Arts organizations across the country are facing a real problem, one that has been growing for decades. Participation has decreased while costs have increased. At the same time, changing politics and philanthropy now threaten to rob organizations of vital funding. One of us was a board member and donor turned museum director, and the other leads a long-time patron of performing artists and presenting institutions. We have come to art in different ways and have very different perspectives on the field. While we are both strongly committed to the arts and recognize the importance of patrons of the arts, we have begun to wonder if they have failed to keep pace with a changing world.
While it is clear that cultural production methods, popular audiences and communication methods are in constant flux of change, the truth is that most of us continue to support and present the arts and culture in ways that have remained unchanged for over a century. For visual arts and other museums, the best way to present is a large and ever-expanding “box”. Within this box is often a significant and ongoing investment in the acquisition, maintenance and preservation of the permanent collection and a set of business and conservation practices that are sometimes more object-oriented than community-oriented.
In the arts, the story is the same. The big “box”—the one with the stage—focuses on completing the season, usually according to long-term standards and under the direction of an artistic director, as a curator of visual arts, who exercises special authority over what is most important as appropriate art and beneficial art interpretation.
So many arts funders—including us—have supported these processes, helping organizations expand those boxes, provide those positions and fill those basements with things and stages with shows. The results are usually good. But the overall effect is to emphasize the importance of the practices and norms that now threaten the very existence of the organizations we love, and the powerful work of the artistic community.
You can’t change plans without changing habits
Other foundations and donors have seen the need for something different. They embrace new ideas for artistic production and presentation and invest in people and institutions willing to adopt them. But they often fail to ensure that those shared ideas—that art affects society or place, to take two examples—will persist when their funding ends.
This is a classic innovation gap. New ideas, even good ones, need constant support to develop. This is because cultural barriers are longer lasting and more subtle than barriers to pregnancy. In other words, having a positive attitude is part of the battle. Keeping that vision alive requires constant effort and a unique skill set.
Supporting innovation should mean supporting innovators
Some funders have supported creative leaders and institutions that want to achieve their goals in exciting new ways, either through avant-garde programming or work-related goals such as employee development and community involvement outside the field. But when the worm turns and the project is criticized or challenged by traditionalists, other funders and the media, innovators have few places to turn for support.
Like entrepreneurs in classic industries, creative innovators often find themselves attacked, not praised. Existing audiences generally don’t want to lose their favorite semi-detailed information. Most of the trustees and sponsors have signed on to preserve and protect the identity of the institution they know. Partners may fear change. Even arts media often use standards that are limited by the fields they cover and review. And the leaders who were hired and funded to do this kind of work find themselves alone, and sometimes without a job.
What can donors do to better support sustainable innovation?
First, we can place a high initial priority on innovation itself (we define innovation as new ideas to serve society while driving the sustainability of the organization itself). Comparing (and criticizing) new ideas to the status quo poses an immediate hurdle that many leaders cannot overcome. That’s why almost every non-profit sector in the world has attracted philanthropic support to creative leaders through award and acceleration programs, including Echoing Green, Ashoka and the Draper Richards Kaplan Foundation (which supports the Remuseum). A rare model, if ever used in art.
Second, foundations can provide cover for founders through recognition and praise. Even stakeholders who are not resistant to change may hesitate to support new, sometimes controversial approaches, for fear of censure. But foundations have the resources and the reputation to give status to leaders who ask the best questions. In a field where status depends, to a large extent, on public approval (and can be lost with one bad headline), foundations can use their resources to identify leaders who might shape the future and give them resources to try. To take one example, consider that the MacArthur Fellowship (labeled a “Genius Grant” by the public, not just by the foundation) offers not only recognition but also validation—and a certain degree of appropriate isolation from criticism—to its winners, forever.
Third, foundations and funders can address both the fragmentation and costs of innovation by empowering individuals and organizations that are experimenting with new approaches to work together. The Mellon Foundation’s “Future of American Theater Collection” is a good example of this approach. Mellon made grants to five small, regionally based theater companies to explore new programming methods. Along with grants, Mellon supported organizations in coming together to share resources and information in a spirit of cooperation with both moral and material benefits.
This month, we present something intended to use all three of these details and examples. Vanguard combines reward, risk capital, technology and community. The program will honor up to 10 senior managers of cultural institutions each year who have innovative ideas that engage the public in their work. The program will provide $100,000 to each award, which is intended to act as a “carrot” and cover, helping to convince their boards, colleagues and the public that they have a leader to support. Members will also participate in acceleration throughout the year, using evidence-based practices for direct business to help them refine, implement, test and share their ideas.
The premise of this work is that, while institutions are better suited to determine their own goals, they may need support to work in novel, creative and groundbreaking ways like the artists who present their work. This includes external investment and support to help bring in their stakeholders. Vanguard is also intended to address the central paradox of innovation—that while individual ideas may not last, they will not emerge without giving leaders the time, space and resources to think differently.
The power of art is the power that comes from the uneasy relationship between the past and the future. Great art institutions direct timeless goods not by upholding the status quo but by challenging themselves to be relevant in unconventional ways. This is especially true in times of great public, social and political change, when uncertainty creates fear and defensiveness but also creates opportunity. It’s time to celebrate and support bold leaders with innovative ideas for creative community engagement and ensure that their organizations can surpass the rest of us.
More information from experts
