I’m not sure that most people really grasp the extent to which the nonprofit arts sector was built on the backs of passionate and committed individuals who went without a living wage, job security, healthcare, and pensions, and who are, today continuing to pay the piper for shouldering these burdens. Yes, Ford, Rockefeller, Mellon, Wallace, Gates, et al were incredibly important, but the sector exists not because of foundation support, but because of a brilliant and committed workforce whose contributions dwarf conventional philanthropy. In my opinion, the arts sector could not and would not be built now because there are not enough of those people around any longer. I write this having been there, having known those founders and builders. Our entire culture owes them a debt that will never be repaid, and their contributions deserve more than the occasional obligatory comment. People forget the pregnant Zelda Fichandler who stood in line in the sweltering heat and humidity on the last day before deadline to make her application for a land grant in Southwest Washington, DC for the land upon which Arena Stage would be built and now stands. There should be statues of her here, and I doubt there ever will be.
Thank you, Neill. And yes, yes, yes! The general flaw in systems-level histories (which Kreidler was writing) is that they discount or ignore the role of extraordinary individuals who actually made things happen. And, of course, the general flaw in "great people" histories is that they tend to underplay the systems and social supports that made it possible for those great people to do great things.
I think the best histories explore the conversation between those two extremes – significant shifts in systems open adjacencies for intuitive and determined people; and/or intuitive and determined people reshape systems through grit and grace.
I didn't do that in this post. And I'm grateful that you helped round it out.
Let's not forget the rise of corporate philanthropy for the arts, which barely existed before the '70s. That started with the tobacco and oil companies, for obvious reasons, then spread like wildfire. (Hard to believe that Exxon once employed someone with the title "Senior Arts Adviser, whose job it was to decide how Exxon spent its corporate dollars.)
By the early '80s, most major corporations had a dedicated philanthropy "department," with formal guidelines for applying, etc. (As an interesting sidebar, these departments were overwhelmingly staffed by women and minorities, groups who had entered the corporate world in great numbers.)
I assume you'll de discussing at some point about the incredible "disconnect" in the laws of supply and demand, ie., at the exact time when these huge levels of financial support became available audiences for the arts started to decline.
Thanks for the deep dive. Interesting to look back at where we came from as we look to discover where we are going.
I’m not sure that most people really grasp the extent to which the nonprofit arts sector was built on the backs of passionate and committed individuals who went without a living wage, job security, healthcare, and pensions, and who are, today continuing to pay the piper for shouldering these burdens. Yes, Ford, Rockefeller, Mellon, Wallace, Gates, et al were incredibly important, but the sector exists not because of foundation support, but because of a brilliant and committed workforce whose contributions dwarf conventional philanthropy. In my opinion, the arts sector could not and would not be built now because there are not enough of those people around any longer. I write this having been there, having known those founders and builders. Our entire culture owes them a debt that will never be repaid, and their contributions deserve more than the occasional obligatory comment. People forget the pregnant Zelda Fichandler who stood in line in the sweltering heat and humidity on the last day before deadline to make her application for a land grant in Southwest Washington, DC for the land upon which Arena Stage would be built and now stands. There should be statues of her here, and I doubt there ever will be.
Thank you, Neill. And yes, yes, yes! The general flaw in systems-level histories (which Kreidler was writing) is that they discount or ignore the role of extraordinary individuals who actually made things happen. And, of course, the general flaw in "great people" histories is that they tend to underplay the systems and social supports that made it possible for those great people to do great things.
I think the best histories explore the conversation between those two extremes – significant shifts in systems open adjacencies for intuitive and determined people; and/or intuitive and determined people reshape systems through grit and grace.
I didn't do that in this post. And I'm grateful that you helped round it out.
Let's not forget the rise of corporate philanthropy for the arts, which barely existed before the '70s. That started with the tobacco and oil companies, for obvious reasons, then spread like wildfire. (Hard to believe that Exxon once employed someone with the title "Senior Arts Adviser, whose job it was to decide how Exxon spent its corporate dollars.)
By the early '80s, most major corporations had a dedicated philanthropy "department," with formal guidelines for applying, etc. (As an interesting sidebar, these departments were overwhelmingly staffed by women and minorities, groups who had entered the corporate world in great numbers.)
I assume you'll de discussing at some point about the incredible "disconnect" in the laws of supply and demand, ie., at the exact time when these huge levels of financial support became available audiences for the arts started to decline.
This is terrific context, Andrew!
Arts Managed is rapidly becoming, not just a valuable resource, but an invaluable one.