|
 Enough Already? Panelists: Tim McClimon, Tina Packer, and Edward Tenner Moderated by David R. White The following white paper is drawn from the remarks of the panelists and moderator for this session, along with the questions and responses from members of the audience. This document is intended to reflect the variety of viewpoints offered during the discussion, and to frame broadly the issues discussed; it should not be taken as a formal statement of opinion by the panelists. The historical development and sustained economic strength of the United States has had a strong, and largely positive, impact on the arts—although the arts community itself may not always think so. Where smaller organizations (as well as many individual artists and performers) struggle, when viewed from a national perspective there is an extremely large, diverse, and vibrant arts ecology—one that has experienced rapid growth in the last few decades particularly. However, the expansion of the arts (and the number of artists, performers, and others who create and comprise each arts organization) also increases the number of challenges the arts community faces, from finding space to funding work, that in turn leads to the question: can a society have too much art? Perspective: Yes In a word, yes. Too much of the arts—or, enough, anyway—is not only conceivable, it may be the reality. Look at funding for the arts where, despite the depth of philanthropic support available for the arts in the U.S., the pool of funds is ultimately finite. At a very simple level, this means that with more and more organizations drawing from the same pool, funders face increasingly difficult choices about where and when to support the arts. On the one hand, smaller grants distributed to a wide range of organizations may help sustain an array of them—without enabling any to do more than survive. The result can be a broad community of ill-equipped artists, many producing under-realized art. On the other hand, larger and more focused support for a select few projects and established institutions may support what is often considered great art—and appear to do so at the cost of smaller, more risk-taking, and dynamic works. Right now, the arts funding situation is one of stark choices, and while it is easy to say that the answer is more money, it may be more practical and prudent to examine where all this money is going, and whether it is really being invested wisely. There is a similar parallel in society's creation of both artists and arts audiences—and in the U.S. we may increasingly find ourselves in a situation where there are more arts practitioners than there are audience members to experience their work. From an abundance of unemployed musicians to half-empty theaters, from a proliferation of writers to a shrinking market for books, the arts community may have "sold" itself very effectively to those thinking of working in the arts, while offering a less compelling case to the population of people who should be consuming the arts. The result of all this is not the Darwinistic winnowing of art projects and organizations one might naturally expect. Instead, there seems to be less support for qualitative artistic growth, while audiences are increasingly comprised of others from within the same arts community—thus ensuring a circularity to discussions about the health, and growth, of the arts. While other artists (along with the existing-but-finite audience of dedicated arts consumers) can, and should, comprise part of the overall audience within a wider cultural community, they cannot sustain all of these organizations on their own. Perspective: No Too much of the arts? In a word, no. At core level, it is impossible to have too much of the arts because the arts are fundamentally about creativity—and creativity is integral to the growth and success of society. Not every creative idea succeeds, but that should not be a discouragement to artists pursuing those ideas in the first place. This is not just an idealistic perspective, but an organic and observable phenomenon. Looked at from an historical perspective, the connections between a vibrant arts community and successful and prosperous societies seem well established. The arts, in turn, beget more arts: cities and towns that prove initially hospitable often discover a subsequent proliferation of artists and arts organizations, which in turn further strengthens the community overall. Outside factors, such as changes in the economy, can certainly have an impact on the health of the arts. But a firmly rooted arts community can survive (and even thrive) despite these shifts, and in challenging times arts organizations can serve as models for cooperative survival. Although there has been tremendous growth in the number of arts institutions in the last twenty years, many of these are grassroots organizations that have pioneered the use of alternative spaces, and developed networking capabilities that have allowed for a sharing of scarce resources. Furthermore, despite shared resources, not every arts project or organization will survive for the long-term—and that may be not only acceptable, but actually valuable. Great art does not come out of a vacuum; instead it must arise from a base of ideas and values, and it may take a cycle of artistic failures and successes before it is achieved. The proliferation of the arts, in almost every form, helps to sustain that process. Perspective: It's All Relative The proliferation of arts organizations may not be "good" or "bad," but instead reflects an evolutionary process, a dynamic cycle that requires a careful and nuanced analysis that pushes artists, arts organizations, audiences, and funders in the right direction. This includes consideration of:
For citation, please reference: http://berkshireconference.org/content/2005-enough.cfm
|
