Obama and the Arts: Challenging Expectations

A few weeks ago, I addressed the impact of the financial downturn on the artistic community. As markets continue to vanish, both individual artists and larger institutions have struggled to maintain profits. Far from a recent phenomenon, many in the industry have felt the economic strain since early in 2008. As such, during his campagin, Barack Obama pledged to increase support for the arts, unveiling a nine point policy that would “reinvest,…publicly champion,…and expand" arts education, benefits and funding. Now into his presidency, he has repeatedly expressed his desire to “promote the importance of arts and arts education in America,” asserting that “the arts help to promote the economic development of countless communities.” In recent weeks, however, many within the creative profession have challenged whether Obama is living up to his campaign promises. In March, Congress passed legislation allotting $50 million in stimulus money for the National Endowment of the Arts, but there has been little headway since then. During last week’s Arts Advocacy Day (see right), representatives demanded increased government funding for the industry, publicizing the hearing under the headline “The Arts=Jobs.” In “Obama Stiffs the Arts,” Judith H. Dobrzynski thus expresses hesitation over Obama’s art policy, attacking his recent appointment of Chicago lawyer Kareem Dale as “arts czar,” a title which affords significant control over the industry and for which Dale is entirely unqualified. While outrage over the appointment has reached general consensus within the creative community, not all reactions to Obama have been entirely negative. In “Artists Need Jobs Too (And Democracies Need Artists),” Mitchell Aboulafia commends Obama’s support for the arts, referencing an article in the New York Times as evidence of the president’s growing favor within the industry. My responses to both these posts are provided below and may be found at their respective sites.

"Obama Stiffs the Arts"
Comment:

Your entry is both pointed and timely, vocalizing the frustration felt by many over the new administration’s stated arts policy. One of the many shocking realizations to come from last week's Arts Advocacy Day hearing was Robert L. Lynch’s testimony that “thirty years ago, the NEA received a modest 12 cents per $100 of non-military discretionary spending" and "today that is just 3 cents per $100.” Clearly, such figures are the result of years of government neglect. The appointment of Kareem Dale (see below, left) as “arts czar” is thus just another blow to an already disheartened industry. However, while the selection is unquestionably significant, the impact of Obama's decision has yet to be acknowledged. The president's own staff has suggested that Kale was only appointed to hold the position temporarily and will fill the seat until a proper replacement can be found. As such, your concerns seem a bit unjustified. It seems unlikely that the new appointee will ever command any real influence over the industry, the administration never having any intention of giving the position to such an unqualified candidate.

While this undoubtedly means an extended wait before the real "arts czar" emerges, even you admit that, “with the nation’s economic woes front-and-center, no one expected Obama to focus on the arts right away.” Thus, while officials like Anita Decker may not have a great deal of industry experience, deeming their appointments “deflating” is a bit premature. Those in such positions have yet to have any real influence on the market and the president has not had time to devote any real energy on the arts issue. After all, he has only just completed his first 100 days in office. Is it not, then, premature to be making the assertion that Obama has "stiffed" the arts? Even William Ivey, the former chair of the NEA, has a more favorable outlook on Obama's recent performance, praising the president for providing the creative community with a “direct West Wing connection.” While I appreciate your sentiments, it thus seems a bit premature to assess the success (or failure) of the new administration's policy.


"Artists Need Jobs Too (And Democracies Need Artists)"
Comment:

Your entry draws attention to a very relevant and pivotal issue. It is encouraging to read such a positive assessment of the president, even as he struggles to maintain approval ratings. Following up on campaign promises, the new president has made efforts to increase funding and support for the arts. With the current financial strain, such developments come at a time when convincing Washington to increase funding in any sector has been a struggle, even more so for the arts. Thus, I am interested for you to expand the reasons behind your support. While the New York Times article references several of Obama’s accomplishments, your excerpts draw heavily from the statements of non-Washington officials. In what ways have you seen progress in terms of government promotion of the arts? Do you really believe Obama will follow through with all of his campaign promises? While I would like to believe Obama will stay true to his word, it seems the president may have overextended himself. With layoffs continuing to mount and a rising national debt, he will have a difficult time convincing taxpayers to fund what is often deemed a frivolous expense. Though overturned, the February passage of the Coburn Amendment is a sobering message that many in the United States, even in Congress, view art as a recreational past time.

As such, though I agree that Obama has achieved “progress,” I am glad you chose to include the fact that “Washington officials still fail to recognize artists as workers.” Just last week, the president of Americans for the Arts pointed to a disturbing trend in the industry's financing, suggesting that government support has actually regressed over the past several years. According to transcripts, “If the NEA had simply maintained its 1979 percentage of discretionary funding, its 2008 budget would have been $613 million.” As of yet, the Obama administration has requested a NEA budget of only $205 million, a sum which includes $50 million in stimulus money. Nonetheless, while seemingly a dismal statistic, such numbers, far exceed the funds granted under the Bush administration. Thus, even in the current economic crisis, the proposal, at the very least, signals a shift in the right direction. As such, I am glad to see advocates giving the president some well deserved credit, even as he struggles to live up to others’ expectations.

E-Marketing the Arts: The Rise of Social Networking in the Creative Community

In my previous post, I considered two alternative perspectives on the state of the artistic community, offering favorable assessments of the market under generally bleak circumstances. As these entries indicate, patronage of the arts is persevering even in desperate financial times. However, as large scale purchases decrease, auction houses and galleries have found it increasingly difficult to maintain profits. While several institutions have simply been forced into closure, even prominent establishments like Cristie's and Sotheby's have mandated layoffs and budget tightening. With current constraints on traditional art forums, online capabilities are thus become increasingly important in maintaining the industry's viability. Despite attempts by many arts organizations to support an online creative community, the most profitable outlets have proven to be larger sites that cater to a broad demographic. Social networking sites have enabled a growing number of artists to diversify and expand their consumer base, resulting in increased sales even as the global economy worsens. Though many artists have expressed hesitation concerning an online creative presence, tools such as Facebook, Twitter and Second Life are becoming exceedingly helpful in reaching audiences.

Most importantly, profile-based sites such as Facebook have enabled a wide array of artists and institutions to find commercial success. Not only does the site allow established artists to reach wider renown, but also provides aspiring professionals the opportunity to self-promote. Unlike smaller websites such as VisualProgression and ArtMetal that are targeted specifically at creative individuals, social networking has allowed artists to reach diverse audiences at a phenomenal rate. Facebook alone has over 175 million active users, 70% of which live outside the United States. Contrary to public opinion, over half of Facebook subscribers are also outside of college and “the fastest growing demographic is those 35 and older.” As such, Facebook provides artists with a means of reaching both international and experienced buyers – those most likely to patronize the arts. With such astounding statistics, such sites have changed the face of the art market, leveling the playing field for even the most amateur of artists. With the current financial downturn, even larger institutions are exploring the new technology, using event pages in an effort to expand diminished audiences. The Walker Art Center is currently among the museums participating in the Facebook application ArtShare (see above right), a feature which allows users to display exhibited works on personal profile pages.

More recently, Twitter has also gained a following, similarly providing artists with a new marketing platform and allowing for easier and quicker updates. As with Facebook, the social networking site caters to a broad target audience, enabling artists to develop a large customer base and prompt wider recognition. Marketing that once required gallery sponsorship is now readily available for personal use. The growing importance of Twitter in the artistic community is reflected in the many published articles addressing online marketing as well as in its growth rate of 1382% over the last year. Prominent artists such as Yoko Ono, An Xiao and Doc Pop currently use the site along with institutions like the Saatchi Gallery and The Tate. According to Ruth Jamieson of The Guardian, Twitter has "democratised" the art community, providing followers of the site access to a once elite industry. In doing so, the website has proven beneficial to both audiences and artists, introducing users to a vast array of creative individual previously unfamiliar to them. With such beneficial new outlets at artists’ disposal, the use of such sites has become increasingly necessary in maintaining relevance and a competitive edge. As demand increases, failure to engage with these sites is to deny the new reality of the art market, an industry largely reliant on internet sales.

However, the usefulness of social networking extends beyond simply turning profits. Sites such as Second Life have provided artists with a new outlet to exert their creative energy. Within the virtual reality, individuals have managed to maintain steady incomes through the creation and sales of online works. Reflecting the growing importance of Second Life, the New York Times recently published an article featuring eight of the most prominent artists on the site, including Filthy Fluno and AM Radio. While both professional artists in "real life," they only rose to prominence through Second Life marketing. Artists Eva and Franco Mattes have also capitalized on the site's success, using their art to “blur the lines between [the] real and virtual.” Last year, the couple created the “13 Most Beautiful Avatars,” a collection of online creations that were displayed at the Postmasters Gallery in New York, translating Second Life sales into “real life” sales. However, for those interested in a purely online experience, the website is also home to hundreds of galleries, many of which are home to frequent openings and exhibitions (see left). Artists are able to use these opportunities to promote personal websites or sell their digital artworks. Though many of the over 220 galleries on Second Life are struggling, several artists have reached commercial success through the site. Dancoyote Antonelli consistently sells his works for 100,000 Lindens (US$375) and has sold an estimated five million Lindens worth of art (US$18,730.) While most artists opt to sell their works in galleries, the site also holds auctions in which art frequently fetches higher prices from collectors.

Nonetheless, while such online capabilities have repeatedly proven their success, many artists are hesitant to embrace the new technology. Despite the success of Facebook and Twitter among the 50 and older, there is a common misconception that experienced patrons “don’t do social networking.” For an industry largely reliant on older audiences, this has deterred many artists from creating an online presence. Other artists have avoided the sites, feeling the constant updates to be “mundane” and “hyperactive,” detracting from the art itself and becoming a source of “too much distraction.” However, in a time when traditional art forums are struggling, these tools have become exceptionally important for the individual artist and signal a new direction in the art market. While many analysts have declared the “death of art,” social networking sites prove the industry's ability to persevere under difficult circumstances. Even as galleries and auction houses continue to fail, Facebook, Twitter and Second Life are flourishing, providing artists with a direct connection with audiences. In failing to address these new sites, artists are excluding a major source of income and an opportunity to reach a wide audience with minimal effort. To exclude such sites from any marketing strategy is not only to deny one of the most profitable aspects of the art market, but to ignore the desires of an increasingly technologically savvy public. While social networking is often mistakenly viewed as trivial, these large sites have aided in saving the mid-level art market, providing artists with free and global exposure.

Resuscitating the Arts: Perspectives on the "Death" of Visual Culture

In a previous post, I examined the impact of the financial collapse on the creative community, arguing for increased government support and continued maintenance of private funding. As earlier stated, the economic downturn has proved devastating for the art market , threatening not only community based organizations but publicly funded institutions as well. Just last week the Metropolitan Opera was forced to place pair of Marc Chagall murals (see below, right) up as collateral on an existing loan. With unprecedented closures and thousands of forced layoffs, financial analysts and art historical commentators are predicting the end of the market’s viability. However, despite the predictability of depleted funds, cultural institutions are struggling to come to terms with the "death of art." While the current issues facing the creative community are clear, the longterm impact of the financial crisis is uncertain. Many are claiming the complete dissolution of the market while others have pointed to a decline in artistic output. Recent trends, however, seem to suggest early signs of recovery. This week, in a testament to the industry's perseverance, I consider alternative perspectives on the state of art. In “Is Art Dead? Is This the End?”, David Eubanks discusses the current climate of the creative enterprise, suggesting the market will adapt to new realities rather than destruct entirely. Similarly, Laura Meli’s “Back to the Future: The Armory Show 2009” investigates positive developments in the art community, namely focusing on New York's recent Armory Show. My responses to both of these posts are provided below and may be found at David Eubank’s On Art and the NY Art Beat Blog respectively.

"Is Art Dead? Is This the End?"
Comment:

Your post provides a unique and encouraging outlook on the art market's current state of affairs. The need to promote strong community support is vital in maintaining the industry's viability and profitability. However, while I agree that the future of the “Big Art Market” is under threat, designating value as “representational” or even “conceptual” seems a bit pre-emptive. Though certainly a valid point, the present devaluing of art is likely a temporary symptom of the financial crisis rather than a permanent development. Just last week, the Armory Show proved the perseverance of the market, attracting better than expected crowds and surprising sales. Declaring the so-called “Big Art Market” obsolete is thus premature. As your entry indicates, community interest is based on so-called “Real Market” values, superceding the momentary highs and lows of the stock exchange. However, your post ignores the “Real Market's” dependence on the “Big Art Market.” While visual culture provides educational value and holds community significance, artists rely on their patrons to survive - a group controlled by the “Big Art Market.” Thus, with both markets struggling, it is necessary to promote both community organizations and larger institutions.  Focusing your entry entirely on co-ops and internet outlets undermines the importance publicly funded organizations play in the art world. With over 5.7 million workers and a financial impact of $166.2 billion, it is vital communities work to preserve struggling establishments on every level.  

While I certainly agree increased support of community-based initiatives is necessary, expansion in the midst of a recession is, unfortunately, improbable. With the decline of private donations, the successful formation of new public agencies is simply implausible without government assistance. Your entry suggests the need to cater to patrons of the arts, yet you fail to consider that this financial base is diminishing. Without monetary support, how do you propose communities acquire the necessary start-up capital to form these organizations ? In solely discussing the economics of the industry, your post also does not take into account the impact the recession has had on artistic ouptut.  As I am sure you believe, the power of art moves beyond pure economics.  Thus, I am curious to hear your thoughts concerning the changing content of art. Recent articles suggest the need to develop new modes of representation and the demand to incorporate new subject matter to reflect current realities. An artist yourself, do you think the content of art will be impacted by the financial collapse? In looking at your assessment as well as similar posts from other authors, it seems that emerging trends have mistakenly been declared as finite changes in the art market.  While these assessments may be limiting, I do, however, appreciate a more positive stance on an improving situation.


"Back to the Future: The Armory Show 2009"
Comment:

In the current financial crisis, it is encouraging to read about a relatively positive development in the art world. Since many of the Armory Show's commentators have emphasized the diminished crowds and smaller sales, your initial focus on the galleries' prospective buyers and “heavily trafficked” aisles provides much needed assurance. It seems that despite the stress of the economic downturn, earnings were better than expected . Though the DOW plunged 7000 points last week, profits are projected to exceed 2008's total of $8.5 million in art sold. Organizers were undeterred by dismal projections, enhancing the  “size and scope” of the exhibition this year, introducing a new section on modern art and expanding from 160 to 177 galleries (see left).  In light of this, it seems particularly relevant to be discussing the Armory Show as it was initially created as a result of an economic downturn.  In 1994, when the economy was similarly strained, several dealers came up with the idea as a means of more easily promoting multiple galleries and drawing increased media and community attention.  The show's subsequent success led to an annual tradition, proving profitable even in our current crisis.

As such, it seems your article simplifies the issue by focusing primarily on statistical data.  Yes, the show made less than average sales, but you fail to consider that the show exceeded expectations.  Several galleries were able to use the opportunity to advertise unsold works from previous exhibitions while others strategized by displaying less expensive works.  Thus, despite the disappointing statistics, by all accounts, many are viewing the show as a sign of the market's continued viability.  According to New York gallerists, sales have increased in the past few weeks, suggesting that confidence is returning among patrons.  The show also provided increased exposure to individual artists - those suffering most from the financial collapse - and compensated for months of disappointing profits.  At a time when emerging artists are struggling most, this is enough to declare the show a success.  While I appreciate your decision to include both positive and negative results, your entry seems to take a relatively ambivalent and impersonal stance to the news.  What do you believe the importance of the Armory Show to be?  Do you think the show's relative success is symptomatic of a recovering market or is it simply a singular triumph in a still dire situation?  Despite the "slow days" and lack of "6 figure sales, I would argue that the show has instilled much needed confidence in the art market and provided profits for both galleries and artists.  With such a potentially significant impact, it seems disingenuous to reduce its significance to meaningless data.  

Art in Crisis: Maintaining a Creative Workforce in an Economic Maelstrom

After weeks of negotiations, the Obama-proposed $787 billion stimulus package was signed into law last Friday in an attempt to combat the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Though the bill is comprised of both tax cuts and new spending, one major segment of the economy was almost entirely excluded from the act: the arts. In an effort to "ensure that tax paper money [was] not lost on wasteful and non-stimulative projects," Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn (pictured right) proposed an amendment that aimed at preventing stimulus money from going towards the funding of artistic institutions. Organizations deemed unworthy of stimulus money were parks, museums, theaters and art centers. In a surprising decision, the Senate voted last week 73-24 to approve the revision with bipartisan support. With government working to bailout many other major American industries however, Congress failed to adequately explain its refusal to help one of the nation’s largest employers. While the effects of the yet-to-be enacted stimulus bill are still uncertain, the Senate’s decision to exclude the arts from the deal came as a blow to an already weak market.

Ignoring the deseperate please of arts advocacy groups, Coburn and his supporters defended the initiative by claiming that artistic funding failed to create jobs. However, with an estimated 5.7 million workers facing unemployment, the senator failed to acknowledge that the primary concern of the National Endowment for the Arts has been job creation. As such, the Coburn amendment sought to destabilize an already struggling industry through largely misleading claims. Not only does the industry employ millions of Americans, but also makes up one of the largest sectors of the U.S. economy. With the American economy on the verge of collapse, maintaining the arts is essential to fiscal recovery. Search the web and find a veritable breakdown of the many art institutions amid budgetary crisis. Los Angeles’s Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA) is on the brink of financial collapse and has already been forced to cut its relatively small workforce by 32 employees. A private institution, the museum has exceeded its projected annual budget and has been unable to rely on the dwindling donations of private donors. With few options keeping it from closure, museum directors have considered everything from a merger with the government-funded Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) to the auctioning of art from its collection. As early as November of last year, Museum Director Jeremy Strick was demanding that "the city step forward and offer the kind of financial support commensurate with the work being done." Unfortunately, MOCA’s dire situation is by no means unique. Hundreds of institutions such as the Austin Museum of Art and the Portland Arts Museum have also been forced into layoffs and budget tightening. Though attendance is steady, dwindling private donations have threatened an industry largely reliant on philanthropic contributions. As a result, endowment campaigns across the nation have been abandoned. The Coburn amendment would thus have only led the artistic community to greater financial disaster, adding to growing unemployment and threatening the future of the market.

Yet while such financial impacts can by no means be underestimated, the effects of the initiative on childhood education would have been equally damaging. In preventing creative institutions from gaining financial stability, Coburn ignored the vital role artistic organizations play in local economies and communities. As Merryl Goldberg of Americans for the Arts wrote earlier this year, "the arts are a field discriminated against and an easy target when times get tough." Yet "the arts are also what communities and individuals rely on in these exact same tough times." As such, more than ever, the arts provide a channel by which to communicate and explore deeper cultural understanding and experience. Exposure to innovative processes not only aids in development but creates a platform from which children may develop both critical minds and cognitive skills. Recent research has found that students who study the arts are four times more likely to be recognized for academic achievement and three times more likely to consistently attend class. While art is often mistakenly seen as an elite pastime, cultural institutions also allow for easy access to millions of Americans. LACMA alone offers over 400,000 visitors free or subsidized admission annually and, as popular tourist destinations, art museums employ over 250,000 Americans. With contributions of over $14.5 billion to the U.S. economy, the success of art institutions not only signals the profitability of the art market, but of Wall Street as well. An industry dependent on luxury spending, art sales decline when patrons become more frugal. As with every other business, the price of art rises and falls with the Dow.

Thus, when Americans for the Arts (pictured left) announced a large initiative to try and overturn the amendment, Congress finally awakened to the crisis at hand and recognized the need to provide monetary aid to a weakened industry. On February 13, 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed both the Senate and the House of Representatives, overturning the language put forth by the Coburn amendment and giving $50 million to the National Endowment for the Arts. In a time when the future of the industry remains in question, such actions are essential in maintaining one of the largest workforces in the U.S. economy and hopefully signal a more sympathetic government towards creative culture. Nonetheless, reviving the art market will take more than a simple increase in organizational funding. Exciting public interest in the arts will once again prove vital. With such a viable and important segment of our economy in crisis, it is imperative that Congress continue its support of the arts, most importantly by seeking to alleviate the negative image the Coburn amendment has cast on the funding of artistic agencies. The designation of the arts as "non-stimulative" has come at a time when creative institutions are struggling most. Recent auctions at Sotheby’s and Christy’s proved disastrous and countless institutions are seeking financial support and face possible closures. Even with the $50 million in stimulus money, questions remain as to the future of the art market and what impact the relatively small sum will have on maintaining the industry's viability.

Though the Coburn amendment was eventually overturned, the bill's brief passage reflects an alarming trend in Washington to overlook the arts. While President Obama has vowed to increase government support of the arts, it remains to be seen whether the new administration will live up to its campaign promises. Just last week, the president of Americans for the Arts pointed to a disturbing trend in the industry's financing, suggesting that government support has actually regressed over the past several years. According to transcripts, “If the NEA had simply maintained its 1979 percentage of discretionary funding, its 2008 budget would have been $613 million.” As of yet, the Obama administration has requested a NEA budget of only $205 million, a sum which includes the $50 million in stimulus money. Such failures continue to impact the success of the industry, despite the invaluable impact the arts bring both to America’s financial sector and educational system. With $29.6 billion in tax revenues and $166.2 billion in profits, artistic patronage not only preserves the creative community but is essential to American financial recovery. Continued insistence on government funding and increased personal donations are both vital in ensuring the success of America's artistic community without further damage to its support system.