Michelle Dean

As we wrap up 2010, I write my last blog installment for ARTSblog, which features an interview with American Art Therapy Association President, Joan Phillips, Ph.D., ATR-BC. Dr. Phillips enthusiastically addressed the three primary elements covered in this blog about art therapy: vision for the future of art therapy; obstacles to achieving that vision; and strategies to overcome those obstacles and make that vision a reality from the perspective of the American Art Therapy Association (AATA). Dr. Phillips discussed the consolidation of the National office to the Washington DC area in order to achieve greater collaboration with policy makers and other officials, which may be a positive influence and advocate for the field of art therapy. She also noted the expansion of the dedicated staff of the organization, which includes a now Full-time Executive Director, Susan Corrigan, and an additional six support staff to better meet the needs of the membership, provide advocacy for the profession, and increase in public awareness about the value of art therapy.

Dr. Phillips also described efforts for greater inclusion of educators and mental health professionals into the field of art therapy. She described “warm receptions to those we reach out to in other professions” such as in a recent meeting with representatives of K-12 Educational Association of Superintendents and representatives from the Veteran’s Association. Representatives from both associations mutually expressed much excitement about art therapy and the possibility for partnership and collaboration with the National organization and its members. She acknowledged a fear, that may have acted as an obstacle to the profession and may have prohibited such partnerships in the past, need not threaten to dilute the profession of art therapy, only enrich through collaboration. She cites the example that the credential for an art therapist is unified through the Art Therapy Credentials Board (see previous posts) and that many art therapists also choose to apply for licensure through their states as, “one size does not fit all.”

Just as each State or Local Chapter of AATA operates independently, through the work of countless volunteer hours of its board and committees, the National office has developed educational and support packets to assist in realizing the Chapters’ capacity to execute their mission, which often promotes the development and public awareness of the field of art therapy through the advancement of research, professional standards, education, legislation and public forums. This resource and leadership minimizes the need to “recreate the wheel” and continue to expand the vision of the profession through continued elected leadership.

Additionally, Dr. Phillips has been very impressed by the hope and inspiration of graduate students and young professionals she has had the opportunity to meet and work with in her elected positions and as an educator at the University of Oklahoma.  She highlighted The American Art Therapy Association’s new Mentoring Program as a means of cultivating the important role of providing collegial relationships to assist with navigating the sometimes-challenging territory of the field of as a new professional.

In closing, I have been honored to write this blog and have been greatly appreciative of the opportunity to convey some ideas about the future of art therapy. Sadly, due to time and life obligations (some anticipated and some unforeseen at the time of my original agreement to this commitment) I have much more material, wonderful interviews, and resources, than I was able to write about in the time allotted.  I am grateful to all of those who were so generous with their time and energy.  I am especially thankful for the work of Christine Ruberti, Research Assistant for this project, Julia Connell, former Policy Advocate at the American Art Therapy Association, Susan Corrigan, Executive Director of The American Art Therapy Association, and my esteemed colleagues and friends of the Delaware Valley Art Therapy Association Board, of special note: Carol Pletnick, President; Johanna Kane, Public Relations Co-Chair; Sarah Abramovitz, Corresponding Secretary; and Adele Minton, Recording Secretary, as well as all of you who have taken the precious time to read, post comments or reply privately. Many thanks and a most prosperous New Year to all!

American Art Therapy Association’s Mentoring program: http://www.americanarttherapyassociation.org/aata

Michelle Dean

In Part Two, a discussion regarding the vision for the future of art therapy from the Art Therapy Credentials Board’s (ATCB) perspective, Deborah A. Good, ATCB President and Rita Maloy, Executive Director, discussed additional endeavors to support a secure future for the ATCB and its credential holders. In the last blog, opportunities to become credentialed through ATCB were discussed and thus the discussion turns to the vision of mentoring new professionals, while helping those credentials grow credence outside of our profession. It has been noted that effective counselors, [and it could be implied art therapists] do not necessarily make effective supervisors (Dye & Borders, 1990) and so credentialing certifications have been developed to address this need.

First, let me discuss the implementation of the new certification for art therapy clinical supervisors. This credential, the Art Therapy Certified Supervisor (ATCS) is offered to qualified Board Certified Art Therapists, art therapists who in addition to obtaining registration have also successfully completed the board certification examination to earn the ATR-BC designation, and who are interested in demonstrating substantial supervision qualifications. Like the art therapy registration (ATR), the ATCS sets criteria including education, experience, and peer recommendations for potential supervisors with the goal to better prepare supervisors, while providing better tutorage of young professionals. In turn, this action may create a greater retention of professionals and ultimately increase career satisfaction. The ATCB is supporting the art therapy profession’s progress by establishing parity with other mental health professions, which have already established a credential for their supervisors, and that promotes recognition for the unique services art therapists provide while fulfilling the mission of the Art Therapy Credentials Board, to “protect the public through the competent and ethical practice of art therapy.”

Secondly, the ATCB is in the process of securing its status through the National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA). According to its website, the NCCA helps to ensure the health, welfare, and safety of the public through the accreditation of a variety of certification programs/organizations that assess professional competency. The NCCA uses a peer review process to:

• Establish accreditation standards;
• Evaluate compliance with the standards;
• Recognize organizations/programs which demonstrate compliance; and
• Serve as a resource on quality certification.

Bill More, Chair of the ATCB Ad Hoc Committee on NCCA accreditation reports that “Once the board certification process is accredited, the public and stakeholders, including employers, clients, and state licensing boards, will be assured that an art therapist’s professional competence has been assessed through an examination and certification process that meets national standards.” As Bill points out in his article in the fall edition of the ATCB newsletter, this action may be imperative as Congress has begun efforts to enact law that would require all federal contracts that include the hiring of employees from professions covered by a certification process to only be filled by those from fields with a certification process accredited by the NCCA.

I welcome your comments.  Do you believe the ATCB efforts will be enough to entice more new graduates and those from other related fields to apply for the art therapy credential(s)? Is there a rising incident of art therapy students who graduate from accredited art therapy programs who either do not obtain the ATR or ATR-BC and/or do not maintain the credential? And since many more art therapists are now eligible for different licenses and credentials, what impact does this have on individual art therapists, the profession, and related fields?

Michelle Dean

What are all those letters after your name? is a frequent question I am asked, to which I often jest I have more letters after my name than in it. In a long-overdue, two-part installment of the blog, I will not only explain what all those letters mean, but also convey some significant changes that the granter of the credentials, The Art Therapy Credentials Board (ATCB), is making. Deborah A. Good, ATCB President and Rita Maloy, Exective Director, were very generous to grant an interview to discuss the vision for the future of art therapy from the ATCB’s perspective. The ATCB is an organization that credentials art therapists.  Credentialed art therapists must prove competency and are accountable to ATCB in terms of maintaining ethical standards of practice. The organization has recently unveiled an update of opportunities for becoming a registered art therapist (ATR), as along with a new certification for supervisors, the Art Therapy Certified Supervisor (ATCS). Additionally, the ATCB plans to apply for accreditation of the ATR-BC through the National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA) later this year.

Historically, it has been difficult, and at times impossible to obtain the highest level of credential as an art therapist if one did not attend a graduate art therapy program, even if education and experience were comparable. This may have repelled professionals who hold licenses and credentials in related fields who were unwilling to return for another master’s degree for which some, or much, of the coursework would be redundant. In my opinion, it also implied an arbitrary exclusivity without consideration to competency based on education, supervisory, and experience criteria. As of January 1st, new and welcoming opportunities to become a credentialed art therapist will be made possible through the single application process, which includes several routes of demonstrating art therapy educational standards; all of which focus on coursework, supervision, and experience and thus, promote greater inclusively and diversity for credentialed art therapists.

The same coursework in specific content areas is expected of all applicants (as cited in the fall 2010 ATCB newsletter) and as David Gussak, PhD, ATR-BC, highlighted at this years Coalition of Art Therapy Educators (CATE) meeting at the American Art Therapy Association (AATA) Conference in Sacramento.  The traditional route, is one in which the individual graduates from an AATA approved graduate program.  These new graduates may pursue 1,000 hours of supervised clinical experience and are eligible to apply for the Art Therapy Registration (ATR) upon completion. The second and third credentialing avenues for graduates of non-approved AATA programs allow application for the ATR after 1,500 hours and 2,000, respectively, of supervised clinical hours with the ratio of supervision hours to clinical hours remaining the same (10:1) for all three types of applicant.  The greatest difference includes consideration for volunteer work (instead of paid work) at a 2:1 ratio and that clinical hours may be accrued through the applicant’s private practice, ONLY if the applicant holds a license in another mental health discipline.

Additional information about the Art Therapy Certified Supervisor Credential (ATCS) and the application with the NCCA will follow. You may watch the ATCB website for updated information regarding the material presented in this article.

In the meantime, what are your thoughts regarding the new ATCB application routes? Does greater inclusively appeal to you?

Jennie Smith-Peers

This year marks the first year that Americans over the age of 65 will outnumber those under the age of 20. The “graying” of America is already conversations that many arts administrators are familiar with, who are busy discussing how to deal with aging administrators and aging audiences.  Yet, what this green paper seeks to address is how do we as service providers include access to our arts programming for everyone? Traditional ways of doling out arts programming are no longer sufficient. Older adults need and desire quality arts programs that give them the opportunity to grow and be creative. What is holding us back from including elders? At the end of the day, I believe that it is ageism.

We are living in the 21^st Century and though many strides have been made in the last 30 years to view aging in a more positive light our society continues to marginalize them, make many feel unwelcome, and forces them to be invisible.

Karen Atkinson wrote on a wonderful article in the Huffington Post called, “Aging as an Artist” in it she quotes an older artist who is confronted with ageism as saying, “In the early 21st century being an older artist (and by this I mean being over 50) seems to generate the kind of repulsive response from curators and galleries that being a woman, a homosexual, and a person of color has generated in the past. Ageism, it seems, is the new bigoted response to what’s not selling, right up there with the racism, sexism, xenophobia, and homophobia that have marked art world snobbery and greed for so many decades.”

How can we stand for this? How can  the arts community  help to confront ageism? How do we hold ourselves accountable to the millions of elders in our society who lack access to quality arts programming? Perhaps it takes viewing them as having potential rather than deficits. Dr. Gene Cohen, author of The Creative Age, stated that while problems do accompany aging, “what has been universally denied is the potential. The ultimate expression of potential is creativity.”

By helping elders to embrace their creative potential sooner rather than later, we are affirming our own future as well.

I ask you: Would you rather grow old in community that still embraces you as an artist and as being who has creative potential or one that is shoved aside and forgotten about?



Alie Wickham

It’s been awhile since a post has gone up.  I apologize for that, however, this delay in posting is not just from my lack of time, but also from my lack of motivation to continue these posts.  I am going to be frank and honest with all of you: These Green Paper posts can ONLY make a difference with EVERYONE’S help!! This means you! I could suggest improvements, and attempt to facilitate discussions as much as I want – I love talking about the arts in healthcare, it’s my passion! However, how are we supposed to grow and be innovative thinkers as a field without the input of all of you? Ladies and gentlemen, artists and healthcare providers, students and professionals, it is now your time to step up…do you want me to keep writing and suggesting topics of discussion? PLEASE RESPOND! Thank you!

Now for the post…

The following statement comes from the “Moving Forward” section of the Arts in Healthcare Green Paper:

Arts in healthcare is steadily moving forward. Increasingly, healthcare administrators are not only welcoming but also financially supporting arts programming in their institutions. Medical and nursing schools see the value in incorporating arts in healthcare courses or content to help their students develop essential skills such as observation and communication. Arts institutions, schools, and colleges are partnering with healthcare organizations to provide arts programming and health promotion experiences in community settings.

From reading this portion of the Green Paper, I thought to myself, “Wow, our field sounds like we are doing great! So many different types of organizations and institutions are interested in partnering with us, and the field is substantially growing.  But at the same time, why do I feel like we are still struggling so much?”  Don’t get me wrong, I understand that every field has the potential to grow more, even the ones that are already highly respected and significantly impacting.  But it seems to me that if the former statements highlighted in bold are to be kept in this paper, shouldn’t this be the case for the majority of the healthcare institutions and organizations, the majority of medical and nursing schools, and the majority of arts institutions, schools, and colleges around the world? This is a worldwide field, the Society for the Arts in Healthcare is an international organization, and this paper must represent the majority of the voices who are a part of it, and those who have not yet come to understand or are aware of the power of the arts to enhance the healing process and environment.

I appreciate the optimism of the paper as it claims we are steadily moving forward.  However, as a young professional who pursued the implementation of an arts in healthcare program at a community hospital in western Massachusetts, and was turned down by the VP of Human Resources after being so highly encouraged by nurse managers on many of the units, it is challenging for me to believe that as a field we are so “steadily” moving forward.  I realize this is just a small portion of the field as a whole, but never the less, why not use this paper to challenge the inherited optimism we may have from being a part of so many accomplishments.  I simply ask that we do not forget about the challenges that so many artists and healthcare providers, arts organizations and healthcare institutions, are having integrating the arts in healthcare as a significant focus in their work.

Michael R. Gagliardo

Back in July I received a comment on a blog post, after asking readers what the subject of my next blog post should be.  One reader, Denise, chimed in with the topic of “persuading school systems and communities to recognize the foundational importance of classical music and cultivating a lifelong appreciation.”  I like it.

I’m currently teaching a class for the University of Alabama’s Osher Lifelong Learning Institute.  In a nutshell, OLLI is a program that is designed for “mature adults” with the basic premise being “learning for the pure joy of learning.”

What a great concept!  Adults come and take classes on music, history, computers, languages – you name it.  There are no tests, no homework, no age limitations – just an open, exciting learning environment where students who share common interests come to brush up on things they are already familiar with, or to add new learning experiences.

It begs the question – how do we take this love of and desire for learning and transfer it from the world of “mature adults” to the realm of those we should be working hard every day to reach – young people?

My class this semester for OLLI is on European Musical Masters.  Each week, for 90 minutes, we focus on one of the great European composers – Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and such.  And each week there are 20-25 eager students in class, ready to learn more about the day’s topic.  It’s fun for the students, and it’s fun for the teacher too, because it gives me an opportunity to refresh my memory on things I may have forgotten from music history courses of long ago.  In doing so, it also reenergizes me and generates new excitement for each topic.

So how do we transfer this to our young people?  And, as Denise suggested, what is the role of school systems and communities in creating lifelong learners, especially in the area of classical music?

It is no secret that classical music has suffered tremendously, not just in the current economic climate, but for the past 15-20 years.  The sale of classical recordings has been on the decline for at least 10 years.  Orchestras across the country – major orchestras, like San Diego and San Antonio – have shut their doors, and others like Detroit and St. Louis are either in danger of or have been miraculously rescued from falling over the edge.  And let’s face it – as orchestras have been inclined to say over the past two decades, their audiences are literally dying.

So let’s open up the discussion – what can WE do to solve this problem and create a new climate of engagement and learning in the world of classical music?

Michael R. Gagliardo

It’s been a while.  I must admit, I’ve neglected my duty as a blogger.  What can I say – I can offer all kinds of excuses, but I don’t know if I really buy them myself.  The end of the summer and the beginning of the school year is always a busy time for those of us in arts education, true.  I’m biased, but I think for musicians it’s just a little busier than for others.  So I’ve spent a lot of time preparing for the new season.  There were auditions to administer, and music to prepare, and folders to stuff, and meetings with new and returning parents to be held, and all of the things that go along with starting up the new year.

And then, just when you think things are settling down, there are the other things that come about.  The creation of a new program was one for the Etowah Youth Orchestras.  And with that came an entirely new set of start-up duties.  After that, there was the donor relations work, and the grant writing, and the planning and promotion and recruiting for school programs.  There’s just so much to do!

But the thing is, there’s always a lot to do.  Artists are creative people, and creative people are busy people, because they are always thinking of something new – a new angle for funding, a new resource for teaching, a new and innovative way of expressing their art form.  As a good colleague and great friend often reminds me, work contracts and expands to fill the amount of time which you have to complete it.  How true.

So maybe it’s not really about having enough time.  Maybe it’s about something else.  Maybe it’s about priorities.

Yes, I’ve been a bad, bad blogger this late summer and early fall, and it’s not really that I didn’t have the time to sit down and tell you about what’s on my mind.  It’s that I didn’t put it high on my priority list this summer.  And now, here I am in October, trying to play catch-up for three months of being bad.

It happens to us all.  Priorities change, in our professional lives, and in our personal lives.  And we know that it’s OK for this to happen.  But at the same time, there are things that we have to keep focused on.  The arts is one of those things.  The arts must be a priority.  We especially cannot – must not – ever lose sight of this.

Today was my day for a “priority check.”  Make it yours, too – we need everyone out there fighting for what we know is important and essential.

Michelle Dean

As cited in the Green Pages: Does the intense federal focus on “evidence-based” practices results in a premature dismissal or disregard for therapeutic practices that are beneficial to many populations?

Let’s face it, value placed on evidence-based practices is not just because of federal funding but a cultural bias that values scientific method, in an attempt “to prove” or “validate” what is real. The economic origins of this long-standing bias are beyond the scope of this blog but none-the-less the question remains: How does art therapy fit in this model?  Well, not so well due to its very symbolic nature.  And why should it?

Although there have been great efforts to promote and conduct evidence based treatment (EBT) and research in art therapy, it may be said that art therapy (or any therapeutic relationship for that matter) is a symbolic process, which is embedded in a relation-based therapeutic practice. So when symbols or people in a relationship are taken out of context they lose their meaning. For example, it would be like taking two people in love and removing one person in the couple and plopping them down with someone else and expecting the same amorous feelings – this is clearly absurd.  Sociologist, Durkheim discusses the advantages of being in a relationship as a reduced risk factor to suicide. However, when an art therapist is actually working with a patient, the statistical risk factor is far less important than the qualities and meaning of the relationship. And it is those relationship qualities that are so elusive to measure.  Elkins debunks the validity of empirically supported treatments, by uncovering the insidious economic gains for the insurance and pharmaceutical companies. And Seife points out, in his soon to be released text, Proofiness: The Dark Arts of Mathematical Deception, “Our society is now awash in proofiness. Using a few powerful techniques, thousands of people are crafting mathematical falsehoods to get you to swallow untruths”. Who is to say that what is being conveyed by the statistics of EBT are even measuring what they are claiming?

Although objective observation may be desirable in evidenced-based therapies, it is not truly possible in this relational, creative, and symbolic context. One cannot remove the therapist, or be replace by another, as no two therapists are the same person.  And the artwork that emerges in the session does so because of the surrounding conditions: time, place, therapist, and other numerous clusters of factors, some easily definable other not so. The observer or researcher cannot ever truly remove himself or his biases from the equation.  Gilfoy, states EBT’s are a modernist concept, which “[…] seeks universal absolutes that derive from a single narrative trajectory that assumes its truths are superior to others”. Scientific Methodologies do have their place in hard-science but to reduce or generalize results to patient care or other symbolic manifestations in a therapeutic context or in turn to deny services or payment for services because they do not fit neatly in this economically driven method, may actually do more harm than good; one could even argue, they are unethical in practice due to their deception.  So although art therapy may not fit neatly into the current psychological trend of EBT, it does not mean that its significance is lesser or that its benefits are not profound.

“Promising practices” is a concept, which has only begun as a means to document and highlight the effectiveness of the relationship, the interaction achieved in multidisciplinary treatment, and a host of creative, symbolic, and environmental factors, which may be a more reasonable way to inform support for a soft-science practice such as art therapy. In the meantime, without question, the real underlying drive and pervasive use of a data measurement is used to attract funding and monies.  How else might one draw  economic viability for the work of art therapists, without losing sight of the importance of the symbolic nature of the work?

References:

Web

• Lies, Damned Lies, and ‘Proofiness’ (Sept 19, 2010). NPR STAFF

Documents

• Durkheim, E. (1979). Suicide: A study in sociology. New York: The Free Press.
• Gilfroy, A. (2006). Art therapy, research and evidenced-based practice. London: Sage Publications.
• Seife, C. (2010). Proofiness: The Dark Arts of Mathematical Deception. New York: Viking Adult.

Jennifer Armstrong

Now more than ever, professionals of multiple generations have knowledge and skills to share with one another.  The strategy suggested in the green paper to best share these assets to further the field is a collaborative and participatory leadership structure versus a top down hierarchical structure.  In the proposed strategy, not only is leadership developed at all levels within an organization – strengthening the individual, organization and field – but it also helps to prepare for smoother transitions and successions at any level at any moment.  It seems like such a logical approach, so what stands in its way of success? People.

It always comes down to people.  Our capacity to learn. Our capacity to change. Our capacity to communicate.  Our capacity to share.

Learn – More leaders in executive positions need to learn how this system might work and be successful for them.  How can we make this model and training more available and attractive to execs? Has collaboration been taught and cultivated in all of us? How can we strengthen that skill across all levels of leadership?

Change – If an executive leader is in a comfortable position of power, what is the incentive to change?  If an executive leader does see that a change should come from within, does the field make it easy for them to take the first step? 

Communicate – I have witnessed ugliness and destruction when multiple generations try to assert their value and express their values to one another, misunderstanding or misinterpreting what they see and hear from one another.  At what point do we agree that the cost is too great and begin to communicate more effectively, see more clearly and have a mutual respect? Do we have solid methods to employ?

Share –We work so hard to gain a sense of our place and perhaps power that it can be very difficult for some to share what they have sacrificed to earn.  How can we encourage an attitude of an open hand versus a tight fist?

Acknowledging that there are strong positive examples of leaders who possess these needed qualities and perhaps have model relationships and structures, it doesn’t seem to be enough. We have to take stronger and swifter action as a field to encourage new ways of knowing and doing across generations.  Where do I, you, we – people – begin?

Alie Wickham

Well, our cycle for the PepsiRefresh grant has come to an end.  We ended at an excellent ranking of 117 – seriously folks; I’m not trying to be sarcastic.  Considering the hundreds of incredible ideas and passionate organizations (and individuals) we were up against, we should be proud.

However, this did get me thinking (and perfect timing considering I needed to get another post up)…

What would you do with a PepsiRefresh Grant???

I mean it! If you were given the opportunity to write a PepsiRefresh Grant ($5,000 to $250,000), what would you write the grant for and how would you design whatever project or mission you were trying to get funded? However, here is the challenge:

In the spirit of looking to the future, and the resourceful Green Paper given to us to work from, how would you use the challenges posted in the paper or via the arts in healthcare listserv (hospital advocacy, funding, certificates and degrees, research, etc.) to develop the “perfect” future of an arts in healthcare project, program or intervention/resolution to one of the challenges listed above?

I challenge you to sincerely think about this – are you up for it???  Let’s hear your voice!!

Joanna Chin

Sometimes, I like to take a step away from the art itself to ask what art does for society.  In a world that often portrays our field as frivolous or boils our work down to how it can stimulate local economies, it’s a nice exercise to imagine how the thing to which we dedicate our lives actually contributes, and has even more potential to contribute, to bettering the world at large.

Shifting gears a bit, let’s talk about one of the most global issues facing…well, the globe: climate change.  A 2009 report by the Pew Research Center claims that the number of Americans who believe manmade global warming is real has dropped 14 % from 2008.  And, according to a Brookings Institute study, even among Americans who believe that global warming is occurring, there was an 18% decrease in respondents who said they were very confident that this phenomenon was taking place.

Speculation about the reasons behind the climate change movement’s loss of momentum abound.  While some popular hypotheses for its decline include the current economic crisis and the radicalization of the Republican Party in the wake of Obama’s election, one of the most interesting to me was in a Newsweek blog entry suggesting that many Americans are indifferent or unable to comprehend the long-term effects of climate change.  That indifference has emerged more strongly now because it’s much harder to prioritize abstract, far-away problems like climate change when compared to the daily threat of losing one’s job.

In Timothy Williamson’s “Reclaiming the Imagination,” he talks about how imagining future scenarios allows us to prepare for threats, which ensures our basic survival.  On a more sophisticated level, imagination (plus complex statistics and data) allows experts to create decision trees for say, possible strategies for U.S. military action in Afghanistan. To me, the true strength of art isn’t its economic impact or how it helps kids learn in school; it’s the way that it allows us to suspend belief and cultivate this ability to imagine scenarios beyond the confines of our current, individual reality.

Therefore, if one reason for the environmental movement losing ground is an inability to imagine the long-term effects of climate change, then fueling people’s ability to comprehend those consequences is key.  Art is one of the best tools we have to achieve this.  So, artists are uniquely positioned to be instrumental in strengthening Americans’ belief in climate change, which is an essential step to making larger change possible.

Recognizing the contribution that the arts can play in this dialogue, the CoolClimate Art Contest provides a formal opportunity for artists to join the discussion on global climate change.  This online contest encourages artists to explore how climate change is impacting our lives and what can be done to ensure a sustainable future for all of Earth’s inhabitants.  Inspire us to look beyond the current realities and do our part at http://www.coolclimate.deviantart.com/.

The first half of their interview can be found here.

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.

Keely Saye

Is the failure of the arts to maintain market share among providers of contributed support a short-term problem related to increased social service, health, and educational needs, or will it persist?

In my opinion, the question must be considered from two different perspectives. In reference to the short term, the answer would appear to be an unqualified yes. This can be considered a “short-term” problem in that it is one that has arisen relatively recently. Fundraising in the non-profit/arts sector, particularly in the performing arts, has seldom been more difficult than it is right now.

Deep pocket donors and corporate benefactors are being stretched to the limit as even some of the more venerable arts institutions such as Pasadena Playhouse (The State Theatre Of California) are closing their doors due to lack of operating funds. Shrinking audiences, most likely kept away by the cost of admission, have forced many arts organizations to look to their donor bases for increased assistance. Unfortunately, that donor base is dealing with the same economy as the absent ticketholder, and must also make cuts. The arts are often the first (perceived) extras to be trimmed from most budgets. In this sense, the answer is clearly “yes, we are facing a short-term problem.” The question that seems begged in the final four words of the initial query is how do we keep it from persisting?

In a word: education.

A logical conundrum does seem to exist when the solution for waning sponsorship involves the promotion of one of the very pursuits which threaten contributions. However, it is only through cultural enlightenment and a broadening of the awareness of those we seek to educate that a permanent respite from the dreaded cutback slaughter will be obtained. An societal appreciation for the arts can be affected through a broadened academic emphasis as well as parental and peer group exposure. A populace more comfortable with and invested in the arts will support cultural endeavors with greater enthusiasm on a corporate/individual giving level as well as in attendance.

Is the failure of the arts to maintain market share among providers of contributed support a short-term problem related to increased social service, health, and educational needs? Absolutely. Will it persist? Hopefully not, with increased effort and awareness.

Join in the conversation. Do you agree? Tell me what you think.