The Southwest Arts Center in Atlanta was born out of arts education and engagement. The center started as a large studio space with small community oriented class curriculum such as African Dance, Studio Art, Salsa dancing etc… Naturally the community was drawn to it; A mother could take her son or daughter to piano lessons while attending her salsa lesson on Wednesday night. Pretty soon, it became a landmark of the community with summer camps, teen programs. In a few years, the center went from being a just a studio space to a studio space with a 375 – seat auditorium and theater with a box office and concession, a special exhibition gallery, and a 10,000 square feet green space with an outdoor plaza.
Maybe we have been doing it all backwards. Maybe we have audaciously built monstrosities in reverence to the arts based on the falsely held belief that “if we build it, they will come”, when actually we should start with cultivation programs that have the dual purpose of community engagement and marketing research. It seems opportunistic, I know, but its better than trying to fundraise to pay off the light bill for the 100,000 square foot center that nobody comes to. In other words, start off small, using Arts Education as the bait, and let the art center and the programming, build itself.
Ariel -- I am not sure that all monstrosities are built in vacuums without some sense of existing organizations with potential audiences? Typically there is a mid-sized organization that is working strongly and kind boards or leaders decide it is 'time for a bigger home' or 'more permanent home where permanent change can happen' -- then the building comes. Interestingly, most programs blow up in the first 18 months after doors open (subscriptions surge, etc -- note Arena Stage in their first year). The problem is when the new and shiny factor recedes, so do many who subscribed for that factor alone. Same goes for all types of arts organizations/facilities. It becomes more complicated and dire when Boards or Architects are allowed to think grandly instead of realistically. NB: Woodruff Arts was built from nothing, but much research was done prior to its creation and there were emerging models in the field to indicate its success.
I agree, and I think it's a broader point that non-profits should build from quality programming rather than 'presence' or apparent community value. Speaking of Atlanta, this makes me think of my friend's company down there that was founded out of a school project to direct a show with young kids while she was in high school. That project has now turned into a moderately-sized producing theater company that owns a fancy new facility and still has a strong educational component to it. But, as you may recall me sharing with you, this company is the result of a wealthy family giving their daughter everything she wants. The drive behind the initial program was never community benefit, but her own goals as the director. When they officially incorporated, it was mainly because these 'education programs' were proving so popular that the tuition could fund professional productions that my friend wanted to direct or star in. Ultimately, this is what led to the gorgeous new facility that they built (also heavily financed by her father's multimillion dollar income). Just because a facility or the growth of a company stems from its educational programming does not mean that it's good. I can testify that the classes and shows for kids at my friend's company are not the finest in Atlanta (though not the worst, either), but they sure can bring in revenue. As arts managers, we need to be very careful in how we measure the success of our educational programs in ways other than revenue generators before we expand them. It's a question of quality that cannot be measured in numbers.
Ariel, I truly agree with the idea of starting with educational programs. I believe that education should be understood as one of the processes of audience development and engagement. Since the education cultivates artistic sensibility of the people who participate in the programs, it may eventually lead them to appreciate arts. As a result, the organization will experience increase in attendance to the arts programs, as proved in the case you shared with us. Therefore, I think the education program should focus on attaining new audience as well as retaining current patrons – which Kelsey mentioned. In addition, if more online arts education programs can be developed, it would be easier to reach the public that have never been to arts performances or exhibitions. Once reaching them either through online or offline, the organizations step ahead to the broadening potential audience base.
Ariel, this is a very interesting example your brought up. First, you brought up the point that it worked because it was family oriented - they offered something for everybody. This is a trend that has shown up in a few of our discussions in the blog. Getting families invested in your art, and offering programs that are realistic for the family lifestyle to attend, is important because (1) it brings in more people in the present (you get mom, dad, and two kids - that's four people instead of one or two) and (2) it builds a tradition in the family and shows the children of that family that the arts are important, and can be present in their lives.
It also like this example because they built the community before building the building - what an idea! To know what your community really wants, and what will best serve them, before taking on a huge project. It seems obvious, but in practice we know that is not always the case. The arts should be there to preserve the art form, but it is also vital for them to truly serve the community.
I love this idea as well. My concern is with some organizations (not necessarily the one you mentioned) starting off with an education focus because it is just that- a starting off point. I know of an organization which started off with education as part of its mission and as the organization grew larger and had garnered more interest, the education and community engagement aspect did not. And then the interest was lost. And I think it's incredibly hard from that point to get the education back to where it originally was. Organizations that start off small and then build will have to make sure to continually update and expand its education program with the rest of its offerings.
The Southwest Arts Center in Atlanta was born out of arts education and engagement. The center started as a large studio space with small community oriented class curriculum such as African Dance, Studio Art, Salsa dancing etc… Naturally the community was drawn to it; A mother could take her son or daughter to piano lessons while attending her salsa lesson on Wednesday night. Pretty soon, it became a landmark of the community with summer camps, teen programs.
ReplyDeleteIn a few years, the center went from being a just a studio space to a studio space with a 375 – seat auditorium and theater with a box office and concession, a special exhibition gallery, and a 10,000 square feet green space with an outdoor plaza.
http://www.fultonarts.org/index.php/events-and-exhibitions/performance-venues/southwest-arts-center-performance-theatre-and-gallery
Maybe we have been doing it all backwards. Maybe we have audaciously built monstrosities in reverence to the arts based on the falsely held belief that “if we build it, they will come”, when actually we should start with cultivation programs that have the dual purpose of community engagement and marketing research. It seems opportunistic, I know, but its better than trying to fundraise to pay off the light bill for the 100,000 square foot center that nobody comes to.
In other words, start off small, using Arts Education as the bait, and let the art center and the programming, build itself.
Ariel -- I am not sure that all monstrosities are built in vacuums without some sense of existing organizations with potential audiences? Typically there is a mid-sized organization that is working strongly and kind boards or leaders decide it is 'time for a bigger home' or 'more permanent home where permanent change can happen' -- then the building comes. Interestingly, most programs blow up in the first 18 months after doors open (subscriptions surge, etc -- note Arena Stage in their first year). The problem is when the new and shiny factor recedes, so do many who subscribed for that factor alone. Same goes for all types of arts organizations/facilities. It becomes more complicated and dire when Boards or Architects are allowed to think grandly instead of realistically. NB: Woodruff Arts was built from nothing, but much research was done prior to its creation and there were emerging models in the field to indicate its success.
DeleteI agree, and I think it's a broader point that non-profits should build from quality programming rather than 'presence' or apparent community value. Speaking of Atlanta, this makes me think of my friend's company down there that was founded out of a school project to direct a show with young kids while she was in high school. That project has now turned into a moderately-sized producing theater company that owns a fancy new facility and still has a strong educational component to it.
DeleteBut, as you may recall me sharing with you, this company is the result of a wealthy family giving their daughter everything she wants. The drive behind the initial program was never community benefit, but her own goals as the director. When they officially incorporated, it was mainly because these 'education programs' were proving so popular that the tuition could fund professional productions that my friend wanted to direct or star in. Ultimately, this is what led to the gorgeous new facility that they built (also heavily financed by her father's multimillion dollar income).
Just because a facility or the growth of a company stems from its educational programming does not mean that it's good. I can testify that the classes and shows for kids at my friend's company are not the finest in Atlanta (though not the worst, either), but they sure can bring in revenue. As arts managers, we need to be very careful in how we measure the success of our educational programs in ways other than revenue generators before we expand them. It's a question of quality that cannot be measured in numbers.
Ariel, I truly agree with the idea of starting with educational programs. I believe that education should be understood as one of the processes of audience development and engagement. Since the education cultivates artistic sensibility of the people who participate in the programs, it may eventually lead them to appreciate arts. As a result, the organization will experience increase in attendance to the arts programs, as proved in the case you shared with us. Therefore, I think the education program should focus on attaining new audience as well as retaining current patrons – which Kelsey mentioned. In addition, if more online arts education programs can be developed, it would be easier to reach the public that have never been to arts performances or exhibitions. Once reaching them either through online or offline, the organizations step ahead to the broadening potential audience base.
ReplyDeleteAriel, this is a very interesting example your brought up. First, you brought up the point that it worked because it was family oriented - they offered something for everybody. This is a trend that has shown up in a few of our discussions in the blog. Getting families invested in your art, and offering programs that are realistic for the family lifestyle to attend, is important because (1) it brings in more people in the present (you get mom, dad, and two kids - that's four people instead of one or two) and (2) it builds a tradition in the family and shows the children of that family that the arts are important, and can be present in their lives.
ReplyDeleteIt also like this example because they built the community before building the building - what an idea! To know what your community really wants, and what will best serve them, before taking on a huge project. It seems obvious, but in practice we know that is not always the case. The arts should be there to preserve the art form, but it is also vital for them to truly serve the community.
I love this idea as well. My concern is with some organizations (not necessarily the one you mentioned) starting off with an education focus because it is just that- a starting off point. I know of an organization which started off with education as part of its mission and as the organization grew larger and had garnered more interest, the education and community engagement aspect did not. And then the interest was lost. And I think it's incredibly hard from that point to get the education back to where it originally was. Organizations that start off small and then build will have to make sure to continually update and expand its education program with the rest of its offerings.
ReplyDelete