Some Potential Looming Changes at the Guild
September 25, 2007
Last week, I was visiting Tom Proehl, the director of the State Arts Board, on Guild-related business. (More on this visit will be discussed in future posts.)
On the round coffee table next to his desk, I noticed a copy of a study about rural arts involvement published by the Montana Arts Council. I glanced at it quickly while Tom went to get coffee, but I became intrigued enough by the publication to later contact the Council and request a copy. And they actually sent me three publications: Building Arts Participation in Rural America: Learning to Increase Participation and the Return on Investment, Fundraising Ideas That Work in Rural America, and Building Arts Participation in Rural America: Learning from Montana’s Arts Organizations.
Now, I realize that Montana and Minnesota are completely different states, with unique demographics, political situations, social makeups, and cultural traditions. But already, in just skimming the first book (the one I’d seen at the Arts Board), I’ve learning something important.
It is this, from page 48: “Buy-in and community involvement (in rural arts organizations) come in response to concerted efforts to serve a target market.”
In other words, give the people you serve what they want above all else and you will be more successful.
A beautifully simple idea, and one that matches some changes that I’ve thought necessary in the Guild’s institutional philosophy: that we need to be less of a top-down programmer of the arts, but more of a service to a community hungry to develop arts programming that matches their needs.
More to come on these changes at the Guild, as well as regarding these studies of rural arts participation.
September 25, 2007 at 10:07 pm
I’ve brought this up a number of times: the Producer vs. Facilitator issue for the Guild. There are certainly ways to do both, and the two concepts do overlap - they are not on opposite ends of the spectrum - but I’ve been more motivated over the years by the ideas I’ve brought to the NAG that they have helped me execute. It does increase the sense of community ownership.
September 25, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Thanks for your comment, Brendon.
I should have probably said that we’re not exactly changing our direction by thinking more about what the community wants, we are just tweaking our philosophy a bit–and I think for the better.
By the way, everyone in Northfield (and beyond) should know that Brendon has done a particularly spectacular job at letting the Guild facilitate his artistic ideas. His program ideas–the Very Short Play Festival, in particular–and his writing contributions to events like Jesse Jane’s Jamboree, have been the most successful recent new programs at the Guild.
We want much more of this, but it’s up to all of you!
January 3, 2008 at 7:57 pm
[...] must listen to most carefully and actively seek to please through its programs. Indeed, we are growing increasingly committed to doing just that. Community members can best affect the Northfield Arts Guild only when they are active participants [...]