tourism and economic development, cultivation of democracy, and improvements in creativity. This last benefit is of tremendous importance in this day and age where America is quickly falling from its role as the biggest truly innovative country. Government support of artists allows for experimentation that would otherwise be too risky, and PREVENTS artists and art organizations from being tied to the generally conservative tastes of the market. Say what you want about the NEA (and believe me there are whole rainforests being killed from the reams of paper written on how to improve the NEA), but the NEA gives money to states, and state arts councils are unflinchingly supportive of experimental, non-commercial work. The arts can inspire controversy, and controversy over public artwork can lead to civic involvement: it moves individuals to take a stand on an issue and, in the process, participate in public life. (8) It is also very true that arts organizations are limited in their funds and cannot generally wage an expensive advertising campaign that gets butts in seats. The government can help promote the arts especially in areas (like rural Nebraska) where much of the public is unaware of existing arts opportunities. (9)

The idea of giving people what they want falls down flat on its face when the reality about what the people want is aptly paraphrased by my friend and arts educator Michael Miller, "Nonprofit arts organizations are NOT just about 'giving consumers what they want.' That's videogames buddy. That's Cheetos and Diet Coke. That's how we get a new "obesity epidemic" that then nonprofits and the government have to step in and DO something about." (10) The world would no doubt be a better place if all artists made a living wage and had full benefits. Hell, my world would be a better place if I could make a living wage and get full benefits for being a full time celeb gawker and pop culture expert. Do artists deserve a living wage? In this age of entitlement, who doesn't feel that they "deserve" a living wage? Who is going to make the judgment that artists deserve it more than teachers or social workers or nurses? Why not allow people to have the choice and flexibility in deciding what's best for them? The response from major cultural institutions has been one of compromise. Promote a huge blockbuster exhibit or performance that draws in tons of money and offset it by offering a unique, groundbreaking, artistic showcase. When the attendance for the blockbuster outnumbers the showcase by 100 to 1, how are these organizations not giving the people what they want? They are! They are spending countless hard earned dollars hiring consultants to survey communities and audiences to find out where the niche markets are hiding and what does the average person on the street want...so they can give it to them! Artists and Arts Administrators are supposed to be better than this. We are the visionaries. We are the ones who are looking at the next generation of kids who are like the Reagan years on acid and saying, "Laguna Beach and America's Next Top Model cannot be good for this generation." We are the ones who are still trying to save the world. People will pay for what they perceive is necessary. Teenagers spent $170 billion in 2002, and on average spent $101 dollars a week. (11) Bonita Kolb (1997) studied the effect of pricing on the participation of young adults, aged 19-24, whose lower participation rates are assumed to be a consequence of high ticket prices. Kolb found that in cases where students did not attend an event only 31 percent attributed their non-attendance to cost. The rest of the respondents did not attend because they thought it would be boring (29 percent), because of their "inability to understand the arts" (12 percent), because of social pressure (12 percent), and one in five said they lacked information on availability. (12) Discounted prices and free tickets may get people in the door, but it's what goes on inside their heads once they get there that'll bring them back. With all of these choices, most times people don't know what they want until they see it and experience it; and until they experience it, how would they know how much they would pay for it? How would they know how much it is worth?

Arts funding and leadership and development are certainly under scrutiny. There is a sense of veritable anarchy going on in the fight to survive the funding war. The accepted corporate-style 501(c)3 model has certainly come under fire mostly because the administration starts to usurp the artmaking. Artists may not be the best administrators, nor do they want to be administrators - they're artists, dammit! Alternative organizational models, such as CcLAP, are gaining ground and the ideological line between for-profit and nonprofit is blurring. Experimentation is crucial. My question is this: Who is going to hold these artistic ventures accountable? If the bottom line is cash and attendance, how is it any different than Disney on Ice? How will a for-profit arts organization be motivated to continue to showcase artists who can't fill seats or who can't draw more than two friends at a coffeeshop poetry slam? Nonprofits are required, by law, to justify their tax exempt status. Financial records are available for anyone to walk in and see just how any 501(c)3 spent their money. Those tax breaks the government gives go to making sure that those people who are otherwise barred from experiencing art have at least some opportunity, not to mention giving artists jobs and funding public art in every new state building. Public schools have had to entirely cut arts out of education, where will children learn about the arts if no one is funding arts educators? A for-profit organization may say that they will be all about arts education, but for-profits are NOT accountable to citizens. They are accountable to stockholders and investors who (last time I checked) are profit seekers. So, if suddenly the mission changes because the guy at the top suddenly changes their mind on what they will "sell", the people get screwed. That, at least, is not a new concept to the American people. Nonprofits will continue to flourish because in this post-Enron, weapons of mass destruction world, citizens do trust neither the government, nor big business. What I can trust, however, is that if I buy a $75 coffee mug during a fund drive from my favorite NPR station than about $73 (or $75 minus the price of buying a mug with a logo) will go to the NPR station to continue to give me my NPR fix. Even if I go into the NPR station store and buy the same coffee mug for $8, then again, $5 of that sale has to go back into running the station. That, my friend, is why the nonprofit sector is not dying, but instead is the fastest growing sector in the world.

(1, 2) Enterprising Nonprofits: Revenue Generation in the Nonprofit Sector
(3, 4, 8, 9, 12) An Arts Injustice? State Funding and Public Participation in the Arts (CAUTION: direct link to PDF document)
(6, 7) Renaissance in Arts Funding Needed
(10) email by Michael Miller
(11) Teen Research