Seeing the potential and necessity of art

On beautiful days like this, I find myself wanting to be outside at any cost, even if it means climbing up to my roof with an extension cord to type this post. Naturally, this quest for sun is not unique to me. My neighbors currently sit on the roof parallel with their guitars and voices projected out into the day, giving me the inspiration to keep on working. I've always found that it’s the free art and constant exposure to creative expression that makes the daily grind worth going through. But despite all the arts fans, there's still much contention in America about putting time and energy into activities whose impact we can't calculate in numbers or dollars. When for-profit organizations produce a product, they see the immediate result of financial gains and although surveys, stats, and scores do not tell a complete story, we can use them to locate the effects of education, counseling, healthcare, and sustainability. Art on the other hand, tends to get lost in the debate of funding because it is broad and hard to measure. Many pose the question of whether what we call extra curricular, cultural, pass time and emotional should be given the same government attention as services that determine, health, literacy and financial stability.

In my opinion, Americans often forget what they need. It makes sense that to be successful we need math, science, and English instruction; we need healthcare for emergencies; and we need to find a business niche to make a living; basically… we need the basics. But what about what we need to be happy? What works to both aid the forming of bonds and the forming of self? What can keep us connected to our heritage and able to track the growth or decline of a culture? To me these immeasurable aspects of being are just as vital to our individual, local, and international livelihood as the "basics" mentioned above.

I am beginning to see the benefits of art starting in both the non-profit and for-profit sectors. Working artists can do just as much for the economy as they can get out of it. During the Great Depression, 40,000 artists were put to work under the Works Progress Administration (Federal I). Because of it, they not only provided inspiration and created some of the most treasured art and music of our time, but just by working, could pull their families out of poverty and have money to help revitalize the economy. As you probably guessed, I am thinking about the opportunities that for-profit art has in today's world. Some of the most inspiring projects to me are ones like World Pulse Magazine’s “Marketplace” or Women’s World Banking that encourage third world women to turn the crafts they have always made into small businesses. Similarly, the art that has no cost is also changing the face of communities and since the start has worked hand in hand to further the missions of the non-profits. Non-profits like Precita Eyes in San Francisco’s Mission District are recruiting at risk youth and graffiti artists to further their mission of promoting cultural pride and innovation in the city through free art. As a result of these projects, artists continually give back to non-profits by warming up the blank walls of their work places with inspirational paintings that make all the difference in welcoming in community.

Something I took away from this week's reading of Nonprofit Nation is the fact that non-profit and for-profit organizations often produce very different types of art—non-profits can venture into high culture while for-profits usually stick to the profitable low-culture art. This got me thinking about how the economic gap between the upper and lower class is also a social and cultural gap. The readily available free or inexpensive art often is categorized as low culture (low not equating with bad) and includes comic books, graffiti, magazines, pop art, and mass media. This is in contrast to the high culture of scholarly plays, ballet, symphony, opera, and art museums. While low culture can be just as innovative and inspiring as high culture, it too often perpetuates the ideas of mass media into its faithful consumers (stereotypes, drug culture, crude humor, an obsession with appearance...). What we see here is a nation whose people are not only not working and going to school together but also are not sharing the same interests and cultural values—a problem that dictates what services we are willing to support for one another. It seems that the non-profit sector has the ability to bridge this gap by bringing low culture like pop art and murals into communal centers for everyone to see and simultaneously offering high culture theater and art at reasonable prices. This does not mean that I am advocating for one homogenous culture, but instead one where people can easily get in touch with cultures unlike there own and begin to form a dialogue and understanding with others. In essence, non-profits could give people the chance to enjoy all forms of art and culture and not have their exposure limited by location and/or social status. However in order for arts organizations to switch into the non-profit world, people must begin to see the importance of funding the arts.

Now that you've heard my perspective...What potential do you see in art? Are non-profits the best vehicle for spreading art or can you think of a better alternative? I would love to discuss this further.

Best,

Sarah