Leslie Ito

The Cultural Equity Green Paper draws out three strategic directions for the future which are also being explored at this week’s Open Dialogue conference in Chicago hosted by TAAC, the Association of American Cultures.  They are:

• Equitable funding for all cultural institutions
• Equal participation in policymaking
•  Equity in multicultural leadership

As the green paper refers to, there has been a discontinuation of some “ethnic-set-aside” or multicultural grant programs and some new ones have sprouted with a new focus on more geographically-focused, community-building through the arts types of programs.  While some of the more savvy community-based organizations are continuing to access these dollars, the pot is shrinking. I am seeing more and more organizations beginning to shift their attention to individual donors.  Programs like the San Francisco Foundation’s Fund for Artists Matching Commissions which is now being replicated in Los Angeles by the LA County Arts Commission are training and incentivizing small and mid size organizations to engage individual donors.  Service organizations like Compass Point and the Grassroots Fundraising Institute are focusing particularly on fundraising in communities of color and ethnic specific giving circles are becoming more popular.  These are all signs that a shift is taking place.  While we must not let up pressure on equitable funding from both private foundations and government agencies, we must also continue to diversify revenue and individual donor development is still a relatively untapped area when it comes to culturally specific and diverse community-based arts organizations.

Here’s what Wikipedia has to say: The Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (or CETA, Pub.L. 93-203) is a United States federal law enacted in 1973 to train workers and provide them with jobs in the public service.

The program offered work to those with low incomes and the long term unemployed as well as summer jobs to low income high school students. Full time jobs were provided for a period of 12 to 24 months in public agencies or private not for profit organizations. The intent was to impart a marketable skill that would allow participants to move to an unsubsidized job. It was an extension of the Works Progress Administration program from the 1930s. The Act was intended to decentralize control of federally controlled job training programs, giving more power to the individual state governments. Nine years later, it was replaced by the Job Training Partnership Act.

Two wonderful examples of the “city as stage” were given: Barnaby Evans’ Waterfire, a series of 100 bonfires that burn on the surface of three rivers in downtown Providence and are accompanied by live music and performance on a biweekly basis from April through October. On the other coast, the Los Angeles County Music Center’s Active Arts Program takes a “do-it-yourself” approach with dance, instrumental and vocal music, and storytelling programs on the plaza where participants actively engage in these art forms.  Both projects move the arts out of the four walls and stages of performing arts centers and more importantly reclaim public space—in these two cases, the streets of downtown Providence and the plaza of the Los Angeles County Music Center and democratize participation in the arts.

One participant posed an interesting question regarding the Active Arts program.  While the program goal is not to have participants in the Active Arts program ultimately become ticket buyers for the opera or the theater (although it does happen), how many audience members from the traditional performing arts are coming out to Active Arts to bang on a drum, learn the tango, or sing-along in the Plaza?

As I digest the convening, this question keeps coming back to me.  How important is it that traditional performing arts patrons participate and understand what’s happening on the plaza of the Music Center?  Can programs like Waterfire and Active Arts that are clearly increasing the accessibility and intersection of public space and the arts, sustain themselves?  How are donors being educated on the value of this kind of engagement?  Do cultural and civic institutions have a long-term commitment to bringing greater accessibility to the arts for people of all ages?

My hope is to have a productive and meaningful interaction around the topic of a cultural democracy.  Over the next 12 months, this will be a place where we can discuss our vision for the future of the arts through a culturally democratic lens, the obstacles in achieving this vision, and the strategies to overcome those obstacles and make that vision a reality.

My hope as an ambassador is that this cultural democracy green paper, its responses and the dialogue it catalyzes will be taken to the next step.  That as practioners and cultural policy makers, we will use these ideas and dialogue to inform our own work and make change in the current environment.  I expect this discussion may become spirited, as we are talking about how we can respect differences and contrary beliefs, as well as universalities within the context of arts and culture in America.  

While the green paper recognizes that some progress has been made in equity and diversity issues in the arts, we still have a ways to go.  Let’s put on our thinking caps, get our creative juices flowing and jump in.  So if you will, please take a moment to share with me and others, a few thoughts on what a cultural democracy looks like.  It’s the year 2020 and our vision has materialized.  What does it look like?  What images or ideas come to mind when you think about cultural democracy?  Who are the players?  What role does Americans for the Arts play?  What role does The Association of American Cultures play?  How are the arts and culture different from the way they were in 2010?