|
|
Working to advance and preserve the arts at the center of Vermont communities.
 |
|
| 05/07/08 - LEGISLATIVE RECAP |
Two days after Arts Achievement Day in the Vermont State House I took my family to Florida for Spring Break, leaving behind a cultural afterglow in the State House that would carry us through the end of the session. I returned 10 days later to find the legislature deep in its final discussions—full of new economic incentive plans laid on at the 11th hour, and trying to figure out how to fix education, improve health care, handle criminals, and fill pot-holes.
I also returned to a legislature that would, in the end, recommend a 2.5% increase to our appropriation and only a 10% (not 25%) cut to our Cultural Facilities Grant program. This is a success story, and here’s why:
First, more of you participated in Arts Achievement Day than ever before and left legislators with the very clear understanding of why the arts are important in our communities, our educational efforts, and in our economic development efforts. Your presence in the State House was felt strongly and very positively.
Second, the Senate had the most difficult row to hoe since the latest earnings projections for the State came out right after the House finished work on its Appropriations Bill approved an additional 2% increase over the Governor’s recommend. Thus, the Senate had to make $25 million dollars worth of cuts to the House bill. That we survived with essentially a cost of living increase is, frankly, a minor miracle.
Third, the Capital Construction Bill, in which the Cultural Facilities Grant program is located, had to absorb the bulk of the emergency transportation spending which forced a $50,000 (25%) cut on the $200,000 recommended by the Governor. The fact that the legislature put back $30,000 of this funding in the final day or two is a significant statement about the importance of our cultural facilities to our state’s economy.
So, am I disappointed? Yes and no. We did not get the additional $90,000 we needed in order to have funds to support community-based Art Fits Vermont (puzzle project) activities. And our Cultural Facilities Grant program took a 10% hit which means there will be one or two fewer cultural facilities grants awarded next fall.
But…
We have a much stronger advocacy presence than ever before with a much clearer, cleaner message that is being heard…
We survived what several folks have described as “a bloodbath…” and will continue to press our case into the election season.
We have very good relations with the Governor, the Administration, the House and Senate leadership, and leadership on the four “money” committees: House and Senate Appropriations and Institutions Committees. This is due, in no small part, to all of you who wrote letters, made phone calls, or visited the State House this spring.
I attended a nice arts gala in St. Albans last Friday, the day before the legislature adjourned. The Governor was also there and in his remarks he was quite articulate in describing the increasingly important role the arts and cultural sector is playing in revitalizing Vermont. He clearly “gets it.”
The more important question, however, is where will he go next? Where will his opponent in the fall election stand on the arts? For that matter, where does your legislator stand? His/her opponent?
You can tell where this is going, can’t you? Our work has only just begun. We have a lot of tools to use, and resources to bring to bear on educating all of the candidates for election next fall on the value of supporting the arts. The design of our downtown spaces, our roadways and bridges; the ability of our schools to instill a sense of imagination and civic engagement in our children; the ability for our cultural institutions to serve as the “reserve bank” of creative social capital in our communities—all of these and so much more depend on a healthy arts and cultural sector. A healthy arts and cultural sector, in turn, depends so much on decisions made by people you elect. Make sure, during this election season, they have ample opportunity to “get it.”
We will be putting together information for you to use when examining the positions of your candidates for office. Remember, if the arts are important to you (and if you’re reading this, I hope I may assume that they are!) then they also must be important to your legislators.
In the meantime, “Art Fits Vermont” kicked off with all the pomp and circumstance a press conference in the State House could muster. Our funding and operational partners are all hard at work creating puzzle pieces. Keep an eye on our website for more news and information about this incredible project.
Finally, get out and enjoy the sunshine. An while you’re out there, enjoy some art…!
|
| 04/09/08 - GETTING CONTROVERSIAL |
If this were a normal week, I would be guiding you towards the highlights of our April 16th Arts Achievement Day celebration in the Vermont State House. But, like many people across the country, every year around tax time I get anxious about money, and April 16th is just one day past the dreaded “Ides of April.”
About seven years ago I read an op-ed piece in the New York Times by Thomas Friedman that instructed us, every time we read the word “tax” followed by the word “cut” emanating from the Bush Administration, to substitute the word “service” for the word “tax.”
A couple of weeks ago the Brookings Institution—a so-called “left-leaning” think tank based in Washington DC—published an article on the implications of the Bush II Tax Cut legacy.
Reading this article made me understand better why there is no money in the state of Vermont. The burden of paying for everything we depend on our government for has fallen almost exclusively on the shoulders of the state. And Vermont, like a few others, doesn’t have a large enough population to support all the programs and services that used to be covered either wholly or in part by the federal government.
The state of Vermont is unable to support the ambitious plans to celebrate the 400th Anniversary of Samuel de Champlain’s arrival on the lake that now bears his name. Funds that could have been used for that purpose have been-or will likely be—diverted to shore up the worst parts of our crumbling transportation, health care, public safety and education infrastructure.
There is nowhere near enough money in the State House to replace funds that no longer come from Washington. Since 2001, as a country we have foregone $1.7 trillion (with another $1.8 trillion if the tax cuts are made permanent) in tax revenue and borrowed heavily to pay for not one but TWO foreign wars at the same time.
Every time I turn around I hear more bad news. As a result, I have come to one inescapable conclusion:
What terrorists could never have accomplished in their wildest dreams by destroying the World Trade Center in 2001, our own government has accomplished in its response to that terrible crime in less than seven years.
Our country is bankrupt, dependent on China to purchase our ever-increasing debt burden in order to stay operational. Manufacturing jobs are gone; and service jobs are next on the chopping block. We live in fear that our innocent calls to our relatives living and working overseas will be tapped and we will be put on some “no travel” list. We have to all but disrobe every time we get on a plane (jackets, belts, shoes, toiletries over 3 oz.—what’s next, dental floss?). We are, in effect, no longer free citizens living in a democratic republic.
You put all this together, and “shock and awe” doesn’t come close to describing how I feel.
For those of you that haven’t had to pay your heating bill lately, or haven’t had to pay for emergency medical services at your local hospital out of pocket; if you haven’t had to buy milk, bread or eggs in the past couple of weeks, or fill your car with gas, you might not necessarily agree with what I’m about to say. But here it is anyway.
Repeal the Tax Cuts. Put that money back into the system. Starving government for the sake of starving government is no way to establish, much less enforce, good public policy.
And next time, pay attention when someone offers you $600 in return for “a better economy.” And pay double attention if they offer you $1200 (plus $300 per kid).
Like I said, every year at this time I get anxious about money. So my advice to me and to you is to get past the 15th, and come to State House on the 16th for Arts Achievement Day. It will restore your hope and faith in the great things we can accomplish together. After all, this is the United States of America. And even better, this is Vermont…
|
| 03/26/08 HOW SMALL IS 9-1000THS OF A PERCENT |
I’ve been helping my fifth-grader work out some math problems during the past few weeks and doing so has provided me with even more perspective on the work we do at the Arts Council.
Some of the problems had to do with the relationship between decimals and percentages. No matter how often I said the conversion from decimals to percentages was a mere matter of moving the decimal two places “over to the right,” it didn’t sink in until I started putting some examples into play.
Starting with a dollar, I asked her how much 10% was. She immediately responded “10 cents.” And how do you show ten cents? “$0.10,” was the reply. Right, I said, so point 10 equals 10%. See how it’s the same number, only the decimal place has been moved from the left side of the number ten two places over to the right when it’s expressed as a percentage?
“Duh, Dad!” was the reply.
Okay Miss Smartypants, let’s do one that is a little more complicated. Express 546,000 as a percentage of 1,235,740,000.
After a moment of concentrated engagement with her calculator, she said (a little perplexed) “4.418e minus 4…What does THAT mean?”
It means that the result is so small that the calculator has to tell you to move the decimal point over four places to the left in order to give you your answer. Frowning in thought, she returned to the task, and said “Okay, 546,000 is 0.0004418 of 1,235,740,000 or--pausing to move the decimal two places over to the right--.004418 percent. Why this number?”
Why, indeed. Very few people besides me would recognize the ratio—44/1000ths of a percent—as being the Arts Council’s appropriation compared to the State’s General Fund budget.
Yes, our budget is a mere 44/1000ths of one percent of the State Budget. Our requested increase of $103,000 (to meet the required match from incoming Federal Funds from the National Endowment for the Arts) would increase that figure by 9/1000ths of a percent of which most would be spent in communities across the state on local community arts projects.
But it appears that even that tiny increase is too rich for our elected officials in these times of austerity. The House Appropriations Committee has done its bipartisan best to increase our request during the past couple of weeks.
But all of us who lurk about the State house at this time of year keep hearing “there just is no money.” Why, though, am I having a hard time believing it…?
I run an organization. I pay attention to the money we spend. I don’t like to waste a dime. And I don’t focus only on the expense side of the ledger. I look for ways to enhance our revenue—or at the very least look for ways to leverage revenues from other sources to provide financial benefits to our arts and cultural constituents.
Next year the National Endowment for the Arts will give us $103,000 more than it is this year. The State (appropriation) is supposed to match this increase. In turn, the Council is supposed to use this increase to provide grants and services to the field. Of the $206,000 combined increase, we have committed to putting $180,000 out in direct grants. These grants, in turn, require a one-to-one match from local municipal and private sources. When all is said and done the State’s increase of $103,000 will generate an additional federal ($103,000) and local ($180,000) match totaling $283,000. That’s an ROI of 275%!
It’s also the part of the revenue stream that is by far the easiest to measure.
The rest of the revenue stream is what happens when the combined state/local matching funds of $360,000 starts underwriting cultural activities all over the state, such as festivals, art openings, concerts, plays, performances in parks, and local events around the “Art Fits Vermont” project we are about to announce to follow up our wildly successful Palettes Project.
People travel to those events. They eat at restaurants and stay in hotels. They shop for mementos, for clothes, for works of art and craft. They come back. They bring friends and family. They spend money—a portion of which finds its way back into the coffers of the local municipality and into the coffers of the State of Vermont.
The revenue generated by Vermont’s “cultural community” (i.e. the community that tends to look to us for support) is usually captured in the tourism statistics. But that’s usually not what is most significant about our work.
The things that are most significant about our work are the relationships that people form in their communities from shared memories of evenings spent at the lake listening to Mozart, attending a barn dance, or raising money at an art auction for a local senior center. Social scientists tend to call these intangible results “social capital.” Difficult to measure, sure, but no less real than the sales and meals tax collected by restaurants on Church Street right before the Flynn has an event.
The bottom line is this…a $103,000 increase to the Arts Council will result in an immediate $283,000 increase in additional spending in Vermont’s Creative Sector. I can’t believe the State cannot find 9/1000ths of a percent lurking somewhere in some “rainy day funding pot.”
Meanwhile I continue to help my daughter with her math. She couldn’t comprehend 44/1000ths of an inch so I gave her a tangible example. According to the Times Argus, the Bennington Monument is 308 feet tall. If the Bennington Monument represents the State Budget, the Arts Council portion is not quite 1 2/3rds inches of it. About the length of my daughter’s little finger. The requested increase—add another knuckle’s-worth.
Maybe the Senate will find it. Stay tuned…
|
| 03/13/08 FOSTERING DIVERSITY |
|
This week I attended a diversity luncheon in Burlington hosted by numerous prominent businesses in the for- and not-for-profit sectors. The purpose was to introduce to attendees the concept of planning for and accommodating a diverse workforce.
It was a very good effort. Despite the last minute cancellation of keynoter Ted Childs , one of the foremost experts in the country on workforce diversity, the speakers and hosts clearly seemed to understand the importance of reaching out to new populations, to people of color, and to those who look, talk, and act different from “us.” As Thomas Friedman says in his bestselling book, The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century, the world is getting smaller every day and we have to “do business with all of them.”
But the panel of business leaders that was pulled together to discuss strategies for developing and supporting diversity in the work place, completely avoided one crucial issue—and thus made it doubly conspicuous by its absence from the discussion. No one, including me, had the courage to stand up to the microphone and ask the simple question: what are we in this room doing to support our schools’ efforts to manage the issues around diversity? Tolerance for diversity starts in the family and is pretty much cemented in place during the school years.
It’s easy to fall into the generations-old discussion surrounding race relations (or lack thereof) in this country. But the issue is so much bigger. It involves an understanding of religions other than those that are Christian; of governments and institutions that are other than those that are republics; of art forms and cultural expressions that are other than “classical” or “western.” It requires, in the words of Adjutant General Michael Dubie who filled in for the keynote speaker, all of us to be far more “culturally aware” than we are now.
The principal of the Burlington High School did rise to the microphone to say that 27% of her students were “students of color” and that more than 20 languages were the primary language spoken at home.
But as I sat at lunch, wave after wave of frustration passed over me at the thought of how much opportunity we have been allowing to slip past us and will continue to slip past us if we continue to educate our children “the same old way.”
We built our current educational infrastructure in the late 1800s in response, in large part, to the increasing demand for skilled workers in an industrial society. Before then, of course, very few people had any formal education because we were largely an agrarian society that worked almost exclusively with its hands. But during the latter part of the 20th century we moved away from the industrial model—in terms of our workforce needs—but never really changed the methodologies we use to educate our children. As a result we are putting our children through school, expecting them to pop out the other end able to handle the complex relational requirements of a fluid, changing society that by necessity needs to speak multiple languages and multitask in several different time zones.
I’m not too surprised that Johnny can’t read and do math or set up a lab experiment that tests a hypothesis with a control. And it’s even less of a surprise that he also can’t recite poetry, distinguish between Bach and Mozart, or Monet or Vermeer. But honestly I can’t really blame the schools. Why? Because the whole system is set up to do things that are completely out of touch with what society requires of it. Furthermore, our schools, like our legal system, tend to follow precedent far more than they follow the latest research.
In my experience, kids are profoundly curious about everything, but not all at once. They also have different aptitudes at different ages. Research tells us that we should be immersing our kids, through age 12, in languages and the arts (music, drama, drawing, creative writing)—building on the biological synapses that are primed to absorb and retain information in those disciplines in particular. History, Science, Math, and the other core subjects are certainly important in the early years, but there is always time later on to put additional focus on those areas.
But what our schools teach during the primary and secondary years is pretty much what they’ve taught for the past 100 years or more. Why? Because that’s how they’ve always done it! To do things differently they’d have to change all their curricula. They’d have to create an arts and culture-centered focus for all kids through the sixth grade and then play massive catch-up in science, math, reading, social studies, etc. afterwards. They’d have to retrain their teachers how to teach. And after doing all that, there is still NO guarantee that kids would do any better on those pesky tests foisted on us by No Child Left Behind …so why bother?
We should “bother” because our schools are becoming less relevant to our children. Our kids are less engaged in learning than ever (you don’t want to even SEE those statistics!). And we are putting our teachers in the position of parent, social worker, and educator but only barely funding even one of those roles.
Therein lies the problem. We can’t do it all at once and, even if we wanted to “cure the patient,” the patient has to want the cure. Our education system hasn’t hit rock bottom yet. We can continue to function with lowered expectations and dependent on the hyper-achievers among us to carry a heavier load. But it will be harder and harder to get money to sustain our diseased system and one day pretty soon, the whole thing will implode.
Or will it? I am heartened by various new approaches to education, by the work coming out of our newest education graduates who are eager to apply the latest research and help transform our schools into paragons of the 21st Century Learning Environment.
And one of the most effective ways to start this transformation is for every one of the 150 businesses that attended the luncheon this week to rise and demand that our schools start preparing our kids for the 21st Century, not the 19th, and then put some of their money where their mouth is. As an indicator of their commitment, I should have taken a straw poll of the room and asked how many of those in attendance voted to approve their school budgets at town meeting day last week. But like I said, I didn’t have the courage. Shame on me.
|
| 02/27/08 SHARPEN YOUR PENCILS |
|
Sharpen you pencils, uncap your pens. Limber up your dialing finger. Dust off that keyboard. Sip some coffee; sharpen your mind.
It’s time to take action!
The House Appropriations Committee just began “mark-up;” an annual exercise in which they starting putting numbers into columns and next to names. We want the number next to our name to be increased by $103,000. Here’s why: The National Endowment for the Arts has increased its support to the Vermont Arts Council by $103,000. This increase requires a 1:1 state match. The Governor has suggested $13,000. We need $90,000 more from the legislature.
The Arts Council will spend $180,000 the combined state/federal increase as follows:$90,000 to support community projects associated with our “Art Fits” (Puzzles) statewide community arts project. $50,000 to restore community arts organization project grants support which had suffered cuts from previous years.$40,000 to support Local Arts Service Organization Grant Initiative.
All $180,000 of the grants we award will likewise require a 1:1 local/private match—making the leveraging effect of the legislature’s increased support to the Arts Council amount to 4:1 ($360,000:$90,000). (The remaining $26,000 will just cover administrative increases.)
Here’s how you can help.
Now is the crucial time for you to contact your state representative (with a cc to your state senator) indicating your wish for him or her to support the Arts Council’s request for “$90,000 over the Governor’s recommended increase of $13,000—or $103,000 total.
We strongly recommend you pick up the phone and leave a message for your legislator. If you are not comfortable doing this, snail mail directed to their home is next best—unless your legislator only responds to email (as some do!).
Tell your legislator a story about why the arts matter to you personally. Let them know, for example the impact that participating in “Palettes of Vermont “ had on you as an artist, or an educator, or as a member of your local community organization that participated in it. Let them know you really care about this effort. Let them know what a difference a small grant from us meant to your local community arts organization.
If you are going to email your legislator, PLEASE DO:Identify yourself as a constituentAsk if he/she is aware of the Arts Council’s request for additional funding totaling $103,000Remind him/her that the Arts Council funding request is in response to conditions placed upon it by an increase from its federal grantRemind him/her that all but about 12% of the requested increase will directly benefit communities all over Vermont, especially those that participate in Art Fits (Puzzles) with cash infusions that each will require a 1:1 match—for a total leveraging effect of 4:1.ASK HIM/HER to support the requested increase (and take note of his/her response and communicate it to me)THANK HIM/HER for doing such a hard job under such difficult economic conditions.
Cc your state senator(s)Cc me at aaldrich@vermontartscouncil.org
PLEASE DO NOT:Copy every member of the House/Senate Appropriations Committees, especially the Chairs (they are well aware of our request)Cut and paste this message into your own email; use your own words—they are sure to sound better!Delay. Do it right now, while the inspiration is in you!
If your local representative is on the House Appropriations Committee, he/she has already heard the pitch from me, Steve Ames (River Arts), and Peggy Kannenstine (Center for Cartoon Studies).
If your representative is NOT on the House Appropriations Committee, please ask him/her to support the Arts Council’s request in two ways:By talking with their colleagues on House Appropriations about the request and asking them to support it (this needs to be done within the next couple of days!)By voting in favor of the increase when it comes to a floor vote.
One final piece of advice—
This is a very important legislation for us. Do not argue with your legislator. Just make sure he/she understands that without their support, our federal appropriations increase could be seriously at risk, and our ability to leverage the increased state funds 4:1 to benefit communities all over Vermont would be jeopardized. Take note of their response to these points and let me know what they say.
The fun is just beginning!
|
| 02/13/08 CELEBRATE |
|
In this week’s ArtMail we ask for nominations to receive the Council’s Governor’s Award in the Arts and the Walter Cerf Lifetime Achievement Award in the Arts.
Why do we do this?
Several reasons…
The most obvious is because it provides all of us with an opportunity to come together in celebration of the work of a Vermont artist who has made a lasting impact on the arts, on the state of Vermont, and on some essential aspect of our humanity. There is something viscerally pleasant about being around someone while his or her work and influence is recognized and celebrated.
An equally important, but much less tangible reason we recognize our artists is to make sure that we retain—and even sustain—our connection to them. Recently I was party to a conversation among colleagues where the subject of “elitism and the arts” was raised. It was the same old discussion in which one person argues how “art” is usually something that only highly-educated, wealthy people with leisure time on their hands are able to enjoy. The response is usually along the lines of no, art is for everyone, it is a reflection of the human condition as seen through the eyes of someone who has the facility of communicating through visual means, dance, poetry, and other art forms. Blah blah blah. But then someone else observed:
“It’s not about elitism. It’s not about wealth, or access, or leisure time. It’s not that simple. What creates a separation between “us” (the people) and “them” (the artist and their work), is a sense of reverence for what “they” are able to do with a few brush strokes, a pen, a musical instrument, or an idea.”
Humans are drawn to those expressions like moths to a candle. How an artist’s work speaks to us, we may not quite understand. However, the more I am around great art and artists, the better I understand this sense of reverence that people direct towards them. It’s not an elitism thing, it’s a “wanting-to-be-connected-to-them” thing. It’s a connection that everyone should be allowed to experience often in their lives.
A third reason we recognize our artists is because someone who labors in the arts all their life is likely to get little else in the way of tangible remuneration. I had the pleasure of chatting with Ella Fitzgerald once back in the mid-1980s. She was well into her old age, but still making public appearances and, apparently, still “singing for her supper.” She was in a crowd and when I reached her I suggested we sit because she looked a little tired. She thanked me for my concern and I led her over to a seat and after a few words of small talk, I asked her, what brings you here tonight, performing for this particular crowd? Her answer stunned me:
I still have to pay the rent.
So, on behalf of all the Ella Fitzgeralds out there, please let us know who we should be celebrating. And while you’re thinking about it, make a donation to your local arts organizations or better yet, buy a work of art, or purchase that song you just downloaded from a friend.
Then join us in celebrating our next award recipients, whoever they may be.
|
| 01/30/08 THRESHHOLD |
|
Every day we’re hearing somber newscasters forecast dark days ahead. There appears to be much to be concerned about: the “pending recession,” the bizarre global weather conditions, the wars-without-end to which we appear committed, to name a few. A few columns ago I wrote about the Orton Foundation’s “Heart and Soul Community Planning Movement” as a way to provide perspective to individuals wondering what, if anything, could be done about all these huge “macro” issues. In this column, I intend to get even more specific because I believe we are on the threshold of great things here in Vermont.
For the next six months or so, the Vermont Council on Rural Development (with whom we have partnered for the last several years on the Creative Economy/Creative Communities projects) has undertaken a once-in-a-generation challenge: to capture what Vermonters envision for their future. This Council on Vermont's Future has been charged with developing a thorough and accountable way to draw people from all over Vermont into a discussion, a “statewide town meeting” if you will, to discuss critical issues such as the use, protection and preservation of Vermont’s natural and cultural resources, how to responsibly develop Vermont’s economy while protecting and improving its social and educational infrastructure, and a myriad of other issues of concern to Vermonters and their families.
It is IMPERATIVE that you engage in these discussions. In the same way that no one outside your town or village is in a better position to know how to improve the quality of life in your community than you, it follows that the same must be true for the state as a whole. Although we can look to other states for good ideas, it’s up to us to consider them in the context of our unique circumstances.
And while this is going on, an even more specific planning process is under way.
The Arts Council believes that the strongest communities are those in which the cultural sector is actively engaged in collaborating with town planners, local schools and social service agencies on projects that infuse town life with art and art-making. I’m not just talking about gallery tours and music, theater, and dance performances in local venues (although for many that is the heart of it all). I’m talking about designing our public places so that they aren’t just “cheap and practical” but “beautiful and welcoming;” I’m talking about creating opportunities for student performers to “plug and play” at their local farmers markets on a covered stage that will protect their instruments and costumes from the elements; I’m talking about creating opportunity for recent immigrants from Somalia or the Philippines to share their culture in ways that are authentic and respectful, whether that means in a local church, grange hall, or town park.
The Arts Council has begun planning its second statewide community arts project called “Art Fits Vermont.” We’ll give away thousands of wood and paper puzzle pieces for folks to decorate and communities will create exhibits, parties, auctions, and other community-building/fundraising opportunities using the resulting artwork. It’s essentially the same type of project as the 2006 Palettes of Vermont but with a few nuances. First, it is occurring at the same time as the lead-in to and celebration of the Lake Champlain Quadricentennial. For many of you this means there is a ready-made theme to exploit if you want. Second, we intend to create an arts exchange with Quebec, France, and New York using the puzzle pieces as the vehicle. And finally, it is our intention to allow a lot more lead time and (are you sitting down?) financial resources to local arts councils throughout the state, to allow them to create plans that locally engage their artists, their town planners, their selectboards, and other community folks in this wonderful activity.
During Palettes of Vermont, a significant number of local arts agencies were unable to shift the momentum of their programs enough to incorporate the opportunity presented by the project. For “Art Fits Vermont” you will have time to plan, and up to 18 months in which to present your local projects (Spring of 2008 through Fall 2009). We hope this will allow our local arts agencies to demonstrate just how varied, talented, and fun their communities can be!
Best of all, among all the gloom and doom coming out of Washington these days, there is one bright star. The recent budget passed by Congress and signed into law by the President includes a $23 million increase for the National Endowment for the Arts. Due to the funding formula, this means the Arts Council can expect up to $103,000 more from the Feds this coming year. Best of all, this new money will require a one-to-one cash match from the state legislature. The Governor has already recommended a $13,000 increase to our budget for FY 2009. We are asking the legislature for the remainder: $90,000.
This combined Federal-state funding will fuel the “Art Fits Vermont” program—with direct cash grants to community arts organizations, and with enhanced marketing and promotional tools that will encourage visitors from in-state, out-of-state, and abroad to stay and experience Vermont in a whole new way.
We need your help, so don’t be shy about dropping a note to your own state legislator or Senator (a phone call will also do just as well), saying how much you support the Council’s request for a $90,000 increase. Don’t be shy about participating in Art Fits Vermont. The official kick-off is in April. Until then remember—even as we head into the dark days of February the days are getting longer. It’s not all doom and gloom!
|
| 1/16/08 CULTURAL FACILITIES COMES OF AGE |
|
A lot of people had fun last Friday morning. Sixteen organizations receiving Cultural Facilities Program funding sent representatives to our grant awards ceremony in the State House’s Cedar Creek Room. They were met by 11 Arts Council staff, two trustees, the Governor, and more than 20 of their elected state representatives and senators.
It was a party. Or, as is usually the case in the State House, it was a “multi-party.” For about an hour Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and Progressives set aside their differences over health care, property tax reform, transportation funding and other big ticket issues and celebrated the core of Vermont’s Creative Economy—its theaters, concert halls, libraries, historical societies, grange halls, town hall auditoriums, and even a church facility.
Grants totaling more than $200,000 were awarded for physical improvements that will expand facilities’ capacity to support more varied cultural programs and serve broader audiences. For most, grants will be used to improve physical access for people with limited mobility. Thanks to the Governor, however, one grantee will have a special charge.
In his remarks to the recipients, the Governor registered two eye-popping, hand-clapping moments. The first was his suggestion that some of the grants awarded “weren’t exactly sexy” and referred specifically to the Brandon Town Hall’s grant to fund the installation of a state-of-the-art fire suppression system. When the Brandon contingent stood to receive their award they promised (to lots of laughter and applause) the Governor that theirs would be the first ever, state-of-the-art, sexy fire suppression system.
Hardened State House observers, including the WCAX reporter covering the event, assured me that this was the first time ever that the word “sexy” was bandied about so freely in a formal State House ceremony involving so many elected officials. It is further evidence that, in Vermont at least, the “culture wars” of the early 1990s are truly over.
The Governor’s second eye-popping, hand-clapping moment was towards the end of his remarks when, with no prior indication, he took advantage of the moment to express his commitment to the Cultural Facilities program by publicly stating his intention to recommend continuing to fund the program at its $200,000 level in the FY 2009 Capital Appropriations Budget.
To the untrained ear, this may sound like a non-event. The program is already on the books at $200,000 so what’s the big deal? The Governor is recommending status quo, right?
The big deal is that two years ago the Governor’s recommendation was $0; last year it was $50,000. In both years it was the Senate Appropriations committee that led the charge to increase the program to its current $200,000 level (thank you Sen. Phil Scott and Rep. Alice Emmons). With the Governor’s support at the front end of the appropriations process, not only are the late-session, high-tension negotiations between the House and Senate greatly mitigated (if not eliminated), but we are now able to consider ways to expand the program to include non-traditional venues like farmers markets and other municipal spaces where the public gather. Check out H. 185 submitted by Reps. Botzow, Stephens, et. al. regarding farmers markets. It gained some traction last year, but it will get a lot more if it gets attached as an additional funding stream to the Cultural Facilities bill. Stay tuned.
In the meantime, the Cultural Facilities Program came of age last week and sixteen grantees whose programs and activities serve as the glue that keeps Vermont’s communities so vital, were on hand to celebrate. Congratulations one and all!
|
| 01/04/08 NEW YEAR WISHES |
|
As Jimi Hendrix said on his live recording with Buddy Miles, “Happy New Year first of all!”
In the spirit of the moment, I have put together a wish list for the coming 12 months. Some of them are large in scope (global, even), and some are more intimate—suitable for a state the size of Vermont. Please share with me your own wishes, but above all else, have a safe and pleasant New Year!
I wish …
… to wake up sometime in January 2008 and learn that the proposed increase for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) was a typo and that the real figure is $200 million, thus bringing NEA closer into alignment with its 1992 appropriation. For now, we are all well-satisfied with $20 million! Thank you, Rep. Welch, Sen. Sanders and Sen. Leahy. Your hard work and support for the NEA and for the arts in general are well-appreciated.
…to convince, by the end of the 2008 Legislative session, the Governor and a 2/3rds majority of both the House and Senate that the Arts and Cultural sector in Vermont is a profound income-generating sector that far exceeds the cost of the state’s investment in it through us. Not only will the $20 million NEA increase directly impact our program support, but any grant from the NEA comes with a matching state requirement—which for Vermont could mean a significant increase in our state appropriation. Over the years, our own studies have shown consistent, 7-to-1 returns on our own investments in Vermont communities: for every dollar the Arts Council invests in programs throughout the state, the organization receiving our funds generates seven dollars from local and private resources. We are an “income center” to the State of Vermont, not a “cost center.” We need to get better at explaining this to all of our legislators so that they really understand it.
…policy-makers in Vermont allow local investment in the Creative Economy to occur primarily (though not exclusively) in the Arts and Cultural sectors. We already have large state agencies that support (or easily could support) innovation in Agriculture and Commerce/Community Development. Sure, “improvements in technology,” “sustainable and clean energy production,” “affordable housing,” and “affordable health-care” are all crucial to Vermont’s vision of itself in the 21st Century, and established systems already exist to facilitate investment in those areas. However entities that support individual creativity, like our museums, galleries, and performing arts centers, only have us and relative to the growth of the rest of state government in the last 15 years, our budget is 30% smaller.
…the School Boards across the State would recognize that learning in the arts, and learning about the arts are not just words in the No Child Left Behind Act, but crucial investments that not only help kids with certain types of learning disabilities or “engagement issues” stay in school and become productive, but they offer a safe, time-tested means to practice being creative, collaborative, and focused on achieving positive outcomes. As Liz Lerman once said, if anyone in the Bush White House had done theater in high school or college and used the skills they picked up in rehearsals as part of the planning process for invading Iraq, they would have learned very quickly that their script lacked a coherent ending. Arts Education should be the last thing on a school’s chopping block, not the first.
… for Vermont’s creative sectors to seek out the Vermont Council on Rural Development’s "Council on the Future of Vermont" meetings all over the state and play a very visible role in these important, once-in-a-generation discussions. We all have to figure out how to confidently manage Vermont’s unique natural, cultural, and economic assets so as to not destroy them even as we exploit them. Call me biased, but if it’s a conversation about innovation, creative workforce preparation, building community and social capital, improving public transportation, creating more affordable housing and health care, improving access to fiber-optic technology, and managing our energy and environment so that there is some of both in the coming generations—artists MUST be at the table. After all, history has shown that artists’ creative output is consistently the most thoughtful and honest reflection of the human experience. And what is needed most is creative thinking, right?
…Vermont would listen to Sen. Bill Doyle and the Snelling Center for Government and consider a proposed four-year election cycle for the Governor and other statewide elected officials seriously. It helps create better long-term policy and, as an added bonus, makes us pay more careful attention to who we vote for.
…every man, woman, and child in the state of Vermont will participate in Art Fits (our next planned statewide community arts project like Palettes of Vermont), and as a result of their incredible experience, will be inspired to contribute $1 to every one of their local arts organizations, and then—after thinking about how little that is, contribute another dollar! That $1.24 million will sure do a lot of good in communities all over Vermont!
Does anyone out there have any more to add?
Happy 2008 to all of you! |
| 12/19/07 IN DEFENSE OF COVER BANDS |
|
A cultural terrorist by the name of Marcus Westbury dropped a bomb on the morning of October 18, 2007.
The Sydney (Australia) Morning Herald published an article by Mr. Westbury that has essentially challenged the entire notion of supporting the performance of western classical performing art forms, from symphonies to operas and beyond. His thesis is that organizations that perform works by Beethoven, Mozart, Verdi, Bach, Brahms, etc. are little more than glorified “cover bands” and why should such entities suck up so much of the available resources that are provided to support the arts?
“My argument isn't about form and it isn't an extreme one. It's about scale, equity and magnitude. I do think it would be a loss if Australians were to lose all connection with our vast and glorious European cultural heritage.
“But Opera Australia receives more than $10 million a year from the Australia Council. Sure, opera is lavish, expensive and glorious but I simply cannot think of a single sensible, logical or sane reason why one opera company is valued roughly on par with more than 400 separate organisations supported by the music, dance, literature and inter-arts boards of the same organisation.”
Wow. KaBOOM!
This thesis opens up a pretty large can of worms and challenges those of us charged with “supporting the arts in all its forms” to define what exactly we mean by that phrase.
Back in the mid-1960s it was pretty clear. “Supporting the arts” to us mostly meant providing resources to schools and arts organizations that would perpetuate art-forms of and educate audiences in western classical art forms. In America, this definition expanded over time to include distinctively indigenous forms of art—such as jazz, the blues, and musical theater—all of which represented a blending of cultural influences that, initially at least, used the instrumentation of western classical art forms.
But with the opening up of the world’s cultures through the internet, and with our increasing exposure to so many extraordinary nonwestern art forms from India, Asia, Oceania, South America, and Africa that have influenced several generations of creative people, the ascendancy of art created by “dead, white, western males” has been challenged, to say the least.
And that’s just for starters. The very nature of experiencing art is undergoing a massive shift. Those of us above a certain age (50?) expect performances to be in halls that seat large numbers of people so that the art provides an embracing communal experience. The latest trends are tracking this common experience to be dissolving to the point where performers and creators are creating works of art to engage “gen-aught” audiences of ONE. Even more perplexing, the timing, location, and media used in the presentation of the work are determined not by the creator/presenter but by the audience through its I-pod, computer, or other multi-media device.
I am not insulted at the notion that a symphony orchestra might be nothing more than a cover band. Those words are meant to be inflammatory and rile every self-respecting symphony manager, conductor, musician, and audience member out there. But all they make me want to do is to articulate why these art forms are important to support and maintain.
I believe that in order to understand other cultural experiences one must have a solid grounding in one’s own culture—which, in America, is still dominated by western-European influences.
I believe that we support opera companies and symphonies today because they have withstood the test of time and offer valuable insight to all citizens of the world (including those of us from “the west”) about western culture and values.
I believe that nothing builds social capital more effectively than sharing a profound arts experience with other members of one’s community. Theater, dance, opera, music deliver the goods again and again. They have proven their worth.
I also believe this conversation is far from over.
What do you believe? |
| 12/05/2007 SUBPRIME CHARITY |
|
I admit that despite majoring in English and American Literature and Languages, and spending a great deal of time stumbling and mumbling through “the classics,” poetry usually succeeds in eluding my comprehension. But every now and then something triggers a bizarre “poetry recall” in my brain. Then it’s up to me to figure out the relationship between the experience and the poem and draw some kind of essential life-lesson from it.
anyone lived in a pretty how town
(with up so floating many bells down)
spring summer autumn winter
he sang his didn’t he danced his did.
Women and men (both little and small)
cared for anyone not at all
they sowed their isn’t they reaped their same
sun moon stars rain
When I first read this e.e. cummings poem in high school I thought it little more than a lark—a tour de force—written by a clever man who eschewed all literary and poetical conventions, and whose evident purpose in life was to frustrate my academic aims, such as they were.
But recently I read a story on Bloomberg.com titled Subprime Losses, Slashed Bonuses Threaten Funding to Nonprofits and phrases from this poem started bubbling up in my head. I needed to know why.
children guessed (but only a few
as down they forgot as up they grew
autumn winter spring summer)
that no one loved him more by more
when by now and tree by leaf
she laughed his joy she cried his grief
bird by snow and stir by still
anyone’s any was all to her
According to the article, many charities, including arts organizations, depend on significant year-end contributions from corporations and their employees to close the income gap of their annual operations. For some, this year-end bounty amounts to as much as 40% of their annual contributed income. This year, the “subprime mortgage situation” (which might be more accurately referred to as The Big Swindle) is resulting in massive “write-downs” (losses) by financial juggernauts like Citigroup and Merrill Lynch.
How much, you ask? $40 billion and counting. These losses will not only affect those corporations’ charitable capacity (Merrill Lynch will most likely cut way back from its 2006 level of $40 million), but it will also mean that the year end bonuses of the management staff who got our money into this mess will be cut by five to fifteen percent. Five to fifteen percent of what, they don’t say. But I think we can assume at least eight figures…
someones married their everyones
laughed their cryings and did their dance
(sleep wake hope and then) they
said their nevers they slept their dream
stars rain sun moon
(and only the snow can begin to explain
how children are apt to forget to remember
with up so floating many bells down)
Something is out of whack here, isn’t it? I am the director of a $1.5 million dollar a year not-for-profit agency in the public trust, and can barely afford cost-of living increases for staff much less a year-end bonus—and that’s in a year when we end up with a positive fund balance. That other people, managing billion-dollar portfolios into a negative balance, can expect a year end bonus at all, much less one that is smaller than last year’s by a mere 15% is nothing short of criminal.
Our expectations, our values, our SOMETHING have all gone topsy-turvy on us—sort of like the language of this poem. $40 billion vanishes with a few strokes of a pen, and charities are made to suffer the consequences...!?!
The wishful-thinking-adolescent me used to think that maybe the poet was under the influence of a controlled substance when he wrote this poem. Now I’m not so sure. In the context of cummings’s verses, this whole subprime mortgage scandal is making a whole lot more sense…
one day anyone died I guess
(and noone stooped to kiss his face)
busy folk buried them side by side
little by little and was by was
all by all and deep by deep
and more by more they dream their sleep
noone and anyone earth by april
wish by spirit and if by yes.
Women and men (both dong and ding)
summer autumn winter spring
reaped their sowing and went their came
sun moon stars rain.
[anyone lived in a pretty how town by e. e. cummings reprinted with permission of Liveright Publishing Corporation] |
| 11/21/07 MARTIN LUTHER KING MONUMENT |
|
For the past several years a foundation has been set up to oversee the fundraising for and design and construction of a memorial to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on the Mall in Washington DC about halfway between the Lincoln Memorial and the Jefferson Memorial.
The foundation is well on its way to its $100 million goal, and it recently announced the selection of the artist who would design, construct and oversee the installation of the centerpiece of the memorial—a 4-to 5-ton monolith made of granite on which would be carved images of the civil rights struggle that was Dr. King’s life work and which ultimately transformed America. So far, so good.
Lei Yixin, a well-respected stone carver, perhaps best known for his numerous larger-than-life statues of Chairman Mao Zedong was announced as the lead artist. And the granite that the monument would be made of? Also from China.
If you’re like me, this doesn’t sit well with your sense of the importance of place, of community, and of paying attention to things like symbolic acts. And if you’re like me, you’ll want to do something about it. Something like writing a letter to John Castaldo of the Barre Granite Association and telling him how much you support his efforts to get an American artist using American granite to create this American monument. Better yet, go to the Martin Luther King Memorial Foundation website and where it says “contact us,” and do so. Let them know your thoughts.
The point here is NOT that Lei Yixin is a bad artist. Nor is the point that Chinese granite lacks some essential qualities that can only be found in American—especially Barre—granite. I recall from 9th grade geology that igneous is basically igneous wherever it’s from.
No, the point here is symbolic, which is why it’s become such a cause celebre. Do we believe that Martin Luther King’s monument should be crafted by an artist best known for his representations of one of history’s most repressive dictators? Should five tons of stone be pulled from the ground, carved, and then shipped 10,000 miles because it’s cheaper? What about the carbon footprint of that little task?! What about the insult to all granite quarries and workers throughout the country, of which some of the most notable are literally in our own back yards?
Most important, did anyone think for a moment about what Martin Luther King might have thought of this decision? Or was it purely a “how inexpensively can we get a good looking monument made out of granite” kind of a business decision?
Last week, along with the Governor and many other notables, and as the final act of a two-year “Art in State Buildings” project, we re-dedicated the 133 State Street State Office Building—the big marble one on the west side of the State House Lawn that used to be the headquarters of the National Life Insurance Company. Several people remarked that “they don’t make buildings like this anymore.” There was a time, early in the last century, when we built buildings and erected monuments that mattered simply because of what they represented. National Life was the most important private employer in the State for decades, and their headquarters was built to show off that stature. No expense was spared in building it, and the detail of the ceiling friezes and other decorative touches are matched only by the overwhelmingly solid construction values that allowed the state to occupy the building for more than 40 years with virtually no maintenance. Our 20-year old program added significantly to the interior work spaces with significant works of art commissioned from Elizabeth Billings, Andrea Wasserman, Nick DeFrieze, Emily Mason, and Eric Aho.
Built more than 80 years ago, 133 State Street is a monument to American industry, a monument to the effort of state workers who deliver as best they can on the promise of good government, a monument to the Vermont work ethic, and the visual cornucopia that makes Montpelier a great place to visit. It was built by private industry to last. It will be maintained to serve the public for the foreseeable future.
In a hundred years, what will we say about the Martin Luther King Memorial? That we were too cheap to honor one of the towering Americans of the 20th century with a work created by another American using American materials? I for one, believe that spending a few extra hundred thousand dollars to ensure that its done right, would be a most worthwhile investment. |
| 10/31/07 HEART AND SOUL |
|
A few evenings ago I succeeded in traumatizing my children for the second time in less than a week. First we watched a PBS documentary about the latest theories on global warming. By the time my kids are my age, the seas will have risen 25 meters, their Grammy’s house, like the rest of Florida, will be under water, and the resulting dislocation of the hundreds of millions of souls who live less than 50 feet above sea level world-wide will have paralyzed the economic and social structures of our planet.
Then, several nights later, we watched another PBS documentary, this time on the global disappearance of honeybees. No one really knows why, but last year one-third the total population of nature’s “pollinating army” literally disappeared. This phenomenon, known as colony collapse disorder, is apparently the result of a combination of pesticides, starvation, and disease. What was traumatic was learning that, while most grains (corn, rice and wheat) are wind-pollinated, virtually all fruits and vegetables, including nuts are pollinated by honeybees. As the narrator put it, without bees we might all have to learn how to subsist on gruel.
For my kids, that last comment was the kicker. Having been cast this past summer in a local theater production of “Oliver,” subsisting on gruel was the scariest thing anyone could have said.
By way of comforting my kids, I tried to think of how best to put this information in perspective. I thought about buying the best ten acres of arable land and having fun learning with them how to defend it against all comers during what will surely be a brisk period of Armageddon. But none of us wants to leave Montpelier, and none of us likes guns. Then I thought of ignoring the problem and hoping I die before being held accountable. But where does that leave the kids? Then I thought as a family perhaps we should join some radical “earth first” movement. But that won’t work because life has taught me that radical attempts to “fix” large problems often create newer, more complex ones. Finally, I thought of a very neo-conservative solution and decided to join the American Family Association’s effort to remove all public funding from PBS since they’re the reason my kids are now so miserable. You heard me. Kill the messenger.
Okay, so none of the options was particularly attractive.
In between viewing documentaries one and two, I attended a three-day conference in Burlington sponsored by the Orton Family Foundation on community planning, and among many important sessions and conversations with caring, intelligent people, a desire was expressed to capture the essence of and motivation behind the Community Heart and Soul Planning movement. By the end of the conference a manifesto of sorts had been drafted and was circulated for signature among the 300 plus participants.
The first paragraph of the Declaration of Heart and Soul Community Planning reads as follows:
“We the undersigned believe that every community must explore and express what makes it special—its Heart & Soul elements—and with specificity describe those tangible and intangible elements that if lost would fundamentally change the character of their place (emphasis mine). Once articulated and acknowledged, community Heart & Soul serves as the “Bill of Rights and Responsibilities” for citizens as they make decisions about the future.”
The declaration goes on to lay out several guiding principles for what community Heart and Soul stands for, all of which speak to such things as core values, social capital, and a positive vision for the future.
Now it might sound suspiciously like I am advocating for the radical “earth first” fix. That may, in the end be true. But I prefer to call it what it is…embracing the Heart and Soul movement by taking a page out of the Honeybee Playbook.
Honeybees basically do one thing…and do it well. They collect pollen, return to the hive, drop off their pollen load, do a little dance to communicate where the best pickings are, and return for more pollen. They repeat this cycle many times a day, every day until they die. On the occasions that the hive is attacked (by a bear, say), they throw themselves into the fray with a vengeance until the marauder is driven away—sometimes at the cost of the hive, but usually at the cost of several large honeycombs and a few hundred bees.
The Heart and Soul movement gives us humans a way to model this bee-havior. It requires us (the worker bees) to determine, within our own communities (the hive), what we care about. We do our best to provide for our community (collect pollen); to protect it from its enemies (bears); and to make sure that all that is good (the honey) gets passed on to feed future generations who repeat this cycle. [It should be pointed out—with amusement I hope—that male bees do practically nothing except, when necessary, fertilize the queen. Any socio-political lesson to be learned from this, of course, I leave to the imagination of the reader!]
I certainly have no comforting answer for my children about the global problems facing us in the coming fifty or 100 years. But I can help them, teach them, and set an example for them about how to do what’s best for our own community from within.
I think, ultimately, that is what will be our salvation. Each of us, in our own way, will turn to what we each know to be important within our own communities whether “Community” is defined as a place, a region, or people bound by common practice. We must learn how to place a value on that which is important, nurture it, protect it from external attacks, and by doing so, allow it to survive into the future.
Bees don’t think about global politics. They don’t think about moral issues or economic interdependencies. They basically do one thing, and in doing it, set in motion a chain of events that, among other things, results in the food chain at the top of which we sit. We have to imitate their behavior and bind it to the tenets of Heart and Soul community planning with intention, determination, and integrity. We can do this. We must. One person, one community, one hive at a time.
|
| 10/17/07 WHEN REICH IS WRONG |
In an October 1 Opinion piece published by the Los Angeles Times, former Clinton Secretary of Labor Robert B. Reich showed to the world just how quickly someone once at the center of American political life can lose touch with reality. He proposed cutting the tax deductibility of contributions to universities and arts institutions in half because…”let’s face it: These aren’t really charitable contributions. They’re often investments in the lifestyles the wealthy already enjoy and want their children to have too. They’re also investments in prestige—especially if they result in the family name being engraved on the new wing of an art museum or symphony hall.”
He particularly focuses on Harvard University’s $30 billion plus endowment and a Lincoln Center Gala supported by hedge-fund leaders who make up to $1 billion a year.
He goes on to propose the following “modest proposal. At a time when the number of needy continues to rise, when government doesn’t have the money to do what’s necessary for them and when America’s very rich are richer than ever, we should revise the tax code: Focus the charitable deduction on real charities” (ones that, according to Reich, actually serve the poor).
Wow. This thesis just cries for a reasoned response. But where do I start?
Maybe I should ask first what could possibly have caused the government to not have the money to do what’s necessary “for them” (the poor) or to have made America’s very rich “richer than ever.” But, nah, that would be too cheap a shot and WAY too political.
Maybe I should point out that three years ago Harvard completed the transition to need-blind and legacy-blind admissions and furthermore, because of its endowment, is now able to cover the entire tuition, room, and board cost of any student whose parents are unable to contribute towards those costs. How’s that for a response to Reich’s assumptions about Harvard serving only legacies of wealthy donors and not serving the needs of the poor? On second thought, that might lead him to accuse Harvard of being the exception that proves the rule--despite the fact that Harvard’s actions are not, at this point, all that exceptional.
But wait, there’s more to Harvard (and other “elite institutions of higher learning”) than money and legacies: what about the research it does that the government can’t do and the private sector won’t do without a sufficient profit-motive? Shall we “just say no” to all that?
So let’s take the argument to a local level. Should we (the public) stop supporting River Arts in Morrisville through a combination of public funds and tax-deductible contributions simply because the services it provides to everyone in its community are arts-based? How about the services of Vermont Arts Exchange, Rockingham Art and Museum Project, the Chaffee, the Chandler, NEK Arts, and countless others? Why stop there? How about pulling the plug on all public and tax-deductible support for community economic development that involves the arts: destroy the Creative Economy in Vermont right at its source?
I could run us all through a quick review of all the great programs and services currently at work in Vermont communities, including Head Start programs, health care, identified schools, corrections, recreation and scores of others, each of which is arts-based and each of which would blast Reich’s thesis to smithereens. But that would still avoid what I believe is the most important question that we should be asking of ourselves and each other:
What exactly do we want our generation’s legacy to be, as framed by the actions of our government and the uses to which charitable contributions from our wealthy citizens is put? Put another way, what do we want—as a citizenry—the direct and indirect impact of government funding to result in?
My personal opinion is that our government should be a reflection of how we want to be governed. It should manage our public safety. It should regulate industries that have a tendency to pollute our streams, our air, our airwaves, etc. It should provide for those who can’t provide for themselves. And (here’s the kicker) it should support those institutions who serve as beacons of hope, of innovation, of creativity, of knowledge and understanding—because it is they who inspire us and who lead us forward into the future. Their work is more often built on a dream or a vision, and not on a well-documented market need. Their inventions and services belong to all of us because their work tends to be in “the public good.” Thus, their work depends on direct (tax support) and indirect (tax deductible contributions) from our government.
In Robert Reich’s world-view, there appears to be no room for all the positive things for which the government can and should take some responsibility. Is he really that cynical? Or is he that out of touch with what is really happening. Mr. Reich…before you write another opinion piece, please come to Vermont. I’ll be happy to show you a lot of government-supported, arts-based activities that will surely change your world-view just a little.
|
| 10/3/07 STAND UP FOR FALL |
|
A few years ago, Ellen McCulloch-Lovell, President of Marlboro College, told a group of arts presenters that it was likely going to be the artist community who first finds the courage to ask the difficult questions about the state of our world. As I recall, she was referring to the conflicts in the Middle East and Southern Asia. But drilling for oil in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge—an environmental issue if there ever was one—was also big back then as was the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) education act and the National Endowment for the Arts’ (NEA) budget.
I have no problem sharing my negative opinions about NCLB and my positive opinions about the NEA because those things directly impact the arts. But until now, I have felt it inappropriate to share my opinions about global economic and political issues. What has changed?
Vermont’s foliage, that’s what.
For years my wife and I have looked forward to September; kids back at school, crisp mornings, warm afternoons, great hiking, and of course, the foliage. Almost nothing beats September in Vermont—except possibly October. For the last couple of years however, we have noticed that the colors haven’t been as vibrant as they once were.
At first, I thought it was yet another symptom of middle age—the rods (or is it the cones?) on my retina must not be as responsive as they once were, surely. Perhaps my own increasingly faulty memory has imbued past fall seasons with far more resplendent chromatic displays than they deserved.
This year, however, I finally have to come clean. I am a musician by training, but as the Executive Director of the Vermont Arts Council I am viewed by many as a spokesperson for all the arts. But the artist in me has to admit, at long last, that the colors are bad; dull, brown, and crispy.
What is going on?
Last week the Times Argus wrote an article on a leaf fungus called Anthracnose, a blight that evidently has been around for ages. This year is supposedly “good” in that Anthracnose levels are far lower this year than in recent years. Okay. I’ll accept that on its face, but if Anthracnose is the culprit, why are the leaves worse this year than ever? Could it be something else? Acid rain? Warm temperatures? All of the above?
The obvious threats to our environment and our collective reluctance to call crispy-fried foliage by its true name—a nightmare—has at last awakened the sleeping beast in me. Now it is my turn to enter into this fray because if I don’t, I will not be able to stare at myself in the mirror every colorless morning for the remainder of this pathetic fall season.
I am not a scientist. I am not even a native Vermonter. But I am somewhat observant, and I listen to my friends who are sugarmakers. I hear their stories of dying sugar maple trees. I see the evidence myself—there is one on my block that can’t be more than 30 years old (shouldn’t they live to be 150?). I’m really not trying to make a political statement here, after all dying maple trees and dusky brown leaves have been creeping up on us for at least a generation and impact all of us, regardless of whether we vote red or blue (or orange or yellow).
Are we going to have to wait until the oceans are lapping at the steps of the Metropolitan Museum or drowning the Old North Church before the masses wake up and do something? It doesn’t matter whether it was Shakespeare or some other playwright who made the phrase “sound the alarums” famous. We just have to get busy and start sounding them…
The environmental decay, of which this fall’s foliage is but a symptom, affects us all—regardless of your position on global warming. Al Gore and Bill McKibben are not the issue. Your own senses are. Trust them.
It doesn’t take a lot of courage to stand up for fall. If you’re like me, you’ll do it because you miss the colors.
|
| 9/19/07 WHO DECIDES WHAT |
|
Since the beginning of our fiscal year (July 1) the Arts Council has awarded 52 competitive grants to artists, arts organizations, schools and community groups. These awards were made at the recommendation of several panels who were gathered by staff from around the state to sit and review applications and make their recommendations to the Council’s Board of Trustees. Fifty-two applicants have thus far received good news. They are, for the most part, happy. But what about the 59 applicants who were not recommended for funding? How are they feeling?
Disappointed, to say the least, and in some cases angry. But the most prevalent reaction is frustration. Most people contact us when they don’t get a grant to find out why. (It’s interesting to note how many successful applicants do the same!). Inevitably they ask how many were funded out of how many applications. The answer is almost always a smaller percentage than seems possible.
What happens in the Arts Council panel meetings? Who actually chooses which applicants get funded, and which do not? These are just two of many questions about the Council’s grant process that we field every year. Some are based on assumptions people have about art, about the Council, and about people who appear to have a special “in.” Others are based on the disappointment of not getting funded at all, or getting only partial funding.
So let’s deal with some of these questions and assumptions.
Assumption: “If you know someone at the Arts Council, you’re far more likely to get a grant.”
Fact: The most influential people in the competitive grant decision process are the “peer-panelists.” These are people who are gathered for the various panels based on their availability, their expertise, the fact that they have no conflicts of interest with people applying, and their general knowledge of the arts and of Vermont. We also pay attention—all else being equal—to geographic and gender diversity whenever possible.
The role of a panelist is to familiarize themselves with the applications, understand the review criteria, and apply Council policies (such as no conflicts of interest) where appropriate in making their recommendations. Council staff’s role is to keep the panel on task and on time, to take notes of the discussion for applicant feedback, and to make sure trustees receive panel recommendations in a timely fashion. The trustees’ role is to ask questions if anything seems out of the ordinary and to direct staff in those rare instances where a panel recommendation is not taken. In my 10 years at the Arts Council, trustees have overturned only one panel recommendation and that was because the organization in question went out of business between the time the application was reviewed and the trustees met.
So, to be clear, the Arts Council staff doesn’t make grant decisions; panelists and trustees do. Having said that, however, I admit that there is one way that knowing our staff will help your application quite a lot.
Someone who has called the Council's program staff (Michele, Sonia, or Stacy or even, God help them, me!) for advice on what program to apply for, or how much to request, or what kind of support materials to include will no doubt fare better in the review process than someone who hasn’t. Does this mean that our word is gospel? No. It means that we see a lot of panel discussions and we have a sense of what tends to be important to a panel and what tends to be not so important. Someone who asks questions is more likely to fare better than someone who doesn’t or who, worse, makes an assumption and acts accordingly. In every case, whether you don’t get funding or not, we encourage you to ask for the panel’s feedback. It’s a key part of becoming a better grant writer
Assumption: “The same people get funded every year so there’s no point in applying.”
Fact: While it is true that some arts organizations' and cultural organizations' grants tend to crop up again and again, this is not so much a reflection of the review process as it is a reflection of the consistently high caliber of these particular applicants—arts institutions whose names come readily to everyone’s lips. I’d even go a step further—it is because of their consistently high standards that they have become institutions worthy of our funding.
As for educational grants, while there are many great artists who would like to teach, there are still relatively few artists who have achieved a level of mastery in their art form AND an understanding of the issues that all Vermont public school educators deal with in the “Vermont Framework of Standards…” and “No Child Left Behind.” But if a school can demonstrate how an artist fits perfectly into their curriculum, then—yes, you probably have a better chance of receiving funding than another school that doesn't have that level of preparation.
But getting back to the accusation that underlies the assumption: that there exists a cabal of arts-funding decision makers who have their favorite group of “go-to” grantees. The truth is that even those institutions that seemingly get a grant every year don’t! Instead, even they fall victim to the biggest problem the Arts Council faces: a lack of funding.
Reality: Lack of funding is by far the most significant reason why more grants aren't funded or funded in full.
The legislative appropriation the Arts Council receives for our grant budget has stagnated for 10 years while the rest of state government has grown 30%.
How can you help change this? Become an advocate! Contact your legislators and let them know you care about the health of the arts in Vermont. Invite them to be your guest at a concert or a play in your community that has received Council funding. Or, perhaps more notably, take them to an event or visit an organization that would have benefied from receiving grant funding.
The Council will thank you and, more importantly, so will all those folks that didn’t get funding they hoped for.
|
| 9/5/07 SUPPORT THE NEA |
In Vermont, we have a very strong and independent-minded Congressional delegation whose legacy includes being among the staunchest supporters of our tiny Federal Arts Agency. During the darkest days of the early 1990s the Vermont delegation was among the small minority that stood up to the powers trying to eliminate the NEA.
This was not true of the delegations from many other states. Although the NEA’s detractors are diminishing in numbers, there are still quite a few who, despite all our best efforts to educate and inform them, still have residual feelings of ill-will towards the agency, feelings that are even more misplaced now than they were during the worst of the culture wars from 1988 to 1996.
In the decade since it was “punished” by Congress and its appropriation cut 40%, the NEA, like the field it serves, has transformed itself. It no longer simply responds to requests for support from artists and arts organizations, most of which thrive in our major population centers. It actually reaches out and cultivates the arts in all corners of our country. In the last couple of years it has finally made good on its promise to award at least one grant to a constituent in every one of the 435 Congressional districts throughout the country—including the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, the Marianas, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa.
More importantly it has built on the “grassroots” legacy of former NEA Chair Bill Ivey and greatly improved its “brand identity” under the leadership of its current Chair, Dana Gioia. As a former brand manager for General Foods (word has it that he was responsible for introducing Bill Cosby to Jell-o Pudding Pops), Gioia has taken the NEA to a new level of participatory art-making and engagement. Projects like Poetry Out Loud, American Masterpieces, and The Big Read have made the arts more accessible to a much broader segment of the American populace than they ever were before. Sure there is probably not as much money going to symphonies, or opera houses as there was in 1992. But then, how could there be? The NEA’s budget is $50 million less now than it was then ($130 million if you factor in inflation)!
But the tide is turning back in the Arts’ favor. The House of Representatives wants to increase the NEA’s budget by $33 million—not because “punishment time” is over, but because the NEA and its network of regional and state partners (which includes the Vermont Arts Council) are, through the arts, making a positive difference in the lives of people throughout the country.
I have a request for everyone reading this column, and especially to those who are from out-of-state.
We need the Senate to follow suit and support the House’s recommendation. Right now the Senate has recommended a $10 million increase. That’s not a bad amount in the context of previous small increases, but it’s nowhere near $33 million. If the House version gets passed it means an increase to state arts agencies of at least $200,000. If the Senate version passes, it’ll mean an increase of about $70,000. I say the House version looks better.
In Vermont, we’re pretty confident that our two Senators understand the importance of supporting the arts in our communities and our lives. But what about the rest of the country?
If you are reading this in Vermont, please do two things. First, contact Senators Leahy and Sanders and politely remind them that you are counting on their support for the House version of the NEA appropriation, but more importantly to thank them for their leadership and support for the NEA over the years. Also, thank Congressman Welch for actually voting for the $33 million increase! Second, please contact everyone you know in other states asking them if they would consider writing a personal email to their Senators to support the House version of the NEA appropriation.
If you are not a Vermont resident and you are reading this, or it has been forwarded to you by a friend who is a Vermonter, please take a moment to contact your Senators and help them to understand just how important the arts are to your life and to your community. It doesn’t matter whether you are in northern Maine or southern California. The arts reach everyone, everywhere, all the time.
Over the years, I have witnessed many conversations on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. One bears repeating. A Congressman (not from Vermont) said, “I walked back to my office and checked to see how the letters were running on this issue. There were a grand total of three: two in favor, one against. I returned to the Chamber and voted in favor stating for the record that my mail was running two-to-one in favor of the bill!”
Your email WILL make a difference, especially if it’s from you and unencumbered by a lot of excess verbiage that our wonderful lobbyists in D.C. like to make sure get included in such messages. All you have to do is say "Please support the House version of the NEA appropriation, because . . ." and then tell your Senators a story about why the arts matter to you or to your community. The more personal the better.
Some need a lot of education, some simply need reminding. Either way, they deserve our personal thanks and best wishes, and our communities deserve more art. |
| 8/22/07 ON ART |
|
In the space of a few short months the world, and especially Vermont, lost several of its brightest lights: John Engels, poet and teacher passed away in June; Lillian Farber, photographer, philanthropist, and activist and Louis Moyse, flutist, teacher, and co-founder of Music at Marlboro in late July, and then Rusty Jacobs of Woods Tea Company just this past week.
When even one luminary dies, the initial surprise and dismay is followed by several moments of contemplative silence during which you think about your own life and wonder what more you could do to make it have even a fraction of the meaning or | | | |