Have you liked The Clyde Fitch Report on Facebook and followed us on Twitter?

Comment using your Facebook ID

Facebook comments

Don't have a Facebook? No Problem.
  1. AnneAnne01-31-2011

    Interesting- although the lack of differentiation between different business models in the arts (including those of producing/non-producing organisations etc) and the capacity of different art forms to get ticket revenue (people habitually pay to go the theatre but not a gallery- unless a big temporary exhibition).

    Until then this is really just a blame game not a real debate.

  2. John HudsonJohn Hudson01-31-2011

    It seems to me Leonard that the key issue is the absence of markets, and thus the absence of ways to monetize important arts assets in terms of their long term value. I was horrified by the statistic yesterday by NEA chairman that this country has three Arts Administrators for every artist. http://www.arts.gov/artworks/?p=5402 Administrators do not enable artists to capitalize the value of their work, markets do, by making the value of work evident and visible and allowing it to find capital. I was very struck by an article in today’s New York Times by Michael Cieply ‘A soundtrack to invest in’ which describes a new way in which creators of movie music can find financing. That is what I mean by the infrastructure for a new business model, which allows a futures market to be created in an arts asset.

  3. Heather BeasleyHeather Beasley02-01-2011

    Following you here from Diane’s blog–to clarify, I am very interested in “questioning the solidity and sanity of the non-profit business model”, and am looking forward to reading the sources you mention to learn more about potential alternatives. My original comment was intended to indicate that arts organizations can’t generate or switch to new, successful business models in a vacuum. Funders exacerbate the problem because of the data many of them demand, and currently base their decisions on. I’d turn that problem back onto our arts organizations, and ask: how can we turn the discussion to evaluating ourselves on metrics other than the economic model? How can we create explicit models for measuring production quality and creative output? Rocco Landesman’s blog entry here:(http://www.arts.gov/artworks/?p=5402) touches on this issue when he describes the “the too limited definition of success in use by many theaters today (attendance + revenue + national attention).” We need first to generate our own definitions of artistic success, then find ways to encourage arts supporters to switch to or incorporate those metrics into making funding decisions.