Part #3/3

In my opinion, diversity discussions in the arts administration field are about the central purpose and mechanics of public funding for the arts. Who should receive funds? Based on what criteria? Who decides? And for what end? When do you “give people what they want” or “what they need”? How do you conclude what is needed versus what is wanted?  

What is the right balance among funding art preservation, art advancement, or art’s instrumental powers (e.g. community development, health etc.) 

When are you cultural tastemakers or cultural preservers? When is it appropriate to fund new experimental art instead of familiar art? Both are important to a healthy arts ecosystem, but both serve different purposes and audiences. These are difficult questions without definite answers and they can only be addressed by local stakeholders with open discussions, processes, and a whole lot of humility.

Personally, I hate either/or questions and always prefer the answer both/and. In an ideal world there will be funds for art that challenges and art that meets people where they are, but as all funders know – you can’t fund everything and you must make priorities.  

This then leads to the central purpose of publicly funded arts: to ensure healthy art ecology, where art itself advances, experiments, and challenges as well as preserves culture, connects, and persuades. 

So, if public money is to steward a healthy arts ecology then those charged with dispensing those funds must have a deep understanding of the current health, equity, and access of art offerings. 

This necessitates active arts leaders starting conversations with people who are currently being served and people who have never been served. Finding out who isn’t served and what art will connect with them requires arts leaders to build new relationships, listen, and develop new strategies.

Any conversation around diversity, cultural equity, and access must spend some time on big, complicated, and sensitive issues around identity, prejudice, and institutional racism. 

So there must be a collective recognition as a field that this is bigger than getting “minority butts in seats” and rather a discussion of the core purpose of publicly-funded arts and culture in general. Our field understands the power of the arts. Where and how that power is directed depends on the realities of the community being served.

Diversity’s implications for arts leadership (in my humble opinion) revolve around achieving true community engagement (particularly with unconnected and underserved communities), creating a space for open community dialogue to set local priorities and understand needs, and setting clear goals to achieve a community-defined healthy local arts ecosystem.

“The arts” are many things to many people, but we can all agree on their power to connect and build understanding. 

Our field has an important role in diversity specifically in aiding community relations. We are connectors and translators. We will not solve all of the systemic issues but we can be partners in the solution by engaging in these conversations and begin developing short-term objectives for our field that can lead to bigger objectives with other fields concerned with community health and vitality.

So where to begin? Start the conversation, whoever you are (even if you are white), find out where the gaps are, and when the skeptical gentlemen expresses his views and challenges you, meet him where he is. Know that only through dialogue will he unfold his arms, craft solutions, and move forward as a partner.