Author: Douglas McLennan

Selling Out? Why Is That Always A Bad Thing?

We’re all familiar with the way the artistic life gets romanticized as a struggle, but it’s time to put this harmful stereotype to rest; some may be happy waiting tables, asking their friends to support their Kickstarter campaigns or taking every odd gig in hopes they’ll finally get noticed or “make it.” But it’s not the only way. “Selling out,” when it enhances our work without compromising our creativity or our values, is a good thing, and putting a priority on revenue is not the same as betraying our principles. Indeed, nothing compromises our principles more than not having the resources to promote them.

Experimental Music, Listenability And Progress (Much To Say)

“The history of the French salons in the 19th century, and of the early reactions to musical and literary modernism, has made people aware of how easy it is to miss the true creative product, and to exalt the dead and the derivative in its stead. The safest procedure for the anxious bureaucrat is to subsidize music that is difficult, unlikely to be popular, even repugnant to the ordinary musical ear. Then one is sure to be praised for one’s advanced taste and up-to-date understanding. Besides, if a work of music is easy to assimilate and clearly destined to be popular it does not need a subsidy in any case.”

After Oakland Fire, Cities Around America Are Evicting Artists In Sub-Code Spaces

In Baltimore, for example: “We have a shortage of those spaces,” he said of properties where artists can live, work or perform. “This is a great arts city, and it needs to continue to be that way. No one wants Baltimore to become like D.C., where there are no artists who can afford the rent. If we don’t get a space out of this, then that’s basically Baltimore City telling us they don’t want us to exist.”

The Campaign That Made Marshall McLuhan Famous (A Study In Fame)

“Understanding Media garnered a few mainstream print reviews upon publication, but McLuhan’s break came in early 1965, when a pair of San Francisco prospectors — one, Gerald Feigen, a physician, the other, Howard Gossage, an ad-agency executive — “discovered” McLuhan and promptly arranged to visit the Canadian in Toronto. Feigen and Gossage were self-fashioned avant-gardists, using profits from their business consulting firm for “genius scouting”; the doctor read Understanding Media and alerted his partner. Together they plotted a full-fledged publicity rollout, starting with cocktail parties in New York City with media and publishing figures.”

Orchestras Are Charities? Not Compared To Museums

The estimable Adrian Ellis writes about potential pressures on New York’s major art museums in the Trump era, warning about potential tax changes and financial instability:

The outlook for New York’s largest art museums is a little unsettling. A Trump presidency is anxiety-inducing not because of any direct financial impact, but because of its potential impact on the world economy, and therefore on New York philanthropy and tourism. Perhaps more significantly, a culture war between scapegoated elite liberal and humanities institutions and a populist presidency seems likely. This climate may in turn affect both their overall appeal to the narrowing band of philanthropists and put at risk the fiscal privileges they enjoy under section 501(c)(3) of the federal tax code.

But what caught my eye is one of the accompanying charts showing what percentage of their budgets New York’s major museums earn in revenue:

Yes, that’s right – even charging $25 admission, the Whitney only earns EIGHT percent of its budget from admissions. The Met is close behind at 12 percent and MoMA is at 17 percent.

Compare this to data about symphony orchestras, released a few weeks ago. On average, earned income accounts for an average 40 percent of  orchestra budgets. In fact, one of the key headlines in the report was that for the first time philanthropic income exceeded earned income making orchestras “charities”, in the words of the New York Times.

Arts business models are constantly adjusting. The financial mix that was considered healthy 20 years ago is different than what is now considered normal. One key factor is balancing the cost of attending (ticket price) with accessibility. Is $25 “accessible” for a museum? Is $150 for an orchestra seat? Why not $300? Or $5?

The point is that they’re all philanthropic models. The only question is how much of a subsidy can be justified or practically raised. And, as earned income declines as a percentage, that is increasingly a political question about who we want our audiences to be.

What The Oakland Ghost Fire Tragedy Says About Need For Artist Spaces

“If we need art in our lives — and I am thinking not only of painting and sculpture but also of music and literature and performance and entirely new forms of expression yet to be invented — then we certainly must have places where the constant fear of eviction does not stifle every generative urge, where creators can share and encourage each other’s growth, where the outsider feels safe to live according to their true nature.”