A modest arts organization presumably cannot afford to assign enough time, money, and staff into projects that relate to all aspects of outreach, engagement, and arts education. The organization, from a programming standpoint, simply does not have enough traditional inputs in order to see projects related to all three of the areas come to fruition. At best, a larger arts organization (perhaps even a community/cultural center), who’s self-defined mission is to educate and engage adults, children, and families from neighborhoods that are not able to access the arts frequently (if at all), might be best suited for the challenge. The August Wilson Center for African American Culture, even though it has been scrutinized since its construction began, offers comprehensive education programs and events in dance, drama, and literature for children and adults that focus on cultivation. http://www.augustwilsoncenter.org/cultivation/index.php Try to look past the AWC as a state of the art facility, which is regrettably not located in the Hill District and that is frequently left dark due to deficit issues, and from a programming perspective think about what it is doing correctly and what it could stand to change. Then, consider an external factor to the process: state and local funders want to see measurable results from the programs so that they know their support isn’t having a real long-term outcome. Do AWC teaching artists have long-term goals for their students? How do they successfully quantify qualitative information? Are there any places to explore online interconnectivity in order to reach more students? Perhaps measuring cultivation is the true test for the AWC – and any similar organizations. To change gears and offer a small personal opinion, I’m tired of arts organizations that view outreach and engagement as a game of “entice racial minorities in our building.” Not only is that outlook incredibly biased, but also it ignores a slew of other groups disenfranchised by society that could greatly benefit from engagement in the arts. For example, how many organizations can you name that offer programs for prisoners, domestic abuse victims, or perhaps the severely disabled? While each group requires a great deal of personal attention that may be difficult for some arts organizations to accommodate, the untapped potential for increased accessibility is undeniable. Contrary to some views, it is possible to combine outreach and engagement and completely leave out the behemoth of arts education. I have had the privilege to volunteer for an arts access program in New Jersey that allows for adults and children with severely complex physical and mental disabilities to create artistic works in drama, painting, dance, and creative writing. http://www.artsaccessprogram.org/ At no point during the process are the participants told how to go about creating a work of art; they are given free reign from the start (which, ironically, could be a component that is missing from many general arts programs today).
Mike -- I agree that our frameworks and definitions in 'creation' should be more flexible (life is changing, thus so will art). However, I would also argue that a strong education program will have goals for each class/engagement that a teaching artist is charged to meet. This is distinctly true in arts integration programs, but also in the larger arts for arts sake classrooms (during an acting I class, the students are expected to achieve X% of success in monologues or whatever). Lesson plans should be required prior to classes with road maps designed by the program managers/leaders. It is complex, but essential to maintain an effective program.
I'm with you on the personal opinion, Mike. It has definitely occurred to me that outreach and engagement get used as stopgaps to ensure just enough audience diversity to avoid the appearance of absolute homogeneity. When I ran the box office for a small Shakespeare theatre in St. Louis, one of my tasks each show was to make a note of the numbers of minority ticket buyers. The only reason for this task, as far as I ever knew, was to collect "diversity numbers" to increase the organization's eligibility for grants. St. Louis Shakespeare was/is small enough that getting even a little more grant money was a big deal, but I felt a little weird about the organization's success being judged by the presence or absence of minorities in its audiences--especially when those audiences were really tiny to begin with and the amount of outreach the company could afford was very minimal. In larger organizations that can afford more significant outreach, I agree that the outreach should not be limited to racial minorities, and I think that using outreach simply to appear racially diverse in one's impact is ethically questionable.
Mike, I find your idea of identifying measurable outcomes for audience engagement compelling. So much of what we do in theatre is implemented without pre-determined outcome objectives, and this often results in programming with little or no measurable impact (or perhaps little or no impact of any kind). I am curious about how the organization you worked for in NJ articulated the goals for its programs and what measures they used to assess outcomes.
Interestingly -- at least for the larger foundations, programs are required to have predetermined outcomes and evaluated against them (particularly for multi-year programs). Typically programs emerge from strategic planning which has goals similarly articulated . . . so there are some starting points, I would hope, for a young organization with a plan. Logic models and similar tools are helpful in program development -- but sadly, there are still programs that are developed in reactions to funders with no clear goals and objectives.
Great post Mike! I especially agree with your comments about defining measurable results when building programs. I concur, so many external parties use quantitative and qualitative evaluation to justify funding and supporting the engagement experience. Incorporating measurable components early on in the design of the program can help ensure this data collection is a high priority.
While I agree with your suggestions for diversifying the target audience for engagement opportunities, I think there’s something to be said about arts organizations engaging with the patrons they already have. Although I value engagement as an opportunity to expand audiences and provide a new access point into an organization, I think the patrons that are already there could also strongly gain something by expanding their artistic experience with engagement. Patron loyalty is never guaranteed, and I think engagement programs should thus focus on retaining audiences by providing them with challenging and intellectual experiences to strengthen their existing tie to the organization.
Lastly, I’m interested in the work you did with Arts Access too. When I volunteered with an arts in medicine programs in the pediatric wing of a hospital, we too didn’t create any parameters for the participants to create art, it was all patient driven. Arts in a medicinally holistic setting definitely allow engagement to be participant centric, and it can become difficult to find the right method for measuring the outcomes. I know my program looked into the number of patients served, number of programs and collected some qualitative feedback. I wonder what other tools for measurement exist in this line of work?
I know this is controversial, but to play the devil's advocate, does anyone think patient or constituent centric/driven programs are narcissistic or increase the perception of self-importance in a society where those characteristics are more encouraged as of late?
Or are they seen as a stepping stone to increasing self-worth through accomplishing worthy goals of providing a means of communication in visual/bodily terms?
Stephanie.. I worry that your question is going to touch on too many areas that I won't be able to cover without more research, but are you asking if arts education programs are making everyone feel too good about themselves? What do you propose as an alternative? A cut-throat environment where teachers tell students that they are not meant for this medium or that medium and they should move on?
If you are trying to say that our reality is encouraging people to engage in arts education just because you want their money, not because you want them to experience the benefits of arts involvement, then maybe there can be a discussion about ethics here. If you are otherwise saying that we tell everyone they are good at everything and try to validate people for meaningless efforts that are just daily routine actions, then the discussion should focus on where self-esteem can get a person, and what getting humbled over and over and told that you are not good and not successful can do to a person on the contrary. Which society would you be more eager to live in? One of encouragement, even if it is sometimes false or one of blatant, crude snappy "honesty" from gatekeepers who feel that they know what good art is and what bad art is?
After contemplating this last night, I believe there are really no generalities that can be made about arts teaching and how it should foster a relationship between patrons and professionals. Each instance of how education programs move that relationship forward for those who want to become professionals versus those who simply make and enjoy the arts as a hobby or interest will be unique.
I believe my pessimism comes from working with what I considered to be an unsuccessful arts education initiative where I didn't seem any change or learning happening despite our best attempts. As Kelsey and Kate have said, perhaps this balances more on how program results are predicted and goals are achieved.
Mike, you are right about outreach to minorities. Coming from the perspective of growing up on a reservation there were frequently arts focused teachers that came out do theatre, poetry, or writing sessions at the school. Almost none of these folk, however noble the intentions, actually understood native culture much less the culture of the tribal children they were teaching. I was enriched by these experiences but only realized later on that they totally ignored that there was a rich tradition of arts that they could have been building on. This was also, of course, before the craze for assessment and I would postulate that these guest instructors didn't have the framework of goals that a more modern teach would.
Now that our educational system barely supports arts and arts education in elementary and high schools, there is a much greater opportunity for arts organizations to fill that gap and, while doing so, connect their "brand" to the genre of art they are associated with (ex: Opera Theatre of Pittsburgh=Opera, in the eyes of the students they reach through their outreach program). Obviously, a lot can be gained through arts outreach program, but in addition to what is gained, much is put at risk. Words like 'ethics' quickly get put into play. Complicated questions about who is more deserving the education/who is more disenfranchised get asked, but then the air starts to get thick. The conversation gets deep, and I am willing to bet that when it does, the members of the arts organization and/or the artist shrink back into the place that cheers: We are just trying to bring art to the people!
And now I am realizing that I am on a bit of rant. But I always get into the space when I think about Arts Outreach. Adre's comment above clarifies why, and the question I am grappling with, as an artist, is what do we do about it. I definitely think setting goals for the outreach must happen on the level of the administration, and I also think that a less fluffy approach needs to take place in terms of the education. Art is not 'fun.' To say that it is trivializes everything that it comes out of. Art comes out of our culture, it comes out of what it means to be together, it comes out of who we feel we are next to ourselves, the other, our hearts. It is not a game. It is a way of being with another, and this is a big, serious, contemporary question.
In order for art outreach programs to be relevant beyond ticket sales or accountable diversity through ticket sales, they need to speak to contemporary life. They need to address the questions in our culture (which it already does by the very fact of its necessity in our culture), and they need to be addressed in a direct way. The question about REPRESENTATION needs to be asked on the level of the administration and then the artist needs to figure out how she can best facilitate the students she is (out)reaching to represent him and herself. Ultimately, the artist does represent herself-her body and soul come into and out of the work-and so it is important the question of who the student is be taken into account in terms of the medium (ex: opera and indigenous American culture. The two questions that need to be asked are: 1. How are both the arts organization and the tribe served? 2. How is the young artist (student) going to better understand herself, and her contribution to the world?
All I have are questions, but sometimes it is the question that get us there.
A modest arts organization presumably cannot afford to assign enough time, money, and staff into projects that relate to all aspects of outreach, engagement, and arts education. The organization, from a programming standpoint, simply does not have enough traditional inputs in order to see projects related to all three of the areas come to fruition. At best, a larger arts organization (perhaps even a community/cultural center), who’s self-defined mission is to educate and engage adults, children, and families from neighborhoods that are not able to access the arts frequently (if at all), might be best suited for the challenge. The August Wilson Center for African American Culture, even though it has been scrutinized since its construction began, offers comprehensive education programs and events in dance, drama, and literature for children and adults that focus on cultivation. http://www.augustwilsoncenter.org/cultivation/index.php
ReplyDeleteTry to look past the AWC as a state of the art facility, which is regrettably not located in the Hill District and that is frequently left dark due to deficit issues, and from a programming perspective think about what it is doing correctly and what it could stand to change. Then, consider an external factor to the process: state and local funders want to see measurable results from the programs so that they know their support isn’t having a real long-term outcome. Do AWC teaching artists have long-term goals for their students? How do they successfully quantify qualitative information? Are there any places to explore online interconnectivity in order to reach more students? Perhaps measuring cultivation is the true test for the AWC – and any similar organizations.
To change gears and offer a small personal opinion, I’m tired of arts organizations that view outreach and engagement as a game of “entice racial minorities in our building.” Not only is that outlook incredibly biased, but also it ignores a slew of other groups disenfranchised by society that could greatly benefit from engagement in the arts. For example, how many organizations can you name that offer programs for prisoners, domestic abuse victims, or perhaps the severely disabled? While each group requires a great deal of personal attention that may be difficult for some arts organizations to accommodate, the untapped potential for increased accessibility is undeniable. Contrary to some views, it is possible to combine outreach and engagement and completely leave out the behemoth of arts education. I have had the privilege to volunteer for an arts access program in New Jersey that allows for adults and children with severely complex physical and mental disabilities to create artistic works in drama, painting, dance, and creative writing. http://www.artsaccessprogram.org/ At no point during the process are the participants told how to go about creating a work of art; they are given free reign from the start (which, ironically, could be a component that is missing from many general arts programs today).
Mike -- I agree that our frameworks and definitions in 'creation' should be more flexible (life is changing, thus so will art). However, I would also argue that a strong education program will have goals for each class/engagement that a teaching artist is charged to meet. This is distinctly true in arts integration programs, but also in the larger arts for arts sake classrooms (during an acting I class, the students are expected to achieve X% of success in monologues or whatever). Lesson plans should be required prior to classes with road maps designed by the program managers/leaders. It is complex, but essential to maintain an effective program.
DeleteI'm with you on the personal opinion, Mike. It has definitely occurred to me that outreach and engagement get used as stopgaps to ensure just enough audience diversity to avoid the appearance of absolute homogeneity. When I ran the box office for a small Shakespeare theatre in St. Louis, one of my tasks each show was to make a note of the numbers of minority ticket buyers. The only reason for this task, as far as I ever knew, was to collect "diversity numbers" to increase the organization's eligibility for grants. St. Louis Shakespeare was/is small enough that getting even a little more grant money was a big deal, but I felt a little weird about the organization's success being judged by the presence or absence of minorities in its audiences--especially when those audiences were really tiny to begin with and the amount of outreach the company could afford was very minimal. In larger organizations that can afford more significant outreach, I agree that the outreach should not be limited to racial minorities, and I think that using outreach simply to appear racially diverse in one's impact is ethically questionable.
DeleteMike, I find your idea of identifying measurable outcomes for audience engagement compelling. So much of what we do in theatre is implemented without pre-determined outcome objectives, and this often results in programming with little or no measurable impact (or perhaps little or no impact of any kind). I am curious about how the organization you worked for in NJ articulated the goals for its programs and what measures they used to assess outcomes.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly -- at least for the larger foundations, programs are required to have predetermined outcomes and evaluated against them (particularly for multi-year programs). Typically programs emerge from strategic planning which has goals similarly articulated . . . so there are some starting points, I would hope, for a young organization with a plan. Logic models and similar tools are helpful in program development -- but sadly, there are still programs that are developed in reactions to funders with no clear goals and objectives.
DeleteGreat post Mike! I especially agree with your comments about defining measurable results when building programs. I concur, so many external parties use quantitative and qualitative evaluation to justify funding and supporting the engagement experience. Incorporating measurable components early on in the design of the program can help ensure this data collection is a high priority.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with your suggestions for diversifying the target audience for engagement opportunities, I think there’s something to be said about arts organizations engaging with the patrons they already have. Although I value engagement as an opportunity to expand audiences and provide a new access point into an organization, I think the patrons that are already there could also strongly gain something by expanding their artistic experience with engagement. Patron loyalty is never guaranteed, and I think engagement programs should thus focus on retaining audiences by providing them with challenging and intellectual experiences to strengthen their existing tie to the organization.
Lastly, I’m interested in the work you did with Arts Access too. When I volunteered with an arts in medicine programs in the pediatric wing of a hospital, we too didn’t create any parameters for the participants to create art, it was all patient driven. Arts in a medicinally holistic setting definitely allow engagement to be participant centric, and it can become difficult to find the right method for measuring the outcomes. I know my program looked into the number of patients served, number of programs and collected some qualitative feedback. I wonder what other tools for measurement exist in this line of work?
I know this is controversial, but to play the devil's advocate, does anyone think patient or constituent centric/driven programs are narcissistic or increase the perception of self-importance in a society where those characteristics are more encouraged as of late?
ReplyDeleteOr are they seen as a stepping stone to increasing self-worth through accomplishing worthy goals of providing a means of communication in visual/bodily terms?
Stephanie.. I worry that your question is going to touch on too many areas that I won't be able to cover without more research, but are you asking if arts education programs are making everyone feel too good about themselves? What do you propose as an alternative? A cut-throat environment where teachers tell students that they are not meant for this medium or that medium and they should move on?
ReplyDeleteIf you are trying to say that our reality is encouraging people to engage in arts education just because you want their money, not because you want them to experience the benefits of arts involvement, then maybe there can be a discussion about ethics here. If you are otherwise saying that we tell everyone they are good at everything and try to validate people for meaningless efforts that are just daily routine actions, then the discussion should focus on where self-esteem can get a person, and what getting humbled over and over and told that you are not good and not successful can do to a person on the contrary. Which society would you be more eager to live in? One of encouragement, even if it is sometimes false or one of blatant, crude snappy "honesty" from gatekeepers who feel that they know what good art is and what bad art is?
After contemplating this last night, I believe there are really no generalities that can be made about arts teaching and how it should foster a relationship between patrons and professionals. Each instance of how education programs move that relationship forward for those who want to become professionals versus those who simply make and enjoy the arts as a hobby or interest will be unique.
ReplyDeleteI believe my pessimism comes from working with what I considered to be an unsuccessful arts education initiative where I didn't seem any change or learning happening despite our best attempts. As Kelsey and Kate have said, perhaps this balances more on how program results are predicted and goals are achieved.
Mike, you are right about outreach to minorities. Coming from the perspective of growing up on a reservation there were frequently arts focused teachers that came out do theatre, poetry, or writing sessions at the school. Almost none of these folk, however noble the intentions, actually understood native culture much less the culture of the tribal children they were teaching. I was enriched by these experiences but only realized later on that they totally ignored that there was a rich tradition of arts that they could have been building on. This was also, of course, before the craze for assessment and I would postulate that these guest instructors didn't have the framework of goals that a more modern teach would.
ReplyDeleteNow that our educational system barely supports arts and arts education in elementary and high schools, there is a much greater opportunity for arts organizations to fill that gap and, while doing so, connect their "brand" to the genre of art they are associated with (ex: Opera Theatre of Pittsburgh=Opera, in the eyes of the students they reach through their outreach program). Obviously, a lot can be gained through arts outreach program, but in addition to what is gained, much is put at risk. Words like 'ethics' quickly get put into play. Complicated questions about who is more deserving the education/who is more disenfranchised get asked, but then the air starts to get thick. The conversation gets deep, and I am willing to bet that when it does, the members of the arts organization and/or the artist shrink back into the place that cheers: We are just trying to bring art to the people!
ReplyDeleteAnd now I am realizing that I am on a bit of rant. But I always get into the space when I think about Arts Outreach. Adre's comment above clarifies why, and the question I am grappling with, as an artist, is what do we do about it. I definitely think setting goals for the outreach must happen on the level of the administration, and I also think that a less fluffy approach needs to take place in terms of the education. Art is not 'fun.' To say that it is trivializes everything that it comes out of. Art comes out of our culture, it comes out of what it means to be together, it comes out of who we feel we are next to ourselves, the other, our hearts. It is not a game. It is a way of being with another, and this is a big, serious, contemporary question.
In order for art outreach programs to be relevant beyond ticket sales or accountable diversity through ticket sales, they need to speak to contemporary life. They need to address the questions in our culture (which it already does by the very fact of its necessity in our culture), and they need to be addressed in a direct way. The question about REPRESENTATION needs to be asked on the level of the administration and then the artist needs to figure out how she can best facilitate the students she is (out)reaching to represent him and herself. Ultimately, the artist does represent herself-her body and soul come into and out of the work-and so it is important the question of who the student is be taken into account in terms of the medium (ex: opera and indigenous American culture. The two questions that need to be asked are: 1. How are both the arts organization and the tribe served? 2. How is the young artist (student) going to better understand herself, and her contribution to the world?
All I have are questions, but sometimes it is the question that get us there.