Brian, what do you think this means for a small, relatively new theater like the Chocolate Factory? (Brian is a co-founder and the artistic director: http://www.chocolatefactorytheater.org/about.html)
I have absolutely no idea. I think what’s about to happen is somewhat without precedent….on a certain level, I think the small fries like me won’t feel the pinch quite as much, because we’re used to flying low to the ground and have never really managed to break through to big $ (though public support is crucial to our budget…don’t get me wrong). But anyway, everyone trying to run a small business in this city is going to be impacted for better or worse. The NYSCA situation is kind of terrifying. And who knows when we’ll start to see the trickle down from private foundations etc. What really worries me is the bigger question of priorities re: fiscal policy. Why are we so focused on bailing out financial institutions etc. to the detriment of small businesses like mine? (I know that’s a gross oversimplification…). The way I see it, artists and arts groups (in this country anyway) are the most frugal small business people you’ll ever find….and in a city like New York, small businesses are the meat, the potatoes and the gravy. I think the importance of Wall Street to folks like you and me is overstated. Not to mention quality of life…in a way an economic nosedive will be good for us, because artists might be able to afford to stay….
We here at Art.Cult support gross oversimplifications … especially ones with some truth to them. Not to mention that it’s a hugely flawed bailout.
I would agree mostly about artists/art groups being the most frugal small business people - one disturbing trend that cuts against that is the push by small theaters to get bigger, embarking on these torturous capital campaigns but never fully realizing that their everyday costs will skyrocket once the building is in place (and capital campaigns to finance Con Ed bills ain’t that sexy). In this sense, it oddly mirrors the drive of people to own homes, regardless of the fact that they can’t quite work out how those mortgage payments will be made.
there is something about the american drive to grow grow grow that has really pushed arts groups (and banks!) into places they probably shouldn’t go. why is it bad to stay small?
Absolutely! Small is good for community, it’s good for the employees (one expects), and it’s probably easier for managing “multiple bottom lines”.
Brian, you might find John Abrams’s “The Company We Keep” a good read. Abrams co-founded a building company that is employee-owned and has a wholistic approach to business - all in all good ideas that were ahead of the competition (at least I hope more businesses take similar routes).
Hi Claudia.
I agree with the points in this conversation. I’ve recently had a meet and greet with the Charles Hayden Foundation and was told that they’ve lost $120mil since the summer after stock losses - they’re down to $280mil in holdings and not financing any new projects. Further, the project we’re trying to build - including an arts component - is “too small” for them to fund anyway.
It leads me to strategize around the inevitable problem for the “small” of us - how do we change our relationship to funders? Do we need to scrape together resources to cater to our own needs?
These questions need solutions because the hard times getting harder are going to have curious impact on arts here in the ‘hood. It usually means a new art form of some sort will be born out of the cutbacks - like when hip hop was born. How will we support them?
That’s so frustrating, Rafer! I hate it when the arts take on a “bigger is better” capitalistic model, as if a small grassroots community organization like your Maaruf Strategies isn’t exactly what Bed-Stuy needs right now.
I hadn’t thought about the type of art this might spawn, but you’re absolutely right. Fascinating to think about.
Sustainable arts organizations, neighborhoods, projects (and perhaps even state funding agencies) all require long-term, integrated investment in the arts from local officials. When arts programming is hosted in conjunction with education, health, economic development, safety, community cohesion, and more, economic conditions for the arts can and must improve over time, in a reinforcing cycle. Too often, perceptions of arts funding at the state level has been dominated by the observation of urban decay, and skepticism about the possibilities for progress. The reality is far more interesting and hopeful: in the past decade, the artist population of in New York City has grown nearly 30 percent, incomes have risen twice as fast as the nation as a whole, and homeownership has climbed, while poverty and urban crime have declined.
Using this context in mind to speak practically about the arts at the state level, improvement with the NYSCA situation could mean the following:
1) applying a comprehensive lens for arts programming with flagship partners in each NYS County.
2) working first on the few social interventions that have the greatest potential to stimulate further change.
3) establishing a permanent and sustainable community facility for the arts in each county through petitioning, rezoning, designing, and developing designated new facilities in each county or community.
4) forming new centers can only strengthen independent artists’ abilities to act effectively as a community catalyst for the arts in a given local area - and that has a pronounced impact on the economy: developers know this, and harness it, as do state funders.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:30 am
scary times ahead my friends.
November 17th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Indeed.
Brian, what do you think this means for a small, relatively new theater like the Chocolate Factory? (Brian is a co-founder and the artistic director: http://www.chocolatefactorytheater.org/about.html)
November 17th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
I have absolutely no idea. I think what’s about to happen is somewhat without precedent….on a certain level, I think the small fries like me won’t feel the pinch quite as much, because we’re used to flying low to the ground and have never really managed to break through to big $ (though public support is crucial to our budget…don’t get me wrong). But anyway, everyone trying to run a small business in this city is going to be impacted for better or worse. The NYSCA situation is kind of terrifying. And who knows when we’ll start to see the trickle down from private foundations etc. What really worries me is the bigger question of priorities re: fiscal policy. Why are we so focused on bailing out financial institutions etc. to the detriment of small businesses like mine? (I know that’s a gross oversimplification…). The way I see it, artists and arts groups (in this country anyway) are the most frugal small business people you’ll ever find….and in a city like New York, small businesses are the meat, the potatoes and the gravy. I think the importance of Wall Street to folks like you and me is overstated. Not to mention quality of life…in a way an economic nosedive will be good for us, because artists might be able to afford to stay….
November 17th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
We here at Art.Cult support gross oversimplifications … especially ones with some truth to them. Not to mention that it’s a hugely flawed bailout.
I would agree mostly about artists/art groups being the most frugal small business people - one disturbing trend that cuts against that is the push by small theaters to get bigger, embarking on these torturous capital campaigns but never fully realizing that their everyday costs will skyrocket once the building is in place (and capital campaigns to finance Con Ed bills ain’t that sexy). In this sense, it oddly mirrors the drive of people to own homes, regardless of the fact that they can’t quite work out how those mortgage payments will be made.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
there is something about the american drive to grow grow grow that has really pushed arts groups (and banks!) into places they probably shouldn’t go. why is it bad to stay small?
November 17th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Absolutely! Small is good for community, it’s good for the employees (one expects), and it’s probably easier for managing “multiple bottom lines”.
Brian, you might find John Abrams’s “The Company We Keep” a good read. Abrams co-founded a building company that is employee-owned and has a wholistic approach to business - all in all good ideas that were ahead of the competition (at least I hope more businesses take similar routes).
On Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Company-We-Keep-Reinventing-Community/dp/1933392193/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226961714&sr=8-1”
NYPL also has it.
November 18th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Hi Claudia.
I agree with the points in this conversation. I’ve recently had a meet and greet with the Charles Hayden Foundation and was told that they’ve lost $120mil since the summer after stock losses - they’re down to $280mil in holdings and not financing any new projects. Further, the project we’re trying to build - including an arts component - is “too small” for them to fund anyway.
It leads me to strategize around the inevitable problem for the “small” of us - how do we change our relationship to funders? Do we need to scrape together resources to cater to our own needs?
These questions need solutions because the hard times getting harder are going to have curious impact on arts here in the ‘hood. It usually means a new art form of some sort will be born out of the cutbacks - like when hip hop was born. How will we support them?
November 19th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
That’s so frustrating, Rafer! I hate it when the arts take on a “bigger is better” capitalistic model, as if a small grassroots community organization like your Maaruf Strategies isn’t exactly what Bed-Stuy needs right now.
I hadn’t thought about the type of art this might spawn, but you’re absolutely right. Fascinating to think about.
November 27th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Feast of St. Acacius
2008
Happy Thanksgiving -
Sustainable arts organizations, neighborhoods, projects (and perhaps even state funding agencies) all require long-term, integrated investment in the arts from local officials. When arts programming is hosted in conjunction with education, health, economic development, safety, community cohesion, and more, economic conditions for the arts can and must improve over time, in a reinforcing cycle. Too often, perceptions of arts funding at the state level has been dominated by the observation of urban decay, and skepticism about the possibilities for progress. The reality is far more interesting and hopeful: in the past decade, the artist population of in New York City has grown nearly 30 percent, incomes have risen twice as fast as the nation as a whole, and homeownership has climbed, while poverty and urban crime have declined.
Using this context in mind to speak practically about the arts at the state level, improvement with the NYSCA situation could mean the following:
1) applying a comprehensive lens for arts programming with flagship partners in each NYS County.
2) working first on the few social interventions that have the greatest potential to stimulate further change.
3) establishing a permanent and sustainable community facility for the arts in each county through petitioning, rezoning, designing, and developing designated new facilities in each county or community.
4) forming new centers can only strengthen independent artists’ abilities to act effectively as a community catalyst for the arts in a given local area - and that has a pronounced impact on the economy: developers know this, and harness it, as do state funders.