Arts organizations across the country are facing a real crisis, one that has been growing for decades. Attendance declined while costs rose. At the same time, shifts in politics and philanthropy now threaten to deprive organizations of essential revenues. One of us was a board member, donor and then museum director, and the other leads a long-time funder of performing artists and presenting institutions. We come to the arts in different ways and have very different views on the sector. While we are deeply committed to the power of the arts and recognize the importance of arts funders, we have begun to wonder whether they have failed to keep pace with a changing world.
While it is clear that methods of cultural production, audience tastes, and methods of engagement are in the midst of constant evolution, the reality is that most of us continue to support and present arts and culture in ways that have remained largely constant for more than a century. For visual arts and other museums, the dominant approach to display has been the large and ever-expanding ‘box’. Within this fund there is typically a significant and ongoing investment in the acquisition, storage and maintenance of a permanent collection as well as a range of commercial and curatorial practices that are sometimes more focused on the objects than on the audience.
In the performing arts, the story is much the same. The large ‘box’ – this one containing the stage – is focused on filling the season, often according to outdated standards and under the supervision of an art director who, like a curator of visual arts, has almost exclusive authority over what is considered worthy art and worthwhile artistic interpretation.
Many who fund the arts — including us — have supported these practices, helping organizations expand those funds, endow those positions and fill those basements with objects and theaters with performances. The results are often sublime. But the net effect is to reinforce the primacy of practices and norms that now threaten the survival of the organizations we love, as well as the powerful social mission of the arts.
You can’t change programs without changing practice
Some foundations and donors have recognized the need for something different. They embraced new visions of artistic production and display and invested in people and institutions willing to embrace them. But they often fail to ensure that those shared ideas – such as more socially or spatially conscious art – will survive when their funding runs out.
This is a classic innovation gap. New ideas, even good ones, require ongoing support to flourish. This is because cultural barriers are more permanent and insidious than barriers to pregnancy. In other words, getting a good one is only half the battle. Keeping this idea alive requires sustained effort and an outstanding skill set.
Supporting innovation must mean supporting innovators
Other funders have supported innovative leaders and organizations seeking to achieve their missions in new and exciting ways, whether through pioneering programming or mission-related goals such as workforce development and off-site community engagement. But when the tables turn and the work is criticized or resisted by traditionalists, other funders and the press, innovators have few places to turn for support.
Like entrepreneurs in older industries, innovators in the arts often find themselves under attack, and not lauded. Existing audiences often don’t want to lose the carefully defined experience they cherish. Most trustees and donors signed up to preserve and protect the institutional identity they know. Colleagues may fear change. Even the arts press often adopts and reviews the limited standards of the fields it covers. Leaders hired and funded to do exactly this kind of work find themselves isolated, and sometimes without a job.
What can funders do to better support lifelong innovation?
First, we can give a higher initial priority to innovation itself (we define innovation as new ideas to serve the public while simultaneously driving the sustainability of the organization itself). Comparing (and critiquing) new ideas to the status quo poses an immediate hurdle that most leaders cannot overcome. For this reason, nearly every sector of the world’s nonprofits has attracted philanthropic support for creative leaders through award programs and accelerators, including Echoing Green, Ahoka, and the Draper Richards Kaplan Foundation (which supports Remuseum). It is a model that has rarely been applied to the arts.
Second, organizations can provide cover for innovators through recognition and praise. Even stakeholders who are not resistant to change may be reluctant to endorse new, sometimes controversial, approaches for fear of blame. But organizations have the resources and standing to give status to the leaders who ask the best questions. In a field where status depends, to a large extent, on social acceptance (and can be lost with a single negative headline), organizations can use their own resources to identify leaders who might shape the future and then give them the resources to try. To take one example, consider how the MacArthur Fellowship (dubbed a “genius grant” by the public, not by the foundation) provides not only recognition but validation — and a certain degree of well-deserved isolation from criticism — to its winners, in perpetuity.
Third, foundations and funders can address the isolation and costs of innovation by enabling individuals and organizations to experiment with new ways of working together. Mellon Foundation”The Future of the American Theater Regiment“is a perfect example of this approach. Mellon provided grants to five small, regional theater companies to pilot new programming approaches. Along with grants, Mellon supported organizations in coming together to share resources and insights in a spirit of collaboration with both ethical and bottom-line benefits.”
This month we’ll be launching something aimed at putting these three insights and examples into practice. Vanguard Combines prize, risk capital, experience and community. The program will honor up to 10 CEOs of cultural institutions each year who have new, audience-focused ideas for their work. The program will provide $100,000 to each winner, intended to serve as a “carrot” and cover, to help convince boards, colleagues and the public that they have a leader worth supporting. Members will also participate in a year-long accelerator program, applying evidence-based practices of disciplined entrepreneurship to help them refine, implement, evaluate and share their ideas.
The premise of this work is that although institutions are best suited to define their own missions, they may need support to work in ways that are as new, innovative and pioneering as the artists whose work they present. This includes external investment and support to help bring stakeholders together. Vanguard also aims to grapple with the key paradox of innovation, which is that although individual ideas may not last, they will not arise without leaders being given the time, space, and resources to think differently.
The power of the arts is the dynamism that comes from the uneasy relationship between past and future. Great arts institutions take on durable goods not by freezing the status quo, but by challenging themselves to be relevant in unconventional ways. This is especially true in times of major public, philanthropic, and political transformation, where uncertainty sparks fear and defensiveness but also creates opportunities. It’s time to celebrate bold leaders and support them with new ideas to engage audiences with art and ensure their organizations can outlive us all.
More expert insights
