by John Clark

“Artistic Ambition,” the January 2007 article by Meg Whalen in Charlotte Magazine, demonstrated that Charlotte lagged behind comparably sized cities in its development of the arts and created a stir among the arts/cultural community. Two interview programs on public radio WFAE have been devoted to the topic.
The article inspired my own opinion-editorial article in the January 29th issue of the Charlotte Observer in which it was suggested the Arts and Science Council’s (ASC) approach to the arts is flawed, and the chairperson of the Arts and Science Council Board of Directors Jennifer Appleby responded with her own opinion article published in the Observer. Additionally, affiliate members of the ASC (those that receive annual basic operating grants–BOGs) met in late January, and, although it is not clear if the response is due to this recent public discourse, the ASC is organizing meetings among members and individual artists scheduled in March.
These developments are very healthy. They come at a time when the ASC itself has been undergoing important changes. The first important change has been the hiring of Lee Keesler (formerly of Wachovia Bank) as the CEO and President of the ASC (I find these ‘high falutin’ titles obnoxious…but that’s another matter). He has moved to more openness and is sincere about opening dialogue. He has committed to help member organizations publicize and market their events. Latest methods are a weekly ad in the Charlotte Observer listing upcoming arts/cultural events and a website www.charlottecultureguide.com with information and ticket purchasing opportunities for hundreds of arts/cultural happenings. The new logo tag captures the new direction at the ASC: To build appreciation, participation and support for the arts and culture in Charlotte-Mecklenburg.
So change is underway.
I support those changes. They are well-intended, but they are not substantive changes. In fairness to the well-meaning intentions behind them, I agree these are initial steps, and a book should not be judged after reading only the first chapter. There is, however, no indication from the ASC that it intends to fundamentally alter the way it supports arts and culture in Charlotte-Mecklenburg. When I stated in my opinion piece that “the system driving that effort (the fund drive) is flawed,” I should have inserted for purposes of clarity ‘fundamentally’ flawed.
Fundamentally, the ASC was created four decades ago as a fund-raising vehicle for arts and culture and it continues in that role today. The key business decision-makers initiated this centralized, unified arts fund drive via the ASC to raise money for the arts back then and the “The Towers” continue to support that model today. What Whalen’s Charlotte Magazine article showed is that model is not working all that well when compared to other cities as to the number and variety of arts and culture organizations and the dollars available to support them..
Why is that the case? Here are several reasons:
1. The ASC centralized and unified model begins with this basic question: How do we develop the most effective way to raise money for arts and culture? It does not begin with, for example, this fundamental question: What kind of arts and cultural community do we wish to create and sustain? Those are significantly different questions and lead to significantly different answers.
2. One of the most powerful bonds, with the exception of love between two people including the parent/child connection, may well be the philanthropic relationship between an individual and the cause he or she has chosen to support. The ASC model, by its very design, acts as a buffer between individual donors and the particular art form they might choose to support—and with passion I might add. The ASC touts the fact it has 40,000 donors to its annual fund drive. Those donors in that unified campaign are not giving directly to an arts, science or history organization, but instead are giving directly to the ASC. For the individuals giving in the campaign, the relationship with arts and culture is at best remote and hardly passionate.
3. Through the annual Basic Operating Grants (BOGs) to the community’s important arts/cultural organizations, the ASC sets certain requirements that must be met by each organization receiving funds. The problem is not with having requirements—most foundations require a final report on how the funds were used—but rather with having certain requirements. The BOGs make up about 25 -30% of the budget of ASC affiliate members, yet the ASC often acts as if it is providing 90% of the budgets of these organizations.
For example, the ASC requires that the composition of boards of these organizations be representative of the community. One could easily argue that however valuable such an objective is, it should not be the responsibility of an outside funding organization to ensure that diversity is required. Foundations do not make such demands when making a grant. An objective like diversity should rest with the governing authority of the organization itself—its board of directors. In fact one could make a solid argument that this ASC requirement is a usurpation of the authority of the organization’s board of directors.
4. Over the decades, the organizations receiving significant annual support from the ASC have become dependent both on that support and to the ASC. The grant is a subsidy and it can breed a kind of complacency regarding how the organization may approach raising the rest of its annual operating costs. For example, the fact that 30% of the revenue needed is guaranteed at the beginning of the year may reduce the degree of intensity and ambition in securing vitally important donations from individuals. I do not suggest the reduction is conspicuously intentional but rather the complacency may evolve over time.
5. The ASC uses in its PR the fact that its fund drive is the second most successful in the country in unified arts campaigns. The latter qualifier often gets lost (not the ASC’s fault) in subsequent communications. Raising $11.3 million in a single campaign sounds impressive and it is for a unified arts fund drive. But it hasn’t produced a rich and varied and well-supported arts/cultural community, especially compared to other cities, and doesn’t Charlotte-Mecklenburg deserve that?
Will the ASC work over time to make fundamental changes in the way it operates? It will not by itself. It might if the powers in The Towers come around to a new way of thinking. It might change if there are meaningful efforts to seek change from among key leaders in the arts and cultural organizations themselves. That in turn may affect the views in key business circles which may in turn lead to real changes in the way we support and nurture the arts and culture in Charlotte-Mecklenburg.
But, for the fun of it, let me lay out a new model. After all, if one tosses a couple of stones, he should at least volunteer to show how to avoid stone throwing in the future. This new model cannot happen in a day; it would take time to implement. The long-term goal would be to change the current way funds are raised and allocated with an emphasis on increasing direct support from citizens to benefit the arts and cultural organizations and the individual artists who live here.
Developed over four decades, the ASC has an efficient fundraising system. The business community wanted it that way and they made it happen. The system has certain strengths that could be preserved in a new approach. I would keep the ASC as an organization but alter its role.
I propose a two-tiered approach. One tier would be for individual donors and the other for businesses. Many, many individuals give to the annual drive but they primarily do it through their place of employment. Keep most of the system but alter it so that the individual donors can give directly to the arts/cultural organization(s) they choose rather than it going directly to the ASC. Essentially, the ASC then becomes a ‘pass through’ for individual gifts to the arts groups. The donor solicitation packet would have a list and description of all the groups from which to select which groups a donor wishes to support.
A second tier would direct the ASC drive at businesses qua business donors. For example, Bank of America or Duke Power would make a gift from its charitable foundation to the ASC. Funds collected directly from businesses would go to support new functions of the ASC, including, for example, marketing for arts/cultural groups and grant support for individual artists for artistic and mentoring support. Over time, the affiliate and associate memberships in the ASC would be phased out as the direct donor dollars would begin to supplant the BOGs, etc. The ASC could further enhance its advocacy role in behalf of arts and culture.
Obviously, there would be many details to work out with this new model but that process itself would increase the commitment to the ultimate goal. Those are my thoughts about arts and culture and how we fund them in this community. I hope you’ll weigh in with your ideas.
John Clark is the executive director of Chamber Music at St. Peter’s and former general manager of WDAV. The views expressed in this piece are entirely his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of WDAV or Davidson College. However, we’d love to hear your comments on this timely and important topic.
♫ ♫ ♫
Amen, John! I’ve been pointing out the limitations of the ASC mode of fundraising and grantgiving since the MayMusic days back in mid-1990’s. As I put it to several highly placed ASC board members in those days, a thriving arts scene is an ecosystem: you’ve got to have your big fish, sure…but you also have to have your mid-sized and small fish, and even some plankton! What makes the New York City arts scene vibrant is not so much the Met or the NY Phil as it is the small galleries, the cutting-edge music groups playing in tiny spaces around the city, ditto experimental theatre. THAT is what brings artists to a community, who in turn create the conditions and the material for the flourishing of larger arts entities.
It’s logical that a very corporate-oriented city like Charlotte developed an entity like the ASC as a means to centralize and organize arts funding. It’s worked reasonably well for those “big fish,” but as I think your words point out, not nearly so well for the rest of the “arts ecosystem.” I hope that your proposals, coming as they do from someone with strong understanding of both the artistic and business sides of the equation, will be heard by receptive ears.
I do have to acknowledge Phillip’s post. A native of Charlotte, he’s a marvelous pianist and appears regularly on the Chamber Music at St. Peter’s free First Tuesday Concerts series (WDAV is a media sponsor). I would say that the Charlotte Symphony is playing at a high level these days, so it’s a perfect time for the CSO to invite Phillip to be a guest soloist on its Classical series. Can’t happen soon enough!
CONGRATULATIONS JOHN:
John, what a brilliant idea, and what an ideal place to have this discussion. Thank you and congratulations.
A QUESTION:
In my humble opinion, before beginning any substantive dialogue about “the arts in Charlotte” (as this blog will hopefully become), I believe that we must define WHAT ART IS.
Now, before everybody dives into the “subjective nature of art” bunker for cover, let’s consider the ASC.
If we succumb to the post-modern notion that art is simply and exclusively “in the subjective eye of the beholder,” then the question “Why should we support the arts?” becomes philosophically IMPOSSIBLE to answer.
SUPPORTING YOMKUPO:
Let’s imagine that a friend of mine asks me for money to support YOMKUPO. My first question would probably be, “What is YOMKUPO, and what does it do?” Now, let’s imagine that he replies, “Well, every big city, especially any “world-class” city has YOMKUPO, so we should have some, too;” or “YOMKUPO helps attract people and businesses to come and stay here.”
As far as I’m concerned, I’d be hard pressed to say, “Ok, let me ante up.” Even if my friend followed up with statistics, graphs and charts that demonstrate that YOMKUPO is good for the world, I’d still probably say, “While I admire what YOMKUPO may DO, you still haven’t explained WHAT IT IS, and truth be told, I can think of many better ways to accomplish what you say YOMKUPO DOES.
In the end, I firmly believe that if you can’t define it, you can’t sell it OR support it.
Obviously, our 2000 pound YOMKUPO is “the arts and sciences” and/or “culture.” (Before going any further, let me add that I believe that this YOMKUPO problem is not unique to Charlotte.)
SO, WHAT IS ART?
I believe that everyone should have and be allowed to retain his or her own definition, but I am FIRMLY CONVINCED that the arts in Charlotte will NEVER flourish until we can describe what it is that we’re selling.
So, I’ll go first: “Art is that which engages the fullest of our mental, emotional and spiritual capacities, as well as our physical capacity to a varying degree.” As a former philosophy student, this is by no means an intellectually rigorous definition and it has MANY caveats and addenda (which I’d be happy to share in another venue), but in a nutshell, “being fully engaged” is my personal definition of art. That is what I, as an artist, am selling. (For those keeping score: YES, I know that this definition leaves room for subjectivity, and yes, that room is there on purpose – if you’d like to have an in-depth dialogue on aesthetics, feel free to give me a call at (704) 232-0605).
We’ve all made art – in that perfect golf shot or business pitch; in that rousing speech to our Sunday school class or that first slam dunk in our backyard basketball court; when we put together that flawless outfit or that unforgettable dinner party or read the Haftarah at our bar mitzvah. Art is all around us, but it is not easy, because it demands that we be fully engaged.
If you consider the times in your life when you made art, and remember how it felt to be in that out-of-body state, where time and the rest of your life disappeared and all that mattered was what you were doing, I hope you’d agree that we needn’t SELL it. EVERYBODY wants it; they just don’t think to call it art.
Why should they? We certainly haven’t.
MORE ON THE ASC
“I’ll be dancin’ with myself… oh, oh, o-oh.”
Okay, okay, okay…
Before anyone else raises the inevitable “constructive thoughts,” let’s head some of us off at the pass.
So, according to the ASC web site, “The Arts & Science Council (ASC) is a non-profit organization that serves and supports Charlotte-Mecklenburg’s cultural community through grant-making, planning, programs and services to ensure a vibrant community enriched with arts, science and history.”
WE SHOULDN’T “DEFINE THE ARTS”
For those of us who would much prefer to NOT “define culture, arts, science and history” because to do so would be unnecessary, dangerous, elitist or any other name-your-pejorative, I would forward the following:
You are right. WE shouldn’t. Society defines culture, as it should. As such, let’s consider my belief that if we were to ask EVERY citizen (and I MEAN EVERY CITIZEN, not just “us”) in Charlotte to list the ways that they spend their “leisure and charitable time and money,” both generally and in Charlotte specifically, many endeavors that the ASC support would not appear, or appear FAR down their lists.
For instance, MY PERSONAL leisure and charitable time and money go to: movies, downloaded music (most of which is “Classical music” performed by NON-CHARLOTTE artists), TV (almost ALL of which does NOT originate from Charlotte), tennis, church, eating out, Carolina Panthers, live local performances (aha! Finally, the ASC appears – I probably attend 2-4 ASC affiliated events a month. How many do YOU attend?). Just on a personal note, I spend less time, annually, engaged with the entirety of ASC’s “offerings” than I spend following the Panthers and NFL football, so the ASC comes in WAY LAST.
Now, if we ALSO polled every citizen of Charlotte and asked: “How would you support the SCIENCES and HISTORY?” I believe that ASC affiliates would likewise fall far down the list, especially in relationship to oh… say…SCHOOLS and UNIVERSITIES. (Of course, I know that the ASC IS engaging the schools and universities through FABULOUS endeavors like Arts Teach (Go Deborah Cooper and your gang!), but if you polled EVERY citizen in Charlotte, I’ll bet that fewer than 5% of our population knows ANYTHING about Arts Teach, and that revelation, dear friends, is just PLAIN WRONG. Arts Teach should be a household name, here in Charlotte. (By the way, if you don’t know about Arts Teach (www.artsteach.org), it is my PERSONAL opinion that they deserve more like $5Million from the ASC, NOT $1.whatever.)
BOTTOM LINE
In my PERSONAL OPINION, the ASC, and therefore those who receive money from the ASC, are irrelevant in Charlotte (we can discuss the DEGREE to which WE are irrelevant but that’s for another entry); On a personal note, I want to be very clear that I believe that the sum total of my local artistic endeavors to date has been LARGELY IRRELEVANT to the greater Charlotte community. Furthermore, I agree with John Clark that some of the EXCELLENT ASC enterprises are not getting the proper funding.
WHY ARE WE IRRELEVANT AND HOW CAN WE CHANGE?
To my mind, we are irrelevant IN VERY LARGE PART because we refuse to “define culture, arts, science and history.” (Hence my first addition to this dialogue) We are irrelevant also because we rely too heavily on cultural and organizational traditions and models that are no longer relevant (stay tuned for my PERSONAL OPINION piece about the symphonic orchestra industry).
How can we change? Well, let’s talk; and let’s do it here. Let’s bring others to this discussion that might not normally be invited – people like Lora Solomon, a healing arts practitioner, whose views certainly have impacted mine.
Y’all Come!
Tale of Two Cities?
I was thinking about some about these issues driving back to Charlotte yesterday in the rain and wind; returning from an electrifying concert at Severance Hall in Cleveland, Ohio. I was wondering how a third tier economy like Cleveland, where there is a huge drain on corporate funds, can continue to sustain a world-class orchestra and a seductive concert venue; and how a vibrant, wealthy “dark suit” town like Charlotte can hardly support an orchestra that plays nine or ten times a year in a venue that is an acoustic nightmare. I am sure the reasons and answers are varied and complex. Cleveland does not have the equivalent of the ASC to my knowledge, yet the blue-collar-rust-belt-town on the northcoast has a rich arts culture. Why can’t it happen here? Priorities, perhaps. I don’t know, but its something more illusive than money.
Mark –
I can think of a few reasons why Cleveland continues to sustain its world class orchestra while the CSO struggles:
1) The Cleveland Orchestra is one of my hometown’s greatest sources of pride. It is EASILY Cleveland’s single greatest cultural asset (although the Indians, Browns, and the Rock ‘n Roll Hall of Fame are pretty important as well).
If the CSO was as world-renowned as the Cleveland Orchestra, I’m sure that it too would have a Severance Hall and wider support.
Why someone in Charlotte doesn’t ante up like Cleveland’s John Severances did…now that IS a matter of priorities.
Initially, I found David Tang’s post about the irrelevancy of the arts and the ASC in Charlotte a challenge to get my mental arms around. I think I get it now. David seems to be saying that because an overwhelming number of citizens in Charlotte-Mecklenburg spend their “leisure and charitable time and money” in activities and events other than those supported by the Arts and Science Council, then those activities and, by association, the ASC are ‘irrelevant.’
The implication is that unless an activity or an organization’s product consistently draws a large number of people (not sure how many would satisfy David’s criterion), then that activity or organization should….what?….. not exist? I believe that way of thinking moves the conversation about the arts and culture in Charlotte down a side road that may be interesting to think about but leaves very little traction from which to begin meaningful communication and change.
Pablo Friere worked with peasants in a South American country (cannot remember which one now) to better their lives. The first objective was to increase the literacy rate. Rather than try to find funds and support to build school buildings, he organized teachers to go to the workers in the sugar cane fields and teach them there.
The world and work of art makers (actors/actresses, dancers, musicians, writers, painters and poets, etc.) and the organizations to which many are attached here in Charlotte are not irrelevant. There are many, many people here who do art and thousands more who benefit from their creativity. Could the environment be better? Yes, indeed. But the place to begin any vision work around positive change is not one from scratch.
I would urge that we keep the conversation focused on the here and now and take one step at a time.
In reference to Mr. Tang’s comments, there are no doubt people in the greater Charlotte area that can ante up like John Severance did for Cleveland long, long ago or what Norma Lehrer did just recently.
These folks invested in an organization with a clear vision and purpose. Once upon a time the Cleveland was a regional band of part-time players but under dynamic leadership they became one of the top ensembles in the world.
I think the money will flow if perhaps the arts organizations could articulate where they hope to be in five, ten, or twenty years. If the CSO in particular is just out to survive, then I don’t think any John Severance types will ante up! I’m no John Severance, but I support the CSO with gifts and attendance, still, I’d like to know what are the dreams and aspirations for the CSO. Money comes to “winning” institutions.
This has been a good dialogue.
Focusing on the Here and Now
Fabulous! I love this dialogue; even it only remains the three of us!
So…
Let’s begin with the following from John’s last post: “The implication is that unless an activity or an organization’s product consistently draws a large number of people (not sure how many would satisfy David’s criterion), then that activity or organization should… what, not exist?”
Well, uh…yeah.
Or put another way: if we can’t raise enough support on our own to make the art that we want to make, maybe we should try making something else, maybe something as artistically fulfilling, but something…well, at least a little different.
By the way, there’s my criterion: we need to make art that flips the equation on its head – art that generates enough private support (aka John Severance and Norma Lehrer – by the way Mark, what did Norma Lehrer give recently and to whom?) so that we don’t have to ask for money from the ASC, but instead FUND the ASC. In turn, the ASC would fund arts programs in every school throughout Char-Meck. The ASC could also find, support and nurture the next generation of Charlotte artists. Now, how’s that for positive vision?
To my mind, accepting, understanding and conquering our irrelevance is not some side road to be ignored and avoided.
In my humble opinion, it is THE ROAD to making art that TRULY matters, art that touches MILLIONS, not just thousands. It is the road that will help all Charlotte artists and organizations develop what Mark so poignantly describes as “clear vision and purpose,” especially in relationship to Charlotte at the turn of the 21s century. It is what will help us turn the discussion from the ASC and focus it on what kind of art Charlotte might possibly produce.
So let’s talk vision: my next post will present a possible scenario for the arts in 2015. Yes the exercise is based on CROSSROAD CHARLOTTE’s 2015 Scenarios (if you’ve no idea what Crossroads Charlotte is, hop over to http://www.crossroadscharlotte.org/).
Until then, keep on fighting the good fight.
Again, to reply to Mr. Tang’s inquiry. This probably isn’t relevant to folks around here but Norma Lerner gave $5 million to The Cleveland Orchestra. She’s a trustee of the Musical Arts Association.
Mark –
Actually, the information you provided about Ms. Lerner’s gift is VERY a propos to this discussion.
The $5M private donation by Ms. Lerner helped the Cleveland Orchestra reduce increasing deficits that the orchestra has been accruing over the recent years.
Were someone from Charlotte to “ante up” the equivalent to the Charlotte Symphony, they would have to donate something like $500K (one tenth of Ms. Lerner’s gift).
As far as I know, no one has given the CSO anything like $500k, nor do I imagine that they will.
The reason that the CSO has no Norma Lerner is that it, unlike the Cleveland Orchestra, suffers from a lack of vision.
We (I include myself as part of the CSO family) didn’t and don’t make art that matters.
That’s why I believe that our time in this tri-alogue (Mark, John and David) would be better spent discussing how to re-invent our art.
Take for instance Chamber Music at St. Peter’s. Here is an organization that re-envisioned how they present great chamber music. Their concert format – convenient location, shortened performances, convenient time of day – has built an enthusiastic and ever-growing audience.
Their Living Room Concerts are a HOOT AND A HOLLER, by all accounts (I’ve never actually been invited to one).
Are there more innovations that, if adopted, could help build appreciation and support for chamber music? I bet there are.
If anyone reading this has the chance, do try to go to Chamber Music at St. Peter’s concert this weekend: Sat., Mar. 9, 8:00 PM in the McGlohon Theatre at Spirit Square and see for yourselves!