National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) Chairman Rocco Landesman is stirring up controversy based on remarks he made during a recent conference on developing new plays held at Arena Stage in Washington. In talking about struggling theatres, Landesman said, “You can either increase demand or decrease supply. Demand is not going to increase, so it is time to think about decreasing supply.”
You can bet that this caused quite a reaction, with opinions flying on both sides of the issue. And this isn’t the first time that this sentiment has surfaced (see “Does Nonprofit Mean Unaccountable?"). The New York Times “Arts Beat” blog followed up with Landesman on the issue, in which he responded to his prior comment:
“There is a disconnect that has to be taken seriously – our research shows that attendance has been decreasing while the number of the organizations have been proliferating. That’s a discussion nobody wants to have.”
I think there is some truth to his statements. If we want arts organizations to be efficient and run more like businesses, then there is also the possibly that they may fall prey to the effects of supply and demand. While I’m a big arts supporter, I think some people have the mentality that they should be showered with money just because they produce art – whether or not they even have an audience or the know-how to responsibly manage that money. Some of the commenters also don’t seem to know the current state of the arts, asking why we don’t just increase funding. Nice thought, but let’s be realistic. Right now, we have 165 of our nation’s leaders calling for the elimination of the NEA altogether to help cut down on the deficit.
On the other hand, I don’t agree that demand will not increase. Certainly right now it’s not and probably won’t in the near future. But as I am going into the arts field, I can’t help but think optimistically, that someday this will change. That we will see more demand because we will have strong arts education programs in our schools that help build future audiences (obviously a long way off from the path we’re on now). Or maybe we will see demand change because we discover different artistic products that speak to new audiences.
In the “Arts Beat” follow-up, Landesman also talked about the possibility that the NEA consider reallocating resources to make fewer, but larger grants to arts organizations. This concerns me, and others voiced their fear that this might lead to support mostly for larger institutions. Maybe the thought behind this is that the NEA will be able to show a greater impact of its dollars by supporting larger portions of arts projects. Or maybe there is worry that some of the organizations it funds aren’t sustainable or that they oversaturate the market. Or maybe it is in response to the current political climate. But I see the fear that smaller organizations could be left out if they don’t have the capacity – or the community need – for a larger-scale project. However, that doesn’t mean that their impact isn’t significant. This change in direction requires significant consideration and I expect we’ll hear more debate on these issues.
http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/28/landesman-comments-on-theater/
http://newplay.arenastage.org/2011/01/fighting-words-from-rocco-landesman.html#comments
I completely agree. Just because a nonprofit organization isn't out there to make money for its shareholders doesn't mean it isn't immune to our free market economy. Sometimes an organization needs to close its doors because it has been operating at a deficit for too long. I think Landesman is calling for accountability among nonprofit arts organizations. By using government money as a reward for fiscal responsibility, perhaps we can incentivize organizations to operate more efficiently.
ReplyDeleteSo....Carolyne: Have you given any thought to how your argument about the arts in our market fits with the research about communicating for broad support of the arts?
ReplyDeleteWe've got a couple posts along a theme of responsibility -- does anyone think that arts nonprofits are any more or less responsible than for-profit companies?
Margy, why would someone want to invest in something that isn't being responsible? The arts organizations that are consistently running a deficit don't make sound investments. If these organizations close their doors, the pool of arts companies gets smaller. The accountability statistics increase and the whole sector starts to look better. Unfortunately we are only as strong as our weakest links -- in a fiscal capacity. Even though I am 100% supportive of the arts, I cannot personally support poor management and decision making. I would be disappointed in others who do. At some point we must accept the consequences of our actions.
ReplyDeleteTo address your second question, on the basis of who non profits are serving as compared to the constituents of private entities, nonprofits need to be more responsible. Nonprofits are for the public at large whereas private companies must answer to their shareholders. Also, because nonprofit organizations are for the public they have to make their tax documents (990s) public. The fault of poor decision making in nonprofit organizations may actually fall on the heads of the public. We, as the constituents, can and must demand fiscal responsibility. After all, we are the ones donating our money to them. While there is some choice in which organizations an individual funds, as a whole the sector needs to be mindful of what its consumers need and want.
I would say a large difference is how we treat our work force, we act like "artists" are irreplaceable--they are very replaceable. Why are the unions of the NFP so powerful, while the for-profits weak?
ReplyDeleteThe difference between GM and Ford when they have money problems is they cut staff and salary, which does not happen in the arts. While the DSO is arguing over compensation the music director is conducting gigs (for high pay) all over the country. Why is the MD compensated 7 figures for something that he does with 12-20 other organizations a year, while still being a full-time employee with the DSO (the highest paid too)? Why should the principal oboe be paid twice as much as his counter part, especially when his counter part plays 2:1 what the principal plays? Should it be a pay for performance system?
I think there is a lot of irresponsibility in the pay structure in NFP. CEOs of large companies are compensated (generally) for the ROI, ROE, and ROA they bring to the company, what are the artists compensated for? Does it actually generate the adequate revenue to justify the cost? If it does then why are most NFP struggling?
When did the entertainment (e.g. the arts back in 1800) turn into The Arts? Why is it so historic that we need a million organizations doing sub-par productions?
I think managers are jaded artists at heart. They do not think in a financially sustainable manner, or about what the broad community actually wants.