The Back Track to Art

The question Tracy Davis posed in the midst of a local controversy over the Northfield Arts Guild’s decision to produce “Sex with Seven Women” —”What’s art for?”—has caused me much reflection over the past few days.

And since I’m closing in these days on the one-year anniversary of my start as director of this organization, I’ve also been pondering this question: What is the Northfield Arts Guild for?

How I’ve come to an initial answer to this question has been colored by comments offered by the originator of this controversy, Beth Benson, first in her original letter to the Northfield News:

We have turned into a society that seeks to be enticed rather than inspired. The things we watch on T.V., the books we read, even the plays we attend have been debased appealing to the lowest common denominator rather than our sense of decency. We seek entertainment that appeals to the lowest common denominator rather than learn to appreciate the finer things… You have an opportunity as a Guild to bring out the noble and beautiful in society. Why waste your time on highlighting the perversions of society? Use your organization to inspire greatness and not sink to a level that only intends to shock with debauchery… Help people to love beauty. Fulfill the calling of your guild to create and support the creation of beauty.

And also in comments she wrote afterward in the midst of discussion on Locally Grown:

…the reason I published [my letter] in the public is because it’s easy to dismiss one person’s opinion. It’s harder to dismiss a community’s opinion. You have a community arts guild. When you put the name Northfield in the front of your organization, you are representing a community. If you want to produce works that need warnings on content, the community has a right to respond. I also wanted to motivate the community to inspire you to do better which you will find in my original letter.

Why did I right [sic] this letter?… I am watching a community I love go down a slope into moral relativism where there is no foundation with right and wrong. It honestly grieves me. But this time it was different. I believe that the Northfield Arts Guild has a calling to be great… I wanted my very public letters to try to get community pressure to expect greatness from our Northfield Arts Guild.

If Beth Benson’s sentiments were our guide, the purpose of the Northfield Arts Guild would be to “inspire”, “to bring out the noble and the beautiful in society,” to be “great,” to “represent a community,” and to provide “moral instruction.”

While I think that these are great purposes for the arts in general, and arts presenters like the Arts Guild more specifically, to aspire to—and I also think the arts often do achieve these things—the reality of how an arts organization like the Arts Guild operates is much different from how Beth seems to perceive.

At the risk of getting too technical about this, the Northfield Arts Guild is a private, mission-driven, nonprofit arts organization that is supported by membership and charitable donations. This means a few important things. Foremost, the Guild is not a public institution in the way that, say, the Northfield Library or Northfield Public School District are. We receive no local public funds whatsoever—none from the city, none from the county—to do our business or to pay our bills. (*We do receive a bit of money from the state, and I’ll talk about that in a moment.)

In practical terms, therefore, the Northfield Arts Guild does not “represent” the community. (Having “Northfield” in our name is likely a condition of location, more than anything else.) While we strive to take into account community feedback about what we do, since the community does not pay for what we do its actual impact on our operations is negligible. Instead, we are much more accountable to the systems and structures that support us and help us pay our bills.

About half of our support comes from charitable sources—either foundations or individuals. These foundations or individuals generally determine their giving based on their affinity for our organization’s mission. As I wrote in my last post, the crux of our organization’s mission is to “stimulate artistic activity in the greater Northfield area” and to “organize, support, and promote the efforts of the community in expressing, developing and appreciating art.” You’ll notice this says nothing about “representing” the entire community. It says nothing about “inspiring” anyone, about providing “moral instruction,” about bringing out the “noble and the beautiful in society,” or about being “great.” It does speak toward supporting and developing arts in the community, which is partially why we’re producing “Sex with Seven Women,” a local production by local artists. (Another reason we’re producing it? To raise money to support our operations; we have to make up for that gap in public funding somehow!)

(*Note: The Minnesota State Arts Board gives the Arts Guild its only source of modest public money based not on how well the organization represents the community, morally instructs, etc, but instead based on criteria similar to our mission. By the way, you might like to know that the Minnesota State Arts Board’s mission reads: “The Minnesota State Arts Board is a state agency that stimulates and encourages the creation, performance, and appreciation of the arts in the state.” Sound familiar?)

If I were suddenly to suggest, as an administrator, that the Northfield Arts Guild should turn its attention to the moral instruction of our wayward society by jettisoning its longstanding commitment to art made by local, living, working artists and instead producing nothing but medieval morality plays, illuminated manuscripts, and madrigals, I’d likely—and rightfully—be run out on a rail by the members and supporters who pay the NAG’s bills (and my salary).

It’s actually quite encouraging and uplifting that members of the community should feel such a sense of ownership of the Northfield Arts Guild that they are compelled to issue challenges and directives about what the Guild produces and presents. It’s great that people like Beth Benson still care enough about art and the role it plays in Northfield to issue challenges and make protestations about productions and programs they personally are not inclined to appreciate.

However, the sense of ownership that a community has for its arts organization is worthless without its providing, in turn, practical support for that ownership. If you really want to have an influence on what the Art Guild does, how it operates, what it produces, then being a community member and making comments from the wings is not enough. Because our programs are produced by a dedicated (volunteer) membership who believe in and support our mission (through membership, donation, and volunteer hours), the Northfield Arts Guild listens to them carefully and actively seeks to produce what they want in art. Indeed, we have been growing increasingly committed in recent months to doing just that.

That all said, we are not an exclusive club. Any one can join. Indeed, community members can best affect the Northfield Arts Guild when they are active participants and supporters (members) of the Guild. And rest assured, we do need all the participation and support we can get! We welcome any and all participants and supporters from every segment of the community.

To go back to the original question, I guess in a real way that’s what the Northfield Arts Guild is for. It’s for everyone—every person in the community—who wants to participate in and support the arts. If you really want to have a practical hand in the Arts Guild’s programming into the future, perhaps you should consider becoming a member today.

I read with interest the comments of Beth Benson regarding the upcoming production of “Sex with Seven Women” at the NAG theater. Allow me to respond wearing my NAG director’s hat:

The mission of the Northfield Arts Guild is to “stimulate artistic activity in the greater Northfield area.” The Northfield Arts Guild strives to “organize, support, and promote the efforts of the community in expressing, developing and appreciating art.”

Part of the reason we decided to produce “Sex with Seven Women” was because it fit in well with our mission. It was written by a talented local writer, whose growing skill has been increasingly lauded by the community (Brendon Etter is the writer, among other things, of the popular Jesse Jane Jamboree productions). It is also being acted by local actors, developed by local theater talent, performed in a local venue, and, above all else, its subject is relevant to a large portion of the community, many of whom are men and women who are familiar with sex and sexual issues.

That said, the Guild recognizes the right of adults to avoid attending productions that make them uncomfortable or that they find objectionable. That is why we included strong disclaimers–that this show was for mature audiences only–in all of our advertising for the show, a likely reason the newspaper was asking that question of Brendon in the first place. It’s a delicate line. There is so much in the play that isn’t objectionable, yet we still have to make the disclaimer for the small bits that might make small portions of the audience uncomfortable–and of course it all gets blown out of proportion.

The Guild recognizes the right of any individual to voice objections to material that may make them uncomfortable or that they may deem objectionable–even when they haven’t seen the materials. Still, owing to our mission, the Guild is of the opinion that all art–whether it be uplifting, depressing, shocking, soothing, challenging, enlivening, or objectionable–will always find the audience it was meant to find.

The Northfield Arts Guild hopes that while you may not want to attend, for your own personal reasons, a performance of “SWSW,” you may still consider attending future NAG productions that are geared toward other audiences. In coming months, we will be producing the musical “The Pajama Game,” the post-war comedy “The Lady’s Not for Burning,” the children’s tale “Holes,” and Shakespeare’s “Merry Wives of Windsor.” And I’m not even mentioning the 10 art exhibitions we put on every year, the wonderful art by local artists that we sell in our shop, the dance classes for kids and adults, the CVRO concerts, etc etc.

As per our mission, there’s truly something for everyone at the Northfield Arts Guild!

Now, if I may, for just a moment, remove my director’s hat and comment as a citizen commenter:

I read a chunk of “Sex with Seven Women” when it came through the office (though I was careful not to read all of it–because I didn’t want to spoil my seeing it), and I have to say, it’s funny. And really good. While the situations are mature, Brendon’s writing is, as always, spot on–clever, witty, and full of sharp, unexpected observations about a subject that we all (may think we) know something about.

In the end, “Sex with Seven Women” has something for every mature adult to think about, chuckle over, and ponder–even as they might be grasping their armchairs to keep from falling out of their seat from laughter!

*Note: This blog post is based on an essay I originally wrote for mnartists.org. **Warning: This post is longer than is typical of most blog postings.

All of us in the arts know by now that the economics of the arts is a tricky negotiation. Though some time ago I traded in the pressures of the artist’s life for those of the critic and administrator, I have continued through the years to study and address the struggles of visual artists.

Unfortunately, though perhaps understandably, public discussions about the welfare of artists often turn into long bellyache festivals, in which the assembled artists spill much personal frustration. For example, at a focus group on the needs of aging artists I ran last year, I met Lyn Foulkes, a long-brilliant seventy-odd-year-old L.A. painter. I was hopeful, since he has exhibited work throughout his career in New York, Paris, and in many major institutions, that he would have insights to offer about how to build a successful artist’s life; instead, Foulkes dashed my hopes by opening the discussion with loud gusts of frustration, blaming his current professional woes on gallery owners, artistic peers, the media, and the public, who, he claimed, prefer hot young artists and fresh new trends over more established artists.

“If I were given the choice now to become an artist,” he said, “I’d probably choose not to become one.”

My interest in finding ways to help artists like Foulkes had led to my escape from Minnesota two years ago to attend the H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. Here, among other activities, I established and led a four-month group research project called “Essential Services for Aging Artists” (ESAA). The ESAA project made use of focus-group discussions of artists in New York, Los Angeles, and Pittsburgh, a survey of more than 1,300 artists currently working nation-wide, a study of existing information about the state of artists and research into what services currently exist for artists, and a group analysis of the data we collected. The project’s goals were to gain a clearer understanding of the problems and needs that visual artists face as they age, to research services that currently exist to address these needs, to pinpoint needs still unaddressed, and to make recommendations for addressing these needs. Our final report on aging artists was comprised of chapters on our findings regarding details about the overall current “state of the artist” and on the needs of artists in eight essential service categories: housing, estate planning, business skills, archiving, legal services, retirement, insurance, and health care.

THE ESSENTIAL SERVICES FOR AGING ARTIST PROJECT uncovered a few general themes. The most important of these was the need for ALL artists, both young and old, to become educatedin the wide range of services available currently to address their needs. ESAA’s survey repeatedly revealed that most artists have limited knowledge about what services are available to assist them with such challenges as finding affordable housing, obtaining business skills, providing for their own retirement, or protecting themselves in the event of a health crisis. In the report, therefore, we suggest that artists of all ages take more initiative in obtaining information about critical needs they will face throughout their careers and about the services to address these needs. We also recommend to providers of services for artists that they implement more effective marketing of their services to what is a rather eccentric interest group.

This suggests another important theme revealed through our research. The practice of visual art typically demands that artists spend long hours alone in a studio in front of their art works and away from other people. This isolation has important ramifications. For instance, ESAA’s survey revealed that 24.3% of respondents felt somewhat set apart from other people, and 7.4% felt very set apart. A 75-year-old female painter who participated in our New York focus group concurred: “In not being joiners, we are holed up in our own studios.” In Pittsburgh, a male painter agreed, responding: “I think [being alone] is a professional hazard.”

While the practice of visual art may create strong, independent, and individualistic thinkers, it also seems to create a broad aversion toward working or cooperating with others. This aversion is particularly troublesome, because, as independent contractors, visual artists typically are forced to take control of such critical career aspects as planning for their retirement, drafting contracts and running a business, obtaining health coverage, and so on. ESAA’s report recommended therefore that individual artists do everything they can to establish a strong support network—become part of a greater community—as early as possible in their careers.

Becoming part of a network of artists, of an artists’ membership organization (NOTE: Like the Northfield Arts Guild!), or of the larger community can have important practical benefits for visual artists. Joining a network not only helps artists find necessary services to address their needs, but it also builds confidence, provides support, and leads to opportunities for networking. Strength in numbers may even allow a group of visual artists to have influence over arts organizations, communities, or local politics and decisions regarding issues important to artists. Artist membership organizations, meanwhile, offer other practical benefits. By joining an organization, visual artists can take advantage of group rates for health insurance, educational workshops, or workspace. Although many membership organizations charge yearly dues, the cost of the dues can be offset by group discounts on art supplies or on other services. In addition, these dues are tax deductible.

Alyson Stanfield, an artist consultant, recommends specifically that visual artists get out of the studio and join up with others not only because of the benefits mentioned above, but because this “builds your confidence, provides emotional and professional support, and opens your eyes to opportunities you never knew existed.” Stanfield suggests that 85-95% of artists get gallery shows because of a recommendation from “another artist, dealer, curator, collector, or other art world type.” Even if no appropriate organization exists, Stanfield suggests that by doing something as simple as holding an “artists’ salon,” or an informal gathering where artists can share work and ideas and can discuss challenges they are facing, everyone can receive significant benefits.

EVEN IF YOU, AS AN ARTIST, BELIEVE IT’S A WASTE OF TIME to do anything other than focusing on creating and exhibiting work, community involvement does not have to interfere with your artistic practice, and the benefits far outweigh any disadvantages. The basic fact is while it is difficult to sustain a career as a visual artist over the long haul, and while it often seems that no one cares about the artist’s struggles and no one is willing to listen to the artist’s complaints, in actuality there are plenty of places in the community that artists can turn to for help. Artists need only be willing to commit to and belong to a community arts organization.

There has been over the past few years a great deal of discussion locally about whether or not, or to what degree, Northfield is an Art Town. Thus far, as I’ve been learning the ropes and coming up to speed, I’ve kept my own council on this issue.

Certainly, I can say, considering all the myriad art activities this town produces on any given sleepy summer afternoon, that we have–at the very least–the potential for Art Town-dom. If the sheer amount of arts programming–and the continued demand for ever more programming by local audiences–were the only criteria for such designation, then we’d be in like proverbial Flynn. However, if you discount the supply side of the equation, it turns out Northfield is generally missing an entire part of the Art Town equation.

Consider this story last week from the Eugene (Or.) Register-Guard as a case study. According to the reporter, last week “to the applause of arts supporters, the Eugene City Council took a first step Wednesday toward playing a larger role in the city’s arts and culture.” That is, Eugene, Oregon, made the practical decision to become, for all intents and purposes, an “Art Town.”

What does this mean in real terms? Well, to start the city council accepted a consultant’s report that was intended to drive city cultural planning for the next ten years. This all sounds familiar, I’m sure. We’re totally on the right trick, you’re probably thinking. Well, yes, but there’s more to this than the lip service of a consultant’s report.

The city of Eugene also determined, based on report recommendations, to play a broader practical (i.e., financial) role in arts and culture. The city was directed by the report to start an alliance for the arts, fund an endowment, and conduct a “thorough review” of the Hult Center for the Performing Arts, partly to halt its operating losses (wouldn’t that be nice?). The report also calls for the city to take practical steps by contributing $100,000 a year to an arts endowment over 10 years that would provide an abiding way to fulfill community arts programming needs, as well as offering challenge grants to encourage private donations to the endowment. Finally, the reports suggests the city offer a onetime grant of between $15,000 and $50,000 to help start up the arts alliance that would help coordinate community arts activities.

Eugene, Oregon, seems to understand what it takes to support the diverse and complex artistic landscape that creates an Art Town. Perhaps someday so will we.

Art is sometimes underrated and overlooked. It doesn’t often warrant front-page coverage in the paper. It seldom is grist for frenzied blog commentary and community-wide speculation as is, say, a drug controversy or intrigue at city hall or other social squabbles. Perhaps this is why people sometimes ask “what good is art, anyway?”

I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this question. There’s no doubt that certain aspects of civilization–health care, civic institutions, the rule of law, wars that are not going so well, and so on–are more crucial to the daily functioning of our society than art is. But, I would argue, art is in some ways more important even than these struggles, because art rises above them.

A few years ago I took a once-in-a-lifetime trip to France, and I took a train out to Chartres to see the town’s famous cathedral. Once there, I latched onto a tour with a local English-speaking historian. He pointed out the stories in the cathedral’s stained glass, the vast labyrinth on the cathedral floor, and the Gothic sculpture that adorned the exterior of the building. We examined the flying buttresses, learned how many steps were in each tower (and when each tower was built), and came to a part of the cathedral accessible to a small town square. Here, he pointed out sculptural figures that were armless, occasionally headless, chipped in leg and foot, and asked us if we knew what had happened to them. One person guessed that was the ravages of time, but the guide shook his head.

“In 1793,” he said, “revolutionaries converged on the cathedral to remove the sculpture and rededicate the building as a palace of enlightenment, or some such.” Such fanatics had knocked many of Paris’s cathedrals to the ground in the early 1790s, and some wanted to do the same in Chartres. They began hacking at its statuary only to be interrupted by an brave local official. “They had already done some damage, as you can see, knocking off heads and other elements that they could reach. The official stopped them by simply saying in one hundred years people will want to come see the cathedral.”

The simple answer to what good is art, is that it is in art that societies rise above it all. This is not to diminish those who are concerned about drug abuse, and politics, and the struggles to improve, or at least not further damage, the world. But in the long run, art outlasts all the tiresome and anxiety-inducing aspects of living; it outlasts the petty arguments, the blood feuds, and all of the curses and denouncements of one segment of the species against another. Art is the way we reveal ourselves as somehow more than ordinary and capable, despite our plentiful flaws, of filling the world with beauty.