Christy Bolingbroke
The Cart Before The Horse
Posted by May 17, 2011 2 comments
Christy Bolingbroke
Prompted by a fluctuating economy and technological advances indirectly threatening to usurp the traditional live arts experience, we are at the height of buzz surrounding the possible identification of new business models for arts organizations; specifically, alternatives to nonprofit incorporation.
I agree – nonprofit incorporation isn’t for everyone. But what I feel is absent from these conversations is a real discussion on what we are striving for on the other end of these supposed magic bullet business models.
There seems to be a sense that we somehow trapped ourselves into the 501(c)(3) model. And so instead, we’re looking for alternative structures; other structures within which we can operate. That also seems limiting and honestly a little backwards to me.
Why are arts organizations looking at different kinds of carts if the horse (or the driver) doesn’t know where it’s going yet?
Can someone please tell me what this new success will look like for an artist or arts organization? Define the goal and let’s find or create a way to get there. Warning: Success will look different for each of us as well and that’s okay too.
All we know is that the 501(c)(3) model isn’t working for everyone, so we are pressured by experts or foundations to find the new model - a way of doing things that will work for the entire field. It’s just not possible. We don’t all want or need the same kind of cart, right? A great sense of self-awareness and realization of unique needs should inform the cart-building decision.
What are some of your organization's more unique needs that may be useful in knowing when building your own cart or one cart for all of us to share?
Comments
I found the comment about the cart before the horse interesting, because while I have issues with the limitations of a nonprofit model, I founded a nonprofit organization in 1991(ish) in which we created a strategy for income to not rely on grants, but on earned income strategies as well. This did not come from foundations pushing us to think of these things, we actually had to defend our practice and teach foundations about new ways of thinking.
The organization I co-founded was Side Street Projects which I ran for 10 years, and then handed over to the next generation so there would not be "founder issues". They recently won an award for being the most innovative art organization in the country, so I feel a little bit good about that, even though I am no longer involved directly. (They still have my phone number!) Last I checked, the organization was running on 70% earned income.
The art world has changed drastically, and so must the participants in that "world". No longer are galleries the center of the artists' world, and DIY art practices are on the rise. Arts organizations are also changing the way they work, concentrating on all kinds of programming that has gone way beyond just the gallery or a "live" audience. This has been going on for a long time. So it seems to me, that the 501(c)3 community in the arts has been equally driving the shift to new ways of operating. The limitations of the nonprofit model drove me to create yet another organization that is a for profit model (we operate in between these models, which is why both are antiquated in my mind). Since funding is so precarious, I can't imagine running something that relies on fundraising as the only strategy. Sure, it would be nice to get support from funders, but it's like throwing dice.
So, my new model is, we are an artist run company (GYST Ink/Getting Your Sh*t Together) that supports artists with various products as well as education. I created software for artists to keep track of just about anything in their art lives, and keep the price as low as possible. I published two books to help artists learn professional practices (or teach it), and we have tons of educational aspects, most of which are provided for free. The sales allow us to do a lot of things for free.
I also teach entrepreneurial skills to artists so that they can determine their own careers on their own terms, not making a career decision based on limited knowledge of how to have a career. I guess the reason for this long winded comment, is that I feel that the arts have helped drive the conversation of new models and ways of working way before funders and experts. We are the experts.
Comments welcome of course.
Thank you for sharing, Karen! I think your comments also resonate with what my fellow guest blogger Rebecca Novick is saying about moving the arts and the artist closer to the center of the conversation. As a former dancer, I've always considered arts administration to be my new artistic outlet because we do creative problem solving everyday. If we let others continue to drive the conversation away from the arts where is the creativity in that?