I confess, there are times when I doubt my academic choices. This nagging doubt gnaws at me especially when I try to explain to my inquisitor what it is I am completing my graduate work in. These explanations are often met with a confused stare, while they scan their brain to try and determine whether they have any familiarity with just what it is I am doing. When their scan produces no obvious hits, they turn to related, though not precisely correct, explanations. I have received summations of my academic activities that include, “oh, so you're going to be a curator, right?,” or “oh, so you're going to be an art historian, right?,” and once dreaded by me most of all, “oh, so you're kind of going into business?” I have become almost too tired with the misconceptions to bother with further corrections.
In truth, none of these summations is entirely incorrect, hence my shrugging acceptance of the inaccuracies. Such is the life of an arts administrator: there are many hats that must be worn in this career, and yes, I must be part curator, art historian, writer, educator, fundraiser, project manager, financial manager, and marketer. The latter half of these do seem more like the concerns of an MBA, and so why are they mine? Because the leaders of great arts organizations know that these concerns are as much theirs as any one else's. In “A Museum is not a Business. It is Run in a Business-like Fashion,” Andrea Fraser laments the change in the tides that has led museums (and nearly all cultural institutions for that matter) to be run in a manner more appropriate to the corporate sector. Museums, dance troops, theatres, now fight for your leisure time and spending money, just as any other provider of goods and services. The situation is of course much more complex than re-naming museums and theatres “businesses” and walking away; great leaders enter stage right.
There is the temptation to dismiss the problem, and ask what difference it makes if not-for-profit arts institutions are run like businesses? A great leader must not give into this temptation. Art institutions are not businesses, because businesses exist for one purpose and one purpose only: to maximize profit. Anything less is a failure on the part of the business. Even in these halcyon days of corporate consciousness, eco-friendly practices and do-gooder veneers, companies are still for-profit ventures, otherwise their charitable status would have been granted long ago. Art institutions achieve success on the basis of truth to mission, and no less. Healthy financials are a great and promising sign for the future life and programming possibilities of the art institution, but they are not a measure as to whether or not the institution has been successful in their purpose. The greatest leaders stay true to their mission, and are ever-aware of why their institution exists. They know the tactics of business, but they are aware that they are not a business. They motivate their employees to understand the mission and the vision of the institution just as they do. I have had the opportunity to work with great leaders like these; I can only hope to be one myself some day.
Comments
Laura (the respondent poster): it sounds like your idea is in sync with studies written recently (such as “Critical Issues Facing the Arts in California: A Working Paper from the James Irvine Foundation” in 2006 or “The changing of the guard: What generational differences tell us about social-change organizations” in Nonprofit and Volunteer Sector Quarterly in 2003). These and others discuss the ways in which media and technology are bringing the commericial and the not-for-profit ideas together more completely, and predict that there will be “hybrid” models in the future which bring together the for-profit and non-profit corporate practices.
I personally think we may be already there.
Thanks Sherri. I will certainly look up these articles! I am fascinated by the possibilities….especially here in Toronto.
Laura: Thank you so much for your response. I agree with you completely that we as arts managers need to think beyond the typical boundaries of profit/non-profit, and I am happy that my article prompted you to say so.
I should start off by saying that my dread of being lumped in with business majors is not at all because I have a problem with the business sector (or those students of it), nor do I harbour a belief that artists should be starving. Quite the contrary, I am employed by a for-profit arts business, and I could not have more respect or admiration for the work that they do. The danger I see is when arts organizations simply become businesses. This is not at all a question about non-profits finding ways to drum up some cash, but about judging the value of our art monetarily. When building a new theatre is important not because of the art housed within, but because of the business it will attract to the area. When a museum is funded by the city contingent upon how many tourists dollars it brings in, rather than how it enriches the cultural life of the area. I should also mention that I do not go to school at York, but in Chicago, where I think that these sorts of questions are currently very pressing, perhaps more so than in Canada?
I do not think your vision is naive at all, and that we should be working towards new ways of evaluating and talking about the work that we do. I suppose the question is now, where can we begin?
WHAT DO YOU THINK? ... ADD YOUR COMMENT BELOW.
Next entry: What's Next?
Previous entry: A New Career After a 'Lifetime in a Professional Path'
Katrina,
I think your article opens an engaging debate: just how business-like should arts organizations operate?
First, I am curious to know what you study because you don’t mentioned that in your piece. I assume you’re doing an MA/MBA at York? (just a guess).
I am wondering why you dread answering the question, “oh, so you’re kind of going into business.”
If you are in fact studying Arts Management, doesn’t it make sense that people would assume you’re going into business?
I completely agree with you that not-for-profits operate on a fundamentally different level from for-profit businesses. However, as arts managers and as artists, I think it’s time we start evaluating the current system for its benefits and faults. Yes we get government funding (or the lucky ones do at least), but we’re entirely dependent upon these resources. Yes we are ultimately concerned with pushing our mission above making profit, but we often struggle to push our mission because we lack profit. It’s a challenging and frustrating cycle.
I have a vision, a naive one perhaps. I envision a type of arts organization that is not black or white; that is not “for profit” or “not for profit”; that concerns itself with the creation of art, above all, but also with generating money; that is self sufficient; that is business savy; that is entirely experimental in the way it creates art and the way it conducts business.
There is much to be said for an organization like the Gladstone that pushes art but also finds alternate ways to generate profit (without government assistance).
I could go on and on but I won’t bore anyone. I just wanted to put it out there…..the idea that it is possible to reconceptualize these current models. It is possible to wed business and art in a way that isn’t dreadful.