Responding to the economic meltdown last year, the San Francisco Foundation downsized and began reconsidering what a community foundation needs to be in the present environment. As a result of this rethinking, in addition to the arts portfolio, I now have multiple tasks including managing programs for LGBT organizations, diversity in philanthropy, and a new initiative supporting mergers, closures, joint ventures, and back office collaborations. During this process of transition, I found myself having to be comfortable with ambiguity, as the importance of the arts was weighed in relation to the enormous safety net issues of food, clothing, shelter, job losses, and mortgage foreclosures. Funding cuts decimated education, health, and human services; the arts should not be exempt. Looking at any community holistically, an argument can be made for how essential arts and culture are to its vitality.  Yet, this can only be argued when a community has affordable housing, jobs, access to heath care, quality schools, parks, and libraries.  As the very tenets of civil society are being rewritten in the current recession, and the social safety net is ruptured, support for the arts is understandably imperiled.

Here in Portland, business giving to the arts has been in the news quite a bit lately. Our Business Journal reported that giving is down 33% since 2006, and isn’t likely to recover anytime soon. And a recent article in the Sunday Oregonian noted that large corporate gifts are becoming increasingly rare – not only due to the economy but also a lack of said corporations here; Portland has only two Fortune 500 companies, vs. oodles of small independent businesses.

These articles recommend that arts organizations scale their visions accordingly, recognizing that major visionary cultural projects may never be able to come to fruition. Some say that that’s not necessarily a bad idea, conforming toward our city’s strengths, anyway: progressive, smaller scale, more indie, and a bit quirky. When an arts reporter from New York comes to town, she’s not interested in our Sondheim or Tchaikovsky but rather the creative collaboration between cellos and local rock bands, or the way our ballet dancers are attracting hipsters to their performances at night clubs. These are the more unique aspects of Portland’s vibrant arts community, and programs like these are developing quite a grassroots following.

The Residency Green Paper states that: The first artists' residencies were developed in the late 1800's...(and were) not about retreat from the industry and fierceness of the city, but rather about advancing a different way of life.  Residencies have nurtured the creative development of artists like Marcel Duchamp, Alice Walker, and Leonard Bernstein... Surely no one would argue against the benefit of that time to those artists (and many more) and that their work has added tremendous value to our society as a whole.  It is a great community service that they provide.

Fast forward to 2010 when there are over 400 residencies in the US alone.  Like the towns, cities, and woods that they exist in and the people who run their programs and sit on their boards - they are all different. Many residencies do not offer retreat but instead require some type of a more public community outreach or work exchange. Looking out - community outreach can have a great impact on the locals who are involved and can also attract funding. Looking in - meaningful community service can have a tremendous impact on the direction of one's work, on the direction one takes in their art career, and in the actions one takes in the communities that they settle in. The goal then is to make sure that community service and work requirements enhance the residency experience and that the AiRs take ownership of the good work that they do outside of their studio space. In other words - the goal is to provide experiences that are specific and meaningful to that individual.  

Are you sitting down?

If not, take a seat, but before you do, look at the chair.

Why did you choose that chair? Was it look, feel, comfort factor?

All of the above?

We like the way it looks. We love the way it feels.

That is exactly what art and design is all about.

That’s why it matters in today’s world. Now go to your window.

Open it. I want you to toss out the myth of the “starving artist.” And that’s what it is—a myth.

Artists and designers and other visual pioneers aren’t just leading us into the future, they are creating it right now. We have moved past the Industrial Age, through the Knowledge Age and into the Creative/Conceptual Age. This is the age in which art and design and the gamut of creativity set the parameters for our future, determining the bottom line in terms of economics. The bottom line has always, and will always be economics. But what drives the bottom line? That is what has shifted.