Retrenchment in the Arts
Just as the same banking/investment firms which wrecked the American global economy are about to finesse any real Congressional regulations, we must understand the magnitude of what they got away with, and will again. The laissez-faire type of capitalism with which they are intimately associated is seemingly quiescent, laying low, but by no means gone away. The type of unbridled corporate capitalism American multinational businesses evolved between the 1980's and the September, 2008 markets crash, involving overt collusion between and amongst government agencies and Congress, think tanks, media propagandists and speculative banking, not only parallels what wrought American finance in the '20s and '30s, but also defines what came to be known in Italy in the '30s and '40s as Fascism. Fascism's original name, appropriately, was 'corporatism'; the word 'fascism' simply was a slangy shortening of fasce, the type of uniform worn by Italian soldiers.
The collusion of the business school MBA degree and unbridled corporate capitalism has been well documented (most recently by English writer Philip Delves Broughton in his nonfiction account of 'What They Teach you at Harvard Business School: My Two years inside the Cauldron of Capitalism'. The two qualities most valued at Harvard's “B” school and top management of Corporate America, according to the book, are greed and hubris.
Whether Americans have connected the MBA-inspired Wall Street of unregulated corporatism with the current recession/depression remains in doubt, as evidenced by the ease with which a vocal minority of Congressional Republicans have virtually disassembled President Obama's health care reform bills through a combination of overt lies, disruptive public behavior at gun-toting town hall meetings, and, of course, huge amounts of money and lobbyists from corporate insurance and pharmaceutical companies. If the Supreme Court reverses a prior decision and allows corporate money directly into political campaigns, our democracy is sunk.
A work of art (or entire exhibition) — or a symphony or ballet — is not a unit of production, is never the same, and cannot be quantified and marketed the same way.
And the republic is about to be inundated, yet again, by corporatism's favorite component, marketing. It is baffling that Americans seem to understand how advertising created wants and needs as early as the 1950's, but remains in thrall to advertising's Siamese twin, marketing. Since the 1980's, business leaders who filled the ranks of the boards of arts institutions insisted that non-profit arts and educational institutions be “run like businesses” (and never show a deficit — the most amazing piece of disinformation of all, considering the source and their near-collapsing debt loads). The basic 'take' to arts lenders: without a business and a marketing plan, you might as well go home. Since a unit of production of, say, toothpaste is quantifiable and always the same, marketing's job is to help create as many markets (through advertising, for example) as is possible, nationally, and, at the current time, globally. A work of art (or entire exhibition) — or a symphony or ballet — is not a unit of production, is never the same, and cannot be quantified and marketed the same way. That's been, as they say, the fly in the ointment, or how corporate marketing and arts programming were never more than, say, third cousins. Call it a “product” if you insist, but an art exhibit isn't one, and cannot be marketed with the same precision as toothpaste. The analogy wasn't wrong, but was shaky, and it is time to examine the differences.
younger Americans get most of their entertainment at bars, restaurants or at home
Be aware, and/or beware, then, that marketing is following the exact corporate model as it has been for forty years, as part of the same corporate tactics which have failed us so. The contemporary version, which has as its goal the capturing of that elusive under 35 years old market, has glomped onto the electronic toys (“social networking” electronic media) to seek and market to younger, affluent first-worlders. It's a short step from email and voice mail to texting and twittering and Facebook and YouTube. Graphic designers, animators, computer video game designers are challenged to divert these social networkers into consumers of products: the goal's the same, if the tools are different. Only the unhip Luddite will fail to see the merits...except that this generation is widely known for its aversion to brand loyalty and for its nearly nihilistic insistence on not attending — or joining — cultural events and institutions. (Many have told me of conversations at home growing up, as parents schemed to be selected for Boards of Trustees as part of their career advancement network. Careers being in short supply, and dating/mating a matter of intense skepticism, younger Americans get most of their entertainment at bars, restaurants or at home [e.g. Netflix]. Boomers have been asked to exit the scene, stage left, just as they might enter the culture markets.
America's young are hyper-aware of the corporate marketer's cooptation of their electronic communication devices, and are likelier to be more resistant to the messages bombarding them. The medium is the message, as Marshall McLuhan maintained in the '60s, and the product/arts group/fundraiser another set of “deletables.” The arts are not exactly businesses (either are schools), and so the corporate strategizers and the corporate juggernaut are already poised for partial failure, although they still fill the ranks of our arts boards.
The advent of the corporatized Board of Trustees coincides with the growth of new areas of staff, which in this era of retrenchment in which we find ourselves, can be eliminated:
development directors and 'event planners' do not need to be paid staff at arts institutions. Development is a Board obligation, perhaps the most importantdevelopment directors and 'event planners' do not need to be paid staff at arts institutions. Development is a Board obligation, perhaps the most important. “Give, get or get off” was the '80s definition of a board member's primary role; “Wealth, wisdom or work” was the more polite antecedent. Most development directors (the positions were created in the mid-1980s) do not have the clout necessary to approach donors; their job could be replaced by shared grant-writers, whose salaries are partly contingent on funds they raise. The Fine Arts Fund might oversee the coordination of grant writing to avoid conflicts within their efforts. The rest should be done by the boards.
“Event Planners” — people who plan and implement benefit parties, fund-raisers and the like — used to come, as well, from the ranks of Board members; larger institutions with docents or the former 'men's' and 'women's' committees of the symphony, for example, took charge of and ran these parties. Development and Marketing are converging, and event planning falls under both categories. Both the Contemporary Arts Center and the Cincinnati Symphony are looking to hire paid staff members as Event Planners.¹ Although 'special events' and fundraisers do raise necessary extra funds and may increase attendance/and or develop new audiences, I believe that such events are at the point of diminishing returns and need a facelift or makeover. Surely party-planning can be implemented by some combination of Board members and volunteers, however. One begins to wonder what, precisely, our arts institutions' increasingly (and unnecessarily) large members of Board members actually do, other than “represent” diverse constituencies (or however the diversity machine is currently worded, and give the illusion of business/corporate acumen and leadership). It also appears that fundraisers and other special events — anything falling under the general rubric of development and/or marketing, and which veers closely into entertainment, takes increasing precedence over any of the arts' scholarly missions (catalogues used to be something of a commonplace, attendant to museum shows; although costs are generally given as the reason for their general demise, one senses that they are perceived as not fun, not development material. Event planners aren't likely to propose an after-party for the publication of a catalogue! The young, urban hip they so desperately seek as members or audiences would, presumably, find these publications to be “a drag.” Do we just want to entertain, not stimulate or educate, them?)
And, as the arts chase citizens in Warren, Butler, Clermont, Boone and Campbell counties for membership and dollars, are they not blindly assuming that the arts may be for everyone? What if they are not?
Some combination of civic leaders needs to reassess the educational and outreach departments of our arts institutions, as some of the most growth in dollars and staff have occurred in these areas, particularly since the 1980s. Whether these areas belong within arts institutions at all needs reexamination. The removal of arts programming from our schools because of cost-cutting (with some notable exceptions) seems to have moved them into the arts institutions. Some more equitable (and perhaps more interdisciplinary and thus even more effective) division of educational/outreach model might include a consortium of arts educators, museum professionals, undergraduate BFA and graduate MFA students; practicing artists and performers under one umbrella. Perhaps foundations and corporate donors could target more dollars to these areas if more arts education goes back into our schools. (Might a creative approach to one novel, Toni Morrison's Beloved, already made into the opera Margaret Garner, have been more effective (i.e. visit the Harriet Beecher Stowe and Carey houses, and other real and remaining aspects of the Underground Railway), along with a visit to Mayville, Kentucky's Old Slave Quarters, have been as effective as the entire Freedom Center, which most people I've interviewed think of as a great boondoggle? Can we discover how much “exposure” to the arts leads to self-sufficient interest? How much arts programming — primary or adjunct — should be targeted towards “diversity”? Since diversity is a community-wide issue, could not more of the community relieve the arts of this huge new area? And, as the arts chase citizens in Warren, Butler, Clermont, Boone and Campbell counties for membership and dollars, are they not blindly assuming that the arts may be for everyone? What if they are not? Are sports and 'fine dining,' Botox and 'lifestyle centers' for everyone? (More and more suburbs and exurbs are building their own arts centers: is anyone trying to stop this trend, or run with it to benefit the city?)
It is also time to determine whether the arts are better off or not having a united Fine Arts Fund. No institution in the arts seems as feared as it is, and, over the years, a number of institutions have maintained a belief that they could raise more money without it (Fine Arts Fund institutions cannot raise money at all during the Fine Arts Fund drive).
Somehow, our directors and curators seem to assume that what's in the neighborhood/ backyard must be significantly worse than art in virtually any other region in the country
These periods of retrenchment also can be made creative and exciting, if curators can exert more autonomy within their institutions, connecting more seriously and in more depth with the community in which they exist — no better time than the present for proposing 'a new regionalism.' Every director or chief curator who comes here espouses a desire to get to know and/or work with the artists who create and work here: it's the party line, and makes good press during those first interviews when they arrive. Reality dictates otherwise: what to do with 'local artists' becomes known within institutions as a problem (mainly to be avoided).
Somehow, our directors and curators seem to assume that what's in the neighborhood/backyard must be significantly worse than art in virtually any other region in the country. After a very successful area artist's exhibition at an important institution here, a curator commented to me that “local artists are now beating at her door.” I said, “Why don't you open it?”
The Contemporary Arts Center has begun, over the past two years or so, to integrate some area artists into their exhibitions. The Taft Museum is currently exhibiting young Cincinnati painter Emil Robinson in its upstairs Keystone Gallery in the first of four annual regional emerging artists exhibitions (the opening and lecture in August were sold out, the audience filled with younger Cincinnatians).
If the Cincinnati Art Museum used its Dutch portraits as the core of a special exhibition, for example, it could add portraits by some superior Cincinnati painters
The Art Museum had begun to offer one exhibition per year to one regional artist — Mark Fox; Tony Lundesman — but seems to have stopped with its exhibitions of Cincinnati mid-century Modernist Charlie Harper (joined by shows of Noel Martin at the Contemporary Arts Center). A new Fourth Floor Club (contemporary art at the Cincinnati Art Museum is located on the fourth floor) has been established by contemporary arts curator Jessica Flores. Its members (presumably young collectors) voted for an exhibition of an artist from Lexington, KY. Stewart Goldman's one-person show was refreshing and popular.
Each institution can do more, creatively, productively, and cheaply. If the Cincinnati Art Museum used its Dutch portraits as the core of a special exhibition, for example, it could add portraits by some superior Cincinnati painters such as Carl Samson, Brian Joiner, Karen Hebenstreit, Constance McClure, David Mueller, Emil Robinson and Robert Anderson. Ideas like this are waiting to be discovered and put into action. We could add portraits from the Taft Museum of Art's collection; Brian Joiner is the current Duncanson Artist in Residence, and Robinson is showing there now, too. We have a lot of talent here, partly because of the number of art schools, colleges and departments both past (Edgecliff College) and present.
It is disturbing to see how infrequently, if ever, one sees staff members from the Cincinnati Art Museum, the Contemporary Arts Center or the Taft at area shows
The Weston Gallery at the Aronoff has exhibited some of the finest shows around, many by regional artists, and the Manifest Gallery often includes work by area artists as well. It is disturbing to see how infrequently, if ever, one sees staff members from the Cincinnati Art Museum, the Contemporary Arts Center or the Taft at area shows, other than occasional shows which show art/installations uncommonly like their own. Mainstream commercial galleries are virtually ignored by the staff of our larger non-profits. The talent's often right there/here, ripe for the plucking.
And let's not forget the value, popularity, and relatively low costs of Biennials of area artists (the Contemporary Arts Center did three in the '80s — still life, object and landscapes as I recall). Figure painting has returned since then, and more independent area curators are available here for hire. The financial instability of our arts organizations could turn into a triumph of creativity and of regional bridge-building by giving a real look at some of our area's most gifted artists (Frank Herrmann, Bukang Kim, Kim Krause, Carl Samson, Thom Shaw, Cole Carothers, Deborah Morrissey-McGoff, Stuart Fink, Althea Thomson, Valerie Shesko, David Mueller, Ana England, Gary Gaffney, Kay Hurley, Greg Storer, Frank Satogata, John Stewart, Terrance Corbin, Jane Stevens, Tim Schiff, Margot Gotoff, Beverly Erschell, Patrick Dougherty, Barbara Houghton, Cal Kowal, Anita Douthat, David Rosenthal, Michael Wilson, Brad Austin Smith, Karen Heyl, Leslie Shiels, Paula Wiggins, Kevin Muente, Rob Anderson, Emil Robinson, Bruce Erikson, Marsha Karagheusian, Velma Morris, Alice Weston, Nancy Fletcher Cassell, Daniel Greene, Rebecca Seeman, Jay Bolotin, Jymi Bolden all come immediately to mind (and no doubt there are others) as artists of the first rank whose work would be respectable in any museum.
The biggest waste of money for the arts is in marketing — the focus should be on product, not numbers and perennial growth
I am concerned that the corporate mantra of consistent growth and the discovery and/or chase for new markets for products and other goals established by the MBA corporate model are draining our arts institutions rather than vitalizing them. Since every corporation is fiddling with new electronic communication mediums to hook younger audiences, these same techniques will be forced upon the arts with insufficient return on investment in time and money. We've already seen that the Obama machine successfully garner the computer and its adjuncts to win the primary election, but we've also seen the young who helped to propel him to overall victory vanish back where they came from. Whether electronic media, and the marketing therefrom, is as successful as pundits predict and assume is yet to be determined. Younger Americans' cynicism about being marketed is widely recognized. As the arts rethink their roles and goals and missions and futures, let's remember their differences from conventional businesses, while not forgetting the damage the latter have wrought on the world economy. The biggest waste of money for the arts is in marketing — the focus should be on product, not numbers and perennial growth. A smaller budget may mean a smaller audience, but at least they will care more about the work, and some turn into patrons.
Retrenchment, revision and reassessment are as relevant as goals for arts institutions as growth strategies are for corporations. We will not, contrary to chamber-of-commerce hype, likely attract tourists from Berlin or Shanghai or even Portland for our cultural offerings here. We have a lot to offer culturally — but so do Cleveland and St. Louis and Kansas City and Denver, to think of equivalent cities. An art museum's primary mission is to collect, exhibit and to conserve works of art deemed to be of lasting and significant value. All the rest is, really, gravy.
