Advertisement
The Cultural Affairs Commission grappled with a question this afternoon during a retreat:
What needs to change to reach the desired future?
First a little context: the Commishees had been grappling all day with its charter, history, and structure. After lunch they went through a (theatrical) exercise to envision Oakland Arts in 2015. They returned to a large round table and looked at their vision, then look at the question, then look at the vision, then look at the question, then--
Working in small groups, they distilled what needed change into 3-5 word phrases that could be written on post-it notes. This is what was collected:
A: What needs to change?
Q: Art is essential.
Philosophical, spiritual mindset about art and culture
Streamlined function of public agencies
Informed and intentional City leadership
Chart success and benchmark accomplishment as City model
Heighten buzz re: arts marketing [how the arts] benefit and edify the City
Generate public mandate into public policy
Engaged community + voice = public value
Arts [as a] cornerstone of [civic] development and policy
Artists need to think like business people
Artists need to be entrepreneurial / understand funding process
Economic shift (national and local)
Diverse fund development
Dedicated funding through partnerships
Increased effectiveness of education
The list sways slightly between describing changes and describing outcomes of changes, showing a common complication of the issue.
So the question once more: What Needs To Change?
What needs to change to reach the desired future?
First a little context: the Commishees had been grappling all day with its charter, history, and structure. After lunch they went through a (theatrical) exercise to envision Oakland Arts in 2015. They returned to a large round table and looked at their vision, then look at the question, then look at the vision, then look at the question, then--
Working in small groups, they distilled what needed change into 3-5 word phrases that could be written on post-it notes. This is what was collected:
A: What needs to change?
Q: Art is essential.
Philosophical, spiritual mindset about art and culture
Streamlined function of public agencies
Informed and intentional City leadership
Chart success and benchmark accomplishment as City model
Heighten buzz re: arts marketing [how the arts] benefit and edify the City
Generate public mandate into public policy
Engaged community + voice = public value
Arts [as a] cornerstone of [civic] development and policy
Artists need to think like business people
Artists need to be entrepreneurial / understand funding process
Economic shift (national and local)
Diverse fund development
Dedicated funding through partnerships
Increased effectiveness of education
The list sways slightly between describing changes and describing outcomes of changes, showing a common complication of the issue.
So the question once more: What Needs To Change?
posted by:
|
SF Bay Area
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: What Needs To Change?
Wed, February 2, 2005 - 6:41 PMhey suki!
thanks for whipping this out so fast. may i correct one? (the one that derailed us! ha!)
"Artists need to be entrepreneurial / understand funding process"
should really be two sep. ones.
"Artists need to be entrepreneurial" -- is BIG picture and very near and dear to my heart.
"need to understand funding process" is VERY MICRO -- way more micro than what i intended... i didn't say anything at the time cause i didn't want to bog down the process.
as to my original phrasing: "Artists need to think like business people"
BOY did THAT incite folks! dang! what i meant is that if we as an arts community do not begin to look at the what is happening with the bay area economy as a whole, (as oppossed to simply lobbying for more arts funding), that we are going to miss some BIG opportunities.
gotta to a (another!) meeting, but i'd like to clarify it even more... steve goldstine really illuminated some issues on this! -
-
Re: What Needs To Change?
Fri, February 4, 2005 - 12:39 PMHi Hyland,
Why did your comment that artists need to be entreprenuerial incite such riot? What was their response? If not entrepreneurial, what approach did they feel would support them long-term and not have them vulnerable to the whims and shifts of gov't ?
For one, I hate the idea of relying on grants, and wouldn't want anyone telling me when I get to create! Isn't that what a grant essentially is?
Thinking like a business person looking for an "income stream" instead of a periodic grant, and building a steady client base who feels that they receive value from what I make, would make me sleep better at night. What did they actually say back to your comment? -
-
Re: What Needs To Change?
Sun, February 6, 2005 - 7:12 PMhey loni,
i think the person/s were speaking from the perspective of arts funding for the "pure" arts. (my word, not theirs.)
i think they thought i meant that artists should forsake their creative integrity
and gear their actual art from a commercial, profit -driven perspective -- and that's not at all what i meant...
but the retreat was *so* brief that we didn't have time to go deeper into these issues. yes, what you said is what i meant.
if i had originally stated "artists need to be more entreprenuerial" i don't think it would not have raised the reaction that "artists need to think like business people" did.
but it was all good. if we were all in agreement about everything it would have been pretty dull...
-
-
-
Re: What Needs To Change?
Wed, February 2, 2005 - 11:44 PMMy question is what the desired future looks like?
The traditionalist in me thinks that we just need the government to kick down more money and use their other resources as wisely as those of us in the arts do with our shoestring budgets. Of course this won't really change who is getting what and for what reasons. In my cynical view, were there to be more money, it would go to the Oakland Museum, The Crucible, and other large organizations.
The rugged individualist in me thinks what is necessary is the government to go out of their way to leave us alone (e.g. building permits, cabaret licenses, alcohol permits and licenses), which would allow other entities to flourish.
There's always been a bit of a disconnect, I guess is a good word, between arts and entertainment, with a number of smaller groups being seen as the latter by larger groups of the former persuasion.
Apart from the hotel tax fund, which I think does nourish its arts community a good deal, San Francisco seems to be healthier due to its support and recognition of a wider range of groups (in terms of budget and size) than Oakland does. Oakland seems to support large institutions, groups which primarily serve an educational function, and individuals, without much room for anyone else.
Oakland also seems to promote based on appearance rather than competence (i.e. this project looks good for Oakland, regardless of the track record of the people behind it). But maybe my opinion is just skewed based on news reports about the Ballet and the Carijama (sp?) festival. -
-
Re: What Needs To Change?
Thu, February 3, 2005 - 1:04 PMRe: additional dollars favoring large organizations
We live in a curious moment in Oakland Arts when the structure of the civic art policy is under the leadership of Jerry Brown who established the California Arts Council nearly 30 years ago as an antidisestablishment to the "imperial arts" (at that time the state was kicking down willy nilly to majors). It was powerfully wild beginning that featured artist-owned processes and equity... and two years ago it went away in an insane swipe of a pen (although they are back, or have never quit, and I'm glad).
My point: If you look at how Oakland arts have withered and flourished over the past five years, Jerry's disregard for established arts organizations has been fairly consistent with his innovation of 1976: inventing his own institutions and rewarding nimble pockets of creative energy. I'm not criticizing this (I wonder if I would act the very same way, given the authority). I also am growing more sensitized to the consequences of his approach.
-
-
Re: What Needs To Change?
Fri, February 4, 2005 - 12:47 PMI haven't seen Jerry reward anyone in the arts since he's become mayor ... from where I stand, except maybe Cafe Van Kleef where he's a regular ... otherwise those nimble pockets of creativity design condos and have offices in Pleasant Hill or go by the name, Forest City. -
-
Re: What Needs To Change?
Sat, February 5, 2005 - 3:24 PMHa!
OK, so maybe the Oakland School for the Arts *doesn't* count (much).
Your point is well taken: when Jerry became Mayor, the engagement of the arts community was, like so many engagements, showered in the golden light of possibility. That light, if one was using it to keep warm, lost its usefulness a long time ago.
However, I'm thinking if we add up the simple $$ Jerry earmarked for the arts it will come out looking like a boost. All the more crazy-making as we look around and see how much ground we've lost during the cash infusion.
Jerry's mixed message has a few examples:
a million dollar allocation to jumpstart Cultural Arts into its own department (it was at that time a notion of the Life Enrichment Agency, along with the Library and Parks & Rec) accompanied by the installation of co-Director Jacques Barzaghi quickly led to the dissolution of a staff with over ten years of team building and exponentially more years of local arts agency experience and institutional memory.
a re-appointed arts commission with actual experience in the arts, hamstrung by Oakland's well-designed conflict of interest laws (and later Sunshine and Brown Act laws) from working closely with the arts community and city hall to effect change.
an energetic new Department staff hitting its stride with programs and money only to have its head and limbs cut off in the July 2003 and re-orged into a joint department of cultural arts and marketing, headed by the director of the local museum who was also asked to mind the Kaiser Convention Center and the Malonga.
But the allocation for the arts was saved! Too bad for the five or six staffers left to administer it (and who toil ceaselessly and with such dedication).
And the list goes on of gains that became losses: the Artship, Art & Soul, Oakland Art Gallery, the Craft and Cultural Arts Gallery, the Malonga, the Nonprofit Center, the rise and fall of North Broadway...
Such ranting. Apologies.
Perhaps an Arts Report Card on his administration (and one to every mayoral candidate for 2006)? -
-
Re: What Needs To Change?
Sun, February 6, 2005 - 7:17 PMwho *is* running? nancy and ignacio? (haven't been reading my tribunes! bad girl!)
btw - do you know justin hoerner running for district 2? he'd be great! he's been jane's chief of staff for some years -- he's very smart and responsive. do you know who else is running for district 2?
and it seems like jane and nancy might be terming out... if council people *do* term out... surely all of this is on the web somewhere...
-
-
Re: Sarah's-funding the majors
Sat, February 19, 2005 - 8:30 AMHi all;
Responding to Sarah's concerns about all the funding going to the major organizations........our org has been tooling around Oakland since 1989. We've had non-profit status since then as well. We felt for years that there was no way that our organization would get funded and that the symphony, ballet, museum, etc. would always get everything. We went to retreats, we went to workshops at the Malonga Center (formerly Alice). We watched the artists leave the workshops, get into their Pintos, Gremlins, or the bus, while the Commissioners got into their mercedes & BMW's. We kept putting on shows (many of them outside of Oakland, since we couldn't even get the Alice Arts Center to rent out the theater to us). We received our first funding from the city in 1999, and have gradually built up our budget over the past few years, obtaining funding from a mix of foundations, CAD, and briefly, CA Arts Council. Having been on a funding panel for the city, I can say that there are many smaller and newer organizations getting funds now - in various categories. Because the amount you can ask for is budget-based, newer, smaller organizations have to ask for less than the majors can. One quandary that I've struggled with:
Previously (like when we first started applying for funds) an organization had to have 2 years of consistent programming within Oakland before they were eligible to receive funds. That rule changed a couple of years ago, I believe, and allowed for a brand new (and fairly large budget) organization to come into Oakland, and immediately be eligible for larger amounts of funding - essentially leap-frogging over other orgs that had been required to wait two years, etc. etc. I bring this up only because it seemed unjust at the time and I want to make sure that the city continues to incubate and support it's grass roots organizations, as well as organizations that have been around for decades, providing programming and arts education, etc. It's tough because I also don't want to discourage large orgs from coming to Oakland, I just don't want them to inherit the entire farm. I worry about this with the Fox Theater, and whoever is now leasing out the Oakland Box.
I think that the current CAD staff are very dedicated to nurturing arts of all sizes in our community, and that despite bduget challenges, they'll continue this commitment. I also feel that the Commission is positioning themselves to actually be a living, breathing body, served by individuals that really do care about the arts - and recognize many different disciplines. Yay!!!!
-
-
-
-
-
