Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

CITY

City

Making Art Matter: A Plan to Redesign the Department of Cultural Affairs


Over the last year, a number of arts professionals have met in small groups to discuss how the city might better use its resources to support the cultural community. One of the constant themes is the need to change the Department of Cultural Affairs. Final recommendations of this city-wide planning effort will not be complete until next spring. But here is one blueprint for a new cultural agency.

A new Department of Cultural Affairs should have a broad mission aimed at supporting, nurturing and developing the professional arts industry. It should:

1. support the creativity of the city's artists
2. provide resources for economic development within the arts industry
3. protect the diverse cultural heritage of the city
4. sustain both mid-sized and well established cultural groups
5. encourage and nurture new, emerging art forms and smaller arts groups
6. promote arts education and act as a partner in effort to expand arts education in the public school system
7. develop access to the arts throughout the city

There is an assumption that the city's current financial support is targeted to professional arts of high quality. Since Cultural Affairs does not utilize an evaluation system based on artistic excellence for most of its contracted funds, that belief is not justified.

Two things are clear in the current system. It serves nether the professional non-profit arts groups, nor professional artists well, and it places the emerging or gifted amateur in competition with the professionals. This has the effect of lowering the public relations value of city support to professional arts groups when they solicit private funding sources, while creating a paperwork burden for the emerging groups.

Agreeing that Cultural Affairs should focus on professional arts and artists would clarify its purpose, as well as limit its role. Emerging groups, preprofessional, and gifted amateurs, if supported by taxpayers, should be funded through a local, decentralized process. Some argue that these kinds of activities should not receive taxpayer funding; others feel that many of these individuals and groups offer important local resources.

A new Cultural Affairs should use an evaluation system based on artistic merit to ensure that tax funds provide the very best to every citizen. The expectation of high quality art is as much the right of every New Yorker as safe streets. Mediocre art does not contribute to a civil society; quality art can and does.

Equally important, a new Cultural Affairs must distribute funds equitably across all five boroughs, within and among racial and ethnic groups, and between those organizations in city owned buildings and the rest of the arts groups. The factors complicating that effort are many, but the most difficult is simply that roughly 75 percent of the professional arts groups in the city are located in Manhattan. Even within Manhattan, arts groups are not widely distributed. The majority are located below 57th Street.

The low level political bickering that pits Manhattan against the other four boroughs is particularly detrimental to the arts. Many of those who work in Manhattan-based non-profit groups live elsewhere. They take their paychecks home to that other borough. In addition, substantial numbers of the arts groups in Manhattan clearly have citywide audiences and programs. However, it is also a legitimate concern of other boroughs that their much larger population be fairly treated.

One solution is to emulate a restriction placed on state funding for the arts, which requires a minimum per capita amount be spent in each county or borough. A per capita requirement provides a base line level of funding for everyone. Funding above that base line amount is common in many counties depending on the level of arts funding. A similar process could be devised for the five boroughs.

Access, equity, merit-based evaluations, support for arts education and protection of the diverse cultural heritage of the city are rational ideas that many can, and do, support. Suggesting that a new Cultural Affairs provide funding for individual artists would be widely welcomed in the arts, but elected officials can be expected to have a different reaction. Artists cannot be counted on to adhere to the status quo; they challenge, disturb and sometimes shock. One would hope that this city that calls itself the cultural capital of the world is adult enough to put all that in perspective and recognize the without artists, we would not be able to make that boast.

Almost as disconcerting to many, within the arts and elsewhere, is the notion that a new Cultural Affairs should promote economic development in the arts. The city's usual approach is to support culture because it attracts tourists, and claim that as economic development. Cultural tourism is important, but it requires a thriving cultural industry. To provide funds for marketing but not for general operating costs is like taking out an ad to sell a house, but neglecting to fix the leaky roof or replace the ancient furnace.

Yet every economic study about the cultural sector shows that it is a industry which employs tens of thousands of people and attracts creative talents useful in other industries. Public officials fret and worry about the real estate sector, Wall Street, the construction industry, Silicon Alley, biotech, etc, etc. Tax incentives to stay in the city, to relocate, upgrade, and expand are commonplace approaches in order to keep the jobs in those industries in the city. Not so in the arts. The Joffrey Ballet left town with no discernible concern from the city—Ès elected officials. Only 80 jobs, but a telling example of a blind eye.

The estimated 1000 professional non-profit arts groups in the city are almost uniformly understaffed. Speaking hypothetically, the city could allocate funds for one job per group at an average of $45,000 per person for $45 million per year. That is a paltry sum compared to the tax breaks provided to a number of large corporations over the past few years. Since artists and arts groups create products that add to the economy, they also earn a substantial amount of their annual budgets. Enhancing their ability to increase their product results in greater overall wealth for the city -- just like new jobs do in other industries.

Economic development treats the arts groups as the entrepreneurial business they are, albeit with an unusual product. It is an investment approach; not a hand-out. It could also do much to overcome the thirty five year history of inadequate and meager public funding that has left this industry perpetually undercapitalized. The latter is a major factor in the fiscal instability plaguing most non-profit arts groups, and every level of government has contributed to that condition by its short sighted funding policies.

Giving a new Cultural Affairs economic development responsibilities could also mean paying serious attention to the commercial arts. Many in the non-profit arts fear this. The resources of the commercial arts, and their largely unfettered ability to contribute political dollars, are not insignificant. But the intertwining of commercial and non-profit arts is increasing, and in any case, the commercial arts also contribute to the well being of the city. As it stands now the city does deal with the commercial arts, but on an ad hoc basis. Priorities about the use of resources and expectations as to results might benefit everyone.

A public policy debate is needed on these and other issues affecting the arts. Many within the arts are intent on seeing that the upcoming mayoral and City Council elections provide a long awaited opportunity for that debate.

 

Has New York Become the Art of the Impossible for Young Artists?


It is 1990 in a college dorm somewhere in California, and a student about to graduate proudly declares, I'm an artist, so I'm moving to New York City. This sounded reasonable then. New York City was the first home to artists in America, and in the twentieth century it became for artists something closer to the center of the universe. In 1990, according to the 1990 United States Census, there were 123,000 artists working and living here.

Fast forward to today. New York City still beckons. But now it is a different city. Only the naĂťve would expect to make a living as an artist; our college graduate knows she will have to find a day job. She also knows she is unlikely to find a place in Manhattan.

That still leaves four very lovely boroughs. But an apartment even in the "outer" boroughs for low-income people is very hard to come by. A move to Williamsburg three or four years ago was possible. Today, the middle class has arrived. Another concern for the young artist, approximately two thirds of whom are women, is that she sees moving to the poorer neighborhoods of this city as a potentially high-risk choice.

So, the question is: will she wind up coming to the city at all?

The results of the 2000 Census are not in yet, but there is some evidence to suggest that she will not.

"In the years that I've been here," says Paul Basista, the executive director of the Graphic Artists Guild, "the core of the New York chapter was originally Manhattan based. Not now. They're in Hoboken, or Williamsburg, or leaving."

Concrete statistical data is difficult to obtain. Artists are not joiners, and there are few guilds, like the one for graphic artists, to keep track of their members.

But one hint of the degree of change comes from the applications for artists fellowships from the New York Foundation for the Arts. From 1992 through 2000, four out of the five boroughs experienced a decrease in the number of artists applying. Manhattan decreased 31 percent, the Bronx 41 percent, Queens 15 percent, and Staten Island 42 percent. The only borough to show an increase was Brooklyn, and it was a tiny two percent, which does nothing to compensate for the losses in the rest of the city. Since a fellowship is a steadily desired goal for any artist, a decrease in applicants of this magnitude is a clear sign that the artists have moved elsewhere.

We are losing the people, in other words, who supply the base for our Off-Broadway theaters, the downtown visual arts scene, the small dance venues. We are losing writers, poets, sculptors, musicians, composers, photographers -- all of whom are also part of the commercial economy, and not just as waiters. Painters do illustrations for books. Writers write book jacket blurbs and edit corporate in house newsletters, or spend years at publishing companies. Photographers and graphic artists are the backbone of the advertising industry's visual output. Musicians abound in the computer industry.

It is hard to argue for housing for the well educated "volunteer poor," as one past city administration referred to artists, when such large numbers of involuntarily poor New Yorkers are homeless or living in sub-standard housing.

But unless the federal, state and city address the housing problems of New York, we can expect the next decade to show a diminution in the one commodity without which the arts cannot survive: talented new artists

Norma Munn is the chairwoman of the New York City Arts Coalition, a citywide advocacy group. She is also president of the Artists Community Federal Credit Union, and is a former chairwoman of The City Club of New York.

Art for Politics: The Museum of Modern Art Strike


The teary blonde is a familiar image to lovers of modern art. But outside the Museum of Modern Art these days, Roy Lichtenstein's well-known print, "Crying Girl" has an added feature, a cartoon bubble that has her saying: "MoMA's base salary is below poverty level."

The image has been appropriated by the members of the Professional and Administrative Staff Association, or PASTA. The strike by PASTA workers against the Museum of Modern Art, or MoMa, is now well into its third month.

The two sides differ on the effect of the strike. Glenn Lowry, the director of the museum, said that the strike was having "no impact" on operations and that "attendance was up" since it began. The union says that is not true, and points to several canceled events, including a major fundraiser and at least one outdoor "Summergarden" concert.

Both have filed charges of unfair practices with the National Labor Relations Board. The two sides have not talked face-to-face since April.

Though under the umbrella of the United Auto Workers, PASTA is an unusual union in several ways. No similar unions even exist at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Guggenheim and the Whitney. What other union would mobilize protesters, dress them in evening gowns, and have them approach guests on the way to the museum for David Rockefeller's birthday party?

PASTA represents bookstore clerks earning $17,000 as well as curators earning three times that much. Many members have advanced degrees; some have more than one.

"I have a fabulous boss and a great job. And no one works here to get rich," explains striker Cristina Grillo, who works in the publications department. "But how much of your life can you give up?" She is striking over fears that health benefits will be cut, a charge that Lowry denies.

In addition to health care, other issues in contention include wages, job security, and what people in the labor field refer to as agency shop. Starting salaries for PASTA members are the lowest out of MoMA's six unions. They want five percent a year; the museum is offering three percent. Workers are also worried about their jobs when the museum closes its Manhattan site for a major $650 million renovation in two years. Union members want their jobs guaranteed after the reopening; the museum wants flexibility pending any reorganization in the new space. Agency shop is perhaps the most difficult issue. At the moment, membership in PASTA is voluntary; about two-thirds of those in eligible jobs are members. Agency shop would compel everyone in a union job to pay union dues.

As it is, the union itself is internally divided. About half the 250 members are not on strike. Some never went out. Others, especially in curatorial positions, have returned to their jobs -- allegedly under management pressure.

Joshua Freeman, a labor historian at Queens College and the author most recently of "Working Class New York: Life and Labor Since World War II," sees the strike at the Museum of Modern Art as unusual for New York City's cultural community, and unlikely to influence it.

"However," he says, "this strike is interesting within the larger labor movement, where you see a renewed interest by professionals in unionization, like doctors and graduate students. At nonprofit institutions, it less a money issue, more one of respect."

At MoMA it is both.

"I'm in this for the long haul," says Cristina Grillo on the picket line. Then she points to a huge inflatable rat - the labor movement's mascot - that watches over the strikers ever day. In its puffy claws are signs that read "We Are On An Employee Strike" in English and five other languages.

Rhonda Zangwill is a writer, editor and teacher in New York City. She does not claim to be a critic, but she knows what she likes. She has been published in various special interest and trade journals, even some that are still in existence.



Print Friendly and PDF

Editor's Choice


Gotham Gazette: New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
Gotham Gazette: 
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
Gotham Gazette: 
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Gotham Gazette: 
City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years