Close Reading: State Arts Policy (part II)

Pages 5-9:

As we get into the meat of the study and move beyond the introduction, we get into a section called Three Strategies of Forward-Looking SAAs. This post will endeavor to unpack and respond to STRATEGY 1: Expanded Mission.

***

STRATEGY 1: EXPANDED MISSION.

So what is the mission of a State Arts Agency?  According to the 1966 "Model State Arts Council Act" it's in four parts:

1) "Stimulate and encourage throughout the state the study and presentation of the performing arts and fine arts and public interest and participation therein"

2) Keep track of arts organizations 

3) "recommend methods to encourage participation in and appreciation of the state's cultural heritage"

4) encourage freedom of artistic expression

What isn't mentioned in this four component parts?  Funding the arts. Which is interesting, when you think about it.  In 1966 the NEA had just been founded, it had a low budget, but that budget climbed relatively quickly before reaching its peak in 1979.  I'm reminded of something Jim Nicola said when we were panelists for How Theatre Failed America.  He said the seed money for the regional theatre movement was provided by the Ford Foundation in anticipation that the NEA would come in and finish the funding job.  The NEA didn't hold up their side of the bargain, and the regional theatre movement has been in one form of financial crisis after another ever since. 

This lead me to wonder if SAA's have been focusing so heavily on funding (which the RAND study points out and criticizes) because the NEA has failed to live up to its promise (actually I think a better way of saying it is the NEA was failed, its not like the NEA wants an inadequate budget to accomplish its mandate.) 

Historically, according to the study, SAA's have spent their resources on arts subsidy, not on increasing arts participation.  The study says (and I agree) that this was to some extent a mistake. "Their mission has been to make high-quality art more widely available to  tate residents, not to ensure that state residents actually take part in the arts produced and presented".  But this is starting to change.  We'll get to that in a second.

What's so problematic about the "if you build it, they will come" approach? In other words, what's bad about simply funding the arts and creating lots of arts-choices for the citizenry?  Well, it comes down to two pragmatic realities.  First, studies have shown that political leaders and the general citizenry actually don't really care about the work that SAAs fund.  Second, SAA budgets are inadequate to the task of funding the arts, especially as state discretionary spending decreases. Meanwhile, the number of arts organizations asking for funding has increased, not decreased.  If SAAs focus solely on funding they are dooming themselves to failure. The other thing is that while SAAs did a good job of creating art that got white, well-educated middle class people to go see it, participation beyond that demo group has not kept pace.

So what are they do to?  Well, in the 1990s, some SAAs began moving away from funding and moving towards increasing participation in the arts.  There are two barriers to increased participation (which btw there's an interesting post about here).  And I never heard them discussed this way before, so I want to spend some time highlighting it.

The two barriers to artistic participation are Practical and Perceptual.

We here in the blogosphere tend to focus on the practical ones, as do most arts organizations.  Practical barriers to arts participation are things like high ticket prices, inconvenient show times, venues that are difficult to get to etc etc. and so forth. Instituting reforms to these things is important, but what the study argues is that it's not nearly enough.  Yes, cheaper ticket prices are good, but if people already don't want to see the work you're doing then you're simply helping your existing audience get a break.  Which is good, but again, not good enough.

So then we move into the Perceptual barriers.  I'll just quote from the study, because it's very clear (and something that, come to think of it, we've discussed a bit here w/r/t experimental theatre): 

"These art forms might be viewed as exclusive and elitist, using symbolic languages that young people and ethnic minorities are unfamiliar with and do not see as relevant to their everyday lives.  Accordingly, many young people are simply not interested in these art forms, even when participation is made relatively easy and inexpensive to them".

It's worth noting here that just because the barrier is "perceptual" doesn't mean it's "not real" or "not important". I'd argue, for example, it's not just that young people (or ethnic minorities) feel the work is strange, elitist, and unwelcoming, it's that the work is frequently strange, elitist and unwelcoming to young people and/or ethnic minorities.  I guess what I'm saying is that in the study there seems to be the idea that we can do the same kind of work, but thanks to arts education or this or that or the other thing, convince young people and ethnic minorities that they want to participate.  But I'm not sure that's always true. I'm not sure doing the same work in the same way but with comprehensive arts education or whatever is going to be a cure-all. As Donna Walker Kuhne talks about in Invitation to the Party: what is going on on stage matters as well.

Another example: Mike Daisey's arguments about local casting are actually an example of trying to overcome a perceptual barrier. The barrier in this case is "I have no stake in this production because it has no connection to me or my community".  But that's not just a perceptual barrier, in many cases that's actually true, the production has little connection to the community its being done in.

The study then offers up as an example of a forward-thinking solution the idea of Comprehensive Arts Education which, obviously is something I support, although I do get wary of it being constantly pitched as a cure-all to our problems.  For one thing, what are we supposed to do while we wait for this generation of kindegardeners to get comprehensively arts educated?  What's supposed to happen in the intervening thirteen years? Are we just supposed to tough it out?

That might sound facetious, but it's not meant to be.  Comprehensive Arts Education is important, but I think even the folks at RAND would argue that it needs to be part of a bigger picture if arts participation is going to increase.  The thing is, I don't think anyone knows what else other than Comprehensive Arts Education should be part of that picture!

Anyway, Lowell's study argues that forward thinking SAAs are expanding their missions and changing their mandates "to ensure that every child in their state receives a high-quality, comprehensive arts education that will allow and encourage lifelong engagement with the arts". Okay. Awesome.  The other thing they're doing, which is great is getting involved in designing the curricula for arts programs so that they're "Comprehensive Arts Education" and not "Arts Enrichment".  The differences between these two are not elaborated on, although RAND has another study I'm planning on reading about what Comprehensive Arts Education is, so maybe that'll be enlightening.

Next up: Strategy 2: Closer Ties Between SAA Leaders and State Elected Officials. 

Comments

[RLewis]

"I'd argue, for example, it's not just that young people (or ethnic minorities) feel the work is strange, elitist, and unwelcoming, it's that the work is frequently strange, elitist and unwelcoming to young people and/or ethnic minorities."

You say that like it's a bad thing. Don't some works reach their artistic potential by employing these very aesthetics? I hope you're not saying that the state would be better off, if we were all doing tya.

[isaac]

I don't think youth is what is meant by young audiences in the study. I'm pretty sure they're talking about the nebulous group
"young audiences" that roughly means "people under 45". It's contrasted in the studies with the existing audience for the arts, which is getting older and older and not being replaced. That was the meaning I was using, anyway.

[RLewis]

Still, I think that some works are relevant and deserving production that do not cowtow to those under 30 (45 is a bit questionable) - some works require a particuliar history from its audience to better connect, and I don't think that's all wrong. Just as there are lots of works that leave those over 45 cold. I think more and better variety is more like something that should be a goal.

But the thing that really irks me is the old "audiences are getting older" saw. It's often said as if only old people are getting older, and that young people don't age. Aren't we heading into a senior boomer age, so that in fact, soon we should have more old people than ever, and that's a big potential audience base? Makes me wonder what facts they/you're basing the "not being replaced" claim.

Now, maybe new, old people aren't coming to the theater the way the old, old people did, but I don't hear folks saying that - and that's something that can be addressed in a growth model thingy.

[Parabasis]

Hey RL,

While I agree with some of what you're saying here. We know from the recent NEA studies amongst others that audiences for plays are declining. It's not a thing plucked out of thin air. Audiences are getting older and their getting less not more numerous. I would think we can all agree that at least the latter part of that is a problem.

[RLewis]

Okay IB, I was hoping to read the NEA study over the holidays, but your using its information is forcing me to read and dissect ahead of schedule. While the study is not plucked, you pluck out that play attendance is in decline without plucking out that musical theater attendance is up – that’s more numerous, not less. Why is that, ya think? First, I’d point out that the study doesn’t even count theater groups with budgets under $25,000 annually (hundreds, if not thousands, more of us), and I’d bet most of those companies produce plays, not more expensive musicals, so maybe the audience for plays didn’t decline; they just shifted from regional theaters to local theaters. We don't know.

Next, I’d point you to Key Finding #1, which states that this info’ comes from theater growth doubling among annual budgets over $75,000. Maybe this doubling of higher financed theaters comes from the type of work they produce – musicals cost more to do than plays. And with more and more Bways shows coming from the Regionals, maybe this is a sign that they are just putting on more musicals than plays, hoping for a hit to transfer. So, I just can’t see anything in the study you reference that disproves a reason for play audience decline being just fewer opportunities. If the Regionals don’t do as many plays, and do musicals instead, then audiences for plays have no place to go but down.

I’m sure you know that you don’t have to pluck figures from the air to make them say what you want. But if, if, if you’re correct that audiences are getting older and fewer, when in fact US population is getting a whole new slew of old people, then that’s a problem we can positively address; but not by targeting those who’s maturity level isn’t ready for theater yet, and only if we’re right about what the numbers tell us.

[isaac]

Hey RL<

I don't actually think I'm cherry picking numbers, although I think I should've explained this a bit better.

I consider both numbers (musicals and plays) a decline. The growth in musical audiences is still a decline, because it declined as a share *of overall population.* And no, I'm not employing any weird trickery here, this is pretty standard. When the economy "adds" 90,000 jobs, it's frequently talked about *as a loss* because the economy has to add between 120K-150K jobs a quarter to keep up with population growth. Similarly, a growth in attendance that doesn't keep pace with population growth is a decline, especially considering the growth in the *number of companies*.

There are some flaws with the NEA study. We don't know if audiences declined in one region while the number of theaters and audience grew in another. Chicago could have a banner year whilst Pittsburgh had a terrible one, or whatever. SO yes, it's problematic. But what they're saying matches a lot of first hand accounts of people I've talked to.

I mentioned this little disagreement we're having to marketing director friend, and she said: "Oh, this is what the real issue is. Focus group after focus group'll tell ya that Boomers don't go to the theatre. Not like their parents did, anyway. So as they retire and the generations before them die out, that sector of the audience isn't actually being replaced. That's one of the reasons there's so much of emphasis on "under-35"s".... if we can hook them we'll have audiences for a long time to come."

Now obviously she didn't show me her focus group data, but I've heard that a couple of places. In fact, I attended a seminar on "How To Get Boomers To Go To Your Theatre" at a convention once that was by far the most depressing couple of hours outside of Schindler's List I've ever experienced.

My point was simply this, and I think it's one that you may agree with... *If* you want to attract certain demographics to go to the theatre, it's broader than a marketing problem. You have to do work they might want to come see in the first place. And believe me, as someone who has to read about the seasons of a lot of regional theaters every other month for a writing job I have... that's not the work that's being done.

[RLewis]

IB, first please know that I always respect your theater opinions and really do appreciate your having this discussion with me. While I do not consider it a "disagreement", I'm only sorry that we couldn't get more folks into these important "Close Reading"s.

I'm always for both more and varied approachs to the arts, and don't want everyone going my way; but in my almost 30 yrs of doing this, the discussion of How Do We Get the Kids? has been laborously perennial. I can't say I've seen any stab at 'em that has worked, and the NEA study seems to bare this out.

As I believe that the theater is a place of Ideas, and that the younger audiences are less likely to be into thinking more deeply, the results of getting them young seems almost futile... almost. And since this is no longer a new approach, perhaps competing for Boomers' newly free time and disposable income seems - to me - easier than battling Xboxes, myspaces, ipods, etc, and more like thinking outside the box.

Looking forward to Part III. Thanks.

[Parabasis]

Hey RL,

I think you bring up some interesting and challenging points, and in fact, it'd be worth exploring in a "what's so great about young audiences" kind of a post!

Let me ask you: why do you think these efforts to get younger butts in seats seem so perenially doomed?

[RLewis]

"Let me ask you: why do you think these efforts to get younger butts in seats seem so perenially doomed?"

Well, cuz it's not a new concept any longer, and I don't see anyone siting where it has worked gangbusters.

I'm all for arts-in-ed', and think that exposure is important. Some will take to it; some will not; some will get it later. We should try everything! But I do believe that the kind of introspection, reflection, and conceptual thinking that theater offers often matters more the closer we are to the grave. Kids can be taught the meaning of symbolism, metaphor, allegory, etc, and should be, but the true value of these theater concepts comes more and more with age.

Kids go to the theater to be entertained, not enlightened; and not only is there greater competition for our entertainment dollar today, but most of the new competitors (video games, internet, ipods, etc) are specifically targeted to those young 'uns.

So, I'm all for getting in the younger crowds' faces, but why put so many eggs in their basket when we're gauranteed a new and bigger generation of mature audiences that I think is a much easier target?

[Ian David Moss]

See: http://createquity.blogspot.com/2009/01/response-to-isaac-butlers-close-reading.html