Category

Art & Social Change

Don’t Just Show Me The Money – The Value of Art as Experience

By | Art & Social Change, Art That Counts | 10 Comments

In a single visual, this is pretty much everything that’s wrong to me about how we talk about about the impact of art and arts organizations. Granted, I myself have highlighted efforts that quantify the impact of art in this way, mainly because it so dominates the research of what makes art powerful and, in the eyes of funders, worthy.

But I’ve also written a lot in this space about finding a better way.

Economic impact is pretty low-hanging fruit in terms of data related to arts and impact. Money and jobs are easily quantifiable and pretty clearly Good Things the arts should line up to take credit for. But is it why we make art? Why we subscribe to theater seasons, attend art museums or listen to music? As Ben Cameron of the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation asks in the foreward to Counting New Beans: Intrinsic Impact and the Value of Art:

…do artists really create work to leverage additional dollars for the local economy? Do audiences really go to the theater to drive local SAT scores higher?

It’s obvious that we do not, and reports like Counting New Beans do the hard work of establishing why people seek out arts experiences and what they gain by doing so. The study summarized in Counting New Beans looked at 18 theaters in 6 regions and, instead of focusing on their work’s extrinsic values—like the economic indicators above—established categories of intrinsic value and researched those.

This distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic isn’t new; Gifts of the Muse (PDF full report) attempted to provide what Ian David Moss calls a “grand unifying theory” of the benefit of arts back in 2004, exploring instrumental/extrinsic and intrinsic benefits as they had been discussed and researched to date. The research outlined in Counting New Beans builds upon this, quantifying audience experience in areas like:

  • Anticipation (“How much were you looking forward to this performance?”)
  • Captivation (“How absorbed were you…?”)
  • Post-performance Engagement (“Did you leave the performance with questions you would have liked to have asked the actors, director or playwright?”)

These are intrinsic values, the transformative emotional, social and intellectual experiences that result when we view art. They’re hard to get at and quantify because audience members aren’t always able to articulate their experience (i.e., great art may render someone speechless, which is an amazing feat as an artist and a contraindicated one as a researcher).

These values can be difficult to summarize in a single measure of impact, unlike the dollar signs above. Some works are connected to emotionally vs. intellectually, some works are calls to action, others result in a sense of familiarity or connection. As a result, some of the survey tools used produce both qualitative data about how audience members were impacted (e.g., “How did you feel after this performance?”) and quantitative data about the degree of impact ( e.g., weighing the emotional impact of a performance on a scale of 1-5). The resulting qualitative data lets arts organizations know if the audience left feeling sad or hopeful, while the quantitative data establishes how deeply the work made the audience feel or empathize (regardless of the exact feeling).

While Counting New Beans focused on live theater performances (and my examples above followed suit), the study of intrinsic impact isn’t limited to theaters. A multidisciplinary study in Liverpool included theaters, museums, an orchestra, and other arts groups. I’d be grateful to hear from any local groups using intrinsic values data, either in describing their work or in assessing grantees. As I try to argue above, I think it’s a stronger depiction of the benefits of arts in our lives and provides arts organizations clearer and more actionable feedback than simple economic indicators.

Museums, Technology, and Money on the Table

By | Art & Social Change, Of Love and Concrete | 2 Comments

Digital technology is all the rage in art galleries and museums, or at least the thought that we should all be using it. But placing an iPad next to a priceless object with the exact contextual information that could be conveyed on a plaque is not an effective use of technology. It is merely the same old idea in a new medium. Worse than that, it lacks the appreciation of what the new medium can do. When used the right way, technology does truly present an opportunity to bring an old institution like a museum into the 21st century and provide greater access to human understanding.

I am pleased to say that I have not seen the offending iPad example in person. However, in conversations with people in social change fields, including museums, I have certainly cringed at the presentation of “innovative” ideas for technology deployment that even my grandmother would consider dated. Yes, it is a step further to use a screen to convey rich media (video, pictures) but this still leaves so much unsaid and undone. These are supercomputers not analog televisions. Computers, phones, notebooks and more could open up numerous opportunities for an institution like a museum.

Those opportunities converge on three key concepts: unexpected relationships, human relationships, and money.

In very simple terms, computers collect data and return data. That data can be stored, manipulated and analysed in a variety of ways between input and output. An institution has the opportunity to program a computer to prompt a certain response from an audience and provide feedback. For instance, an application on an electronic tablet next to an object could lead a user through a series of questions. Based on the response to the questions, the computer could provide more information that is targeted to that audience member and therefore more relevant and engaging.  Or the application could make recommendations on other objects or exhibits in the museum that might be of interest. The computer could expand horizons of the audience member by making connections they would not otherwise have made.

Along with algorithms to create opportunities for personal discovery, technology could heighten connections to other humans. Assuming data is collected, there is an opportunity for it to be stored and communicated. I think a quirk in being human is our fixation to know where we stand in relation to others. We enjoy knowing what other people think, and if nothing else we love knowing how we compare. We enjoy reading comments on blog posts (hint hint) because they give us new perspectives and may convince us we are not crazy after all. Learning what other people are experiencing in relation to objects could be a powerful enhancement of human understanding and learning.

Finally I think museums are missing a significant revenue opportunity. Technology provides easy access to information from your audience. Input into a computer can tell you a lot about the person putting the data into the device. Completely anonymous answers to questions that heighten the experience an individual has on a cultural field trip could be valuable. The data collected could expose what the audience is thinking and what they value. If you know what someone holds dear, you likely have the opportunity for a financial exchange.

Technology is a powerful tool when it is deployed to it fullest potential. It could help museums fulfill their mission and put some money in the bank.

IMAGE CREDIT. [Freemake.com].

#SaveBmore — Listen first, Listen hard

By | #SaveBmore, Art & Social Change, Art That Counts | 7 Comments

For the past few weeks, ChangeEngine’s #SaveBmore campaign has been asking what solutions could transform Baltimore into a thriving place for ALL its citizens rather than the usual tech evangelism or luxury development gospel we usually hear. As much as I’ve enjoyed reading and considering all the posts, here and on Facebook and Twitter, that have been part of the campaign, I had a lot of pause about how to best contribute. Surprisingly, the stumbling block wasn’t the focus of my articles here—art and its measurable impact—but approaching the question at all. What am I attempting to save Baltimore from or for? How do we prioritize the city’s issues with crime, education, its budget? Also, in highlighting some potential solutions, which perspectives aren’t being heard, which problems aren’t being addressed?

Stop, Collaborate and Listen

Photo by George Kelly via Flickr

I thought then not about how art or creative placemaking can #SaveBmore, but what skills those practitioners have honed that could benefit everyone looking to improve this city and, along with it, the sense of community within Baltimore. One of the things I most respect about creative placemaking is that it’s not about dropping art on an unsuspecting neighborhood or community; it’s about engage groups and listening to them.

To say that a person feels listened to means a lot more than just their ideas get heard. It’s a sign of respect. It makes people feel valued.”
— DEBORAH TANNEN, author and Professor of Linguistics, Georgetown University

With all this in mind, I sent out a request to a group of Baltimore artists who often work collaboratively and whose work I’m familiar with and respect. Specifically, I introduced the idea of #SaveBmore and asked what their work had taught them about listening.

Community Engagement/Empowerment

 

I cannot do this job alone

In order to create exhibitions that are relevant to the communities I am working with, I need to listen. I cannot just listen, I need to collaborate with others in order to implement their ideas to create a meaningful exhibition. Impactful exhibitions allow for that dialogue to continue after the exhibition is over with in order to build stronger and more unified communities. As a curator, I cannot do this job alone.
MICHELLE GOMEZ, artist, curator

Share wealth resources space information etc

I am struck by the term save bmore. To save means to rescue or protect. It reminds me of colonization when Europeans came into indigenous countries save the savages from themselves. Not. It should be called sharebmore. Share wealth, resources, space, information etc.
There is a divide in bmore between haves and have nots and until we address the real issues of racism, classism, poverty gentrification we are just spinning our wheels with our head in the sand.
—SHEILA GATSKINS, artist

Idealism & vision alone cannot solve the problem

By being involved in the Baltimore theatre scene, I’ve come to realize the beautiful multiplicity of artistic voices this city has. Theatre is also such a wonderful example of collaboration. You need the designers, actors, director, crew and company to all work together, and though it’s a creative process, logistics are KEY (which is why We LOVE Stage Managers). Idealism and vision alone cannot solve the problem. Theatre cannot exist without its audience; so on a larger scale, what sort of Baltimore do we want to “stage” and produce for people to view?
SARAH WEISSMAN, Marketing Director at Glass Mind Theatre & theatre artist

I love the diversity of opinions and discourse in these responses and know there are more voices out there to be heard; I invite you to comment about your experiences with collaboration and problem solving and what lessons you’ve learned about listening along the way–as well as your overall response or solutions for #SaveBmore.

Additionally, the work of listening is actually hard work, and I don’t recommend it without acknowledging that. We live in a culture that says “The squeaky wheel gets the grease” and applauds action, speaking out and rarely the individual or group who pauses to take things in. It’s a common communication struggle—in collaboration, in the workplace and in our personal relationships—that people are either interrupting or busy thinking about what they want to say next and not actively listening. However, I think we do better when considering these larger issues—if not always—to pause more and persuade less. Listen to what is being said, but also what is unsaid, who is not speaking or present. Improving or even saving Charm City cannot be done alone, as so aptly expressed by Michelle Gomez, and, therefore, requires listening.

Art: Sharing the Soul of Another

By | Art & Social Change, Of Love and Concrete | 4 Comments

I did not expect Bill Drayton, the “father” of Social Entrepreneurship, to describe empathy as the product he most wants to deliver in the twilight of his career. Reducing poverty certainly. Decreasing recidivism sure. Changing campaign finance, maybe. But to hear the squishy idea of empathy be the focus of an enterprising change maker, was surprising.

As I reflect, the disruption of my perspective was the sort that drives meaningful change. It was probably like the experience of hearing the Gatesian/Jobsian vision for home computing in the 1970’s. It feels wrong yet it is just jarring and crazy enough to be right. With a focus on empathy, Drayton is looking at the root of many of the serious problems in a social setting. Empathy is a powerful component of justice. And three years ago I had not heard anyone reference it with regard to societal change.

Empathy, according to Merriam Webster, is the the feeling that you understand and share another person’s experiences and emotions. It is not a solution to the problem being experienced by another or even a projection of one’s own concepts of how someone feels. It is connecting to another person as a human. The pursuit of justice begins with understanding another’s condition.

So what does art have to do with empathy?

And what can the promotion of art do to foster empathy?

Art is a natural place to explore the philosophy of another human. Art is the expression of self, it is a window into the rich experiences of being. Art translates feelings into tactile, visceral material that is shared through sight, sound, touch, taste and all of our senses. Art is the perfect tool to share the highs, the lows and everything in between that encapsulate life. For periods of time, art allows us to live life beyond our own body and with the mind of someone else. Art gives us the soul of another. Art gives us empathy.

Institutions and individuals that work to make art accessible have a profound opportunity to use the power of art. To harness that power, barriers between the person who expresses and the audience must be removed or sharing will not be possible. The primary barriers to accessing the other is context. The intermediaries must translate the contextual differences of our genetics, and our environment. They must be sensitive to the origin of a work, knowledgeable of the present circumstances, and able to provoke thought about the future. As the conduit, the promoter can not project themselves onto the concept or the audience. They must only be open and working to open up the relationship between creator and the person who experiences in all ways. This may include removing physical barriers, financial barriers, cultural barriers, educational barriers and anything else MAN has put in front of fellow man to prevent the sharing of life. Promoters of art must see the opportunity they have to expose ALL human experiences.

IMAGE CREDIT. [RSA Shorts].

Look Out TED, The Art Museum Is Coming For You

By | Art & Social Change, Of Love and Concrete | 4 Comments

A significant part of any business plan is to identify the target market and the players who will compete for that target market. In the art world, and particularly the art museum world, the conversation about competition is challenging.

Art institutions are typically organized as non-profits and often focus on development for revenue – development being defined as developing relationships with people who already value the product being delivered. In a development-focused institution the competition is of course other museums and cultural institutions. This myopic view hinders growth (i.e. pursuit of greater accessibility to the institution and thus mission) AND it leaves a lot of money on the table. It would be like google only considering Yahoo and other search engines as its competition.

The alternative to development driving revenue is marketing. Marketing is certainly retaining people who value your product, but more importantly it is expanding market share by enticing people who do not already demand your product to start desiring your offerings. Really good marketing is about finding people who share a company’s values but do not necessarily see how the product delivers on those values. In marketing, who a company considers competition moves beyond vendors peddling similar product. Marketing is why Google builds its strategy with Apple on its mind.

SO, WHO IS THE COMPETITION FOR ART INSTITUTIONS?

A business needs to clearly know its product to know its competition. Let’s start with some basic questions. What is an art museum composed of? In condensed form, museums are: buildings, objects, curators and programming. What does an art museum do? A museum thoughtfully designs exhibitions that combine objects and knowledge to engage ones intellect. What is the product of a museum?  A museum creates platforms for delivering beautiful and provocative content. Museums are a medium for the exchange of ideas.

Museums sound a lot like many other institutions. Competition for market share still includes other museums and cultural organizations like schools and libraries. But it also includes just about any other medium of sharing information. The market opportunity of museum includes people interested in publications, podcasts, lightning talks, TED Talks, even the local watering hole. There are many “places”, well beyond what I have listed, where people find opportunity to engage in philosophical experiments.

Once the competition or market prospects have been identified, business typically wants to determine where the greatest opportunity exists. Market opportunity is calculated by two things: the size of the market, monetary value and/or delivery on mission, that could be gained; and the ease with which the market could be redirected. In this case I think one of the best organizations for museums to look at as competition is TED Talks and other sources of infotainment that society is enamored with right now.

With an identified opportunity, good businesses knows how to utilize their assets to pursue those gains. Museums have a wealth of assets to enhance their own idea sharing platform and distinguish themselves from anyone. Who else sits on billions of dollars of art and other valuable pieces of history. If I were TED I would be looking over my shoulder.

 

IMAGE CREDIT. [Wikimedia Commons].

Baltimore’s Fly is Undone — The Power of Whimsy, Zippers and Hopscotch

By | Art & Social Change, Art That Counts | 22 Comments

Look closely…

 

Graham-Coreil-Allen-crosswalk-hopscotch

Photo by Graham Coreil-Allen via Flickr

… and you’ll note a variety of footprints playing the classic game of hopscotch–a worker’s boot, a businessman’s shoe, a bare footprint and, most inspired of all, a bird’s track headed in the direction of Camden Yards and M&T Bank Stadium.

Two Baltimore intersections have had their standard striped crosswalks replaced, quite literally, by street art—in this case, a game of hopscotch and a super-sized zipper. These new whimsical crosswalks, by Graham Coreil-Allen and Paul Bertholet respectively, were commissioned by the Baltimore Office of Promotion and the Arts for the Bromo Tower A&E District.

Zipper-fly-crosswalk-BOPA-Baltimore
The hopscotch design can be found at Eutaw and Lombard streets and the zipper at Eutaw and Fayette. A third design will be added in the spring to an intersection adjacent to the Hippodrome and Everyman Theatre.

Seeing images of both crosswalks shared across social media and the surprising degree of media coverage—yes, locally, but also from NPR, Fast Company and The Atlantic—made me think back to interviewing Will Backstrom about PNC’s Transformative Art Project grants. Backstrom acknowledged that PNC’s use of metrics to evaluate those projects was limited mainly to anecdotal data and “buzz.” It’s unclear what role data and analysis had in BOPA’s choice of this project or the winning designs, but if positive buzz for the city was one hoped-for outcome, this project is an early success. It has been amazingly gratifying to read about my city as “Something Cool” and “Fun” in the national press, with nary a mention of “The Wire” (until now, whoops!).

I would love to see some on-the-ground monitoring by BOPA of pedestrian reactions to these installations. Nothing as formal as interviews or surveys, just a method of capturing the reaction folks have when they encounter the unexpected. Regardless, congrats to the artists and BOPA for a project that has already delighted residents and given the city some valuable positive press.

Behind the Curtain

By | Art & Social Change, Of Love and Concrete | No Comments

This month, I started working for the man, umm, woman. I took a job as the administrative manager for Doreen Bolger, the Director of the Baltimore Museum of Art. It has been eleven and a half years since I have worked for someone else. The change is drastic. Art museums are those stodgy institutions we mean to visit but never do, right? Not like the vibrant and insurgent work I was involved in at the Baltimore Love Project.

But perhaps what I’m doing isn’t so different after all. Here’s why…

The Product: Experience driven by meaningful context

Art was certainly discussed my first week at the museum. There were the obvious considerations, such as what we should do about restrictions placed on the collection by a generous patron … and what do we do with this work that was “given” to us? … and how do we inform the staff that some decisions administrative decisions may challenge installation set-ups? But more than anything, the conversation revolved around making the best possible experience for our guests. Context is crucial for making the work matter to them. Something as seemingly insignificant as the flooring in a gallery can radically alter the viewer’s experience, just as the location of a mural can radically alter space and our relationship to it.

The Decision Influencers: The Curators

The “artists” at a museum are the curators.  The museum is going through prolific renovations that will significantly enhance the visitor experience. The renovation also drastically changes the curators’ opportunities, or forces them to give new thought to their work. A concern experienced frequently in my first week were the compromises required of our curators as a result of the changes. Rather than “resolving” the situations with the architect, the contractor, and the director, the curators were included in the decision making process. The curators voices are heard. Needless to say, impossible constraints and limited budget frequently won, but the curator was part of the decision, despite how much easier, and potentially less costly, it would have been to make the decision in their absence. The creativity of an artist, whether on the street or in the museum, needs to be represented at the decision making table.

The Perks: An hour with a world class scholar on Matisse.

The highlight of my week was a guided tour of the current exhibition on Matisse, Matisse’s Marguerite: Model Daughter. For one hour prior to opening to the public, the staff was invited to the Cone Wing for a guided tour by Jay Fisher. This astonishing installation features works by Matisse with his own daughter Marguerite as his model. The finer points conveyed to me by one of the world’s leading authorities on the artist’s life and work on enhanced my own experience at the museum.

It’s exactly the awe and appreciation I felt for these priceless wonders that I want to instill in others. Art museums are not places that art works go to die; they should be a place where art becomes meaningful to every aspect of our lives.

 

Art and the Share Economy

By | Art & Social Change, Of Love and Concrete | No Comments

In a recent post I explored the “share economy.” The ease of sharing information is important in this “new” model but the sharing of experiences is at the heart of its power and future success. And so art is ripe with opportunity to reap value from the share economy.

Art, after all, is about experience. The performance at the theater, the show at the bar, and the installation in the gallery are about emotion, connection and our gut and brain being stimulated. We understand them as “experience”. They are not about owning. However, visual art work can also be more than something that matches our sofa. The value of art as an object is heightened when we see it as something to be experienced and an experience to share. It is a tangible asset that could be circulated with the emergence of the share economy. Within the life cycle of a work of art and the art itself there is opportunity for sharing!

Here are three of the assets I see available for sharing in the arts community!

The expected shared asset: Space

The Copy Cat building in Baltimore’s station north neighborhood is a classic re-purposed industrial building with fantastical spaces. The white walled gallery of Maryland Art Place can seem sterile but it is strikingly intimate. The Baltimore Museum of Art is a trove of architectural wonder. Art is created, displayed, sold and resides in beautiful spaces. These spaces are for a variety of reasons beyond the reach of some of the general population who could do amazing things in them. What would happen if information were made available about the space and others were given the opportunity to use the space for distinctive events. Dine by candle light next to the recent installation of an up and coming Baltimore artist. Stay at the Copy Cat bed n’ breakfast. Host a power lunch in the sculptor garden. Through the exchange, the “host” comes out a winner with greater exposure (and revenue), the guest comes out a winner with memorable experience. The challenge is finding the right price.

The expected asset (that requires a marketplace): Works

Most artist are holding onto a large supply of work in their studio. For a variety of reasons the work just resides in storage. What would happen if artists created a structure for people to experience their work without the risk of owning it? What would happen if artists shared their work, in a similar fashion to how someone shares their bedroom on AirBnb? I think new patrons would emerge and unrealized revenue sources might sustain more of our creative class.

Museums have expansive archives of work that collect dust more than capture the imagination of the population. Space constraints, expectations of supporters, and lack of “majority” interest in the work keeps the artifacts in mothballs. What if the works were digitized and made accessible? What if reproductions were prominently posted in public places? What if the work were physically shared with individuals/institutions that could assume the risk? What if a market place emerged to share works that has captured imagination for centuries? I think new information would emerge about the history of mankind. I also think “ownership” of the institution would expand in size and financial value. Much of this is already happening with large art institutions; I think it needs to happen on a broader scale.

The under utilized and unexpected assets: Minds

A very important transition for me from engineer to art promoter was relationships with artists. What sparked my keen interest in the class of people was intelligent conversation. Artists, curators, historians and theorists know information about humanity in the same way scientists, mathematicians, and engineers know information about the physical world. What would happen if we sought to share these minds? What could we experience if we paid for these unexpected relationships to enter into conversations about commerce, social change and the future? There are a number of time banks emerging, but artist time seems to be missing. If artists, curators, art historians and art theorists could share their knowledge more frequently I think unexpected outcomes that exceed expectations would be more common.

The assets of our artists and art institutions are ripe with potential to add value to the people who currently posses them AND the people who could share them. As marketplaces emerge for these creative assets to be shared, I think society might experience some new and powerful outcomes.

Project Row Houses

By | Art & Social Change, Art That Counts | One Comment

While I love art for art’s sake, I also love an art project that crosses boundaries and tries to improve peoples’ lives in ways beyond aesthetics, inspiration and giving “voice.” It was a conversation around those topics that led to this column because, while all those goals are worthwhile, they are notoriously hard to measure in terms of impact and long-term effect.

But, put a roof over someone’s head, provide resources for single mothers, open a neighborhood laundromat…those things have visible, measurable impact. For example, one of my favorite charities, Habitat for Humanity, has made a strong position of the impact of home ownership among low-income families, identifying increases in the homeowner’s sense of stability and benefits to their children’s educational performance and self esteem. Habitat’s mission statement, however, is laser focused on solving the global housing crisis. It is not, obviously, a community arts program.

Project Row Houses (PRH) in Houston, however, is a neighborhood-based nonprofit art and cultural organization that just happens to have also reclaimed six blocks in the city’s Third Ward. Starting in 1993, the group renovated the exterior of 22 Depression-era row houses. Today, PRH has 40 properties and has spun off a sister organization, Row House Community Development Corporation (RHCDC), which has been providing low-income rental housing in the Third Ward since 2003.

According to the 2010 census, about a quarter of the Third Ward’s residents live at or below the poverty level; more than 50 percent are children. It was, in fact, one of those kids that inspired the entire project.

PRH founder Rick Lowe moved to Houston in the mid-’80s to pursue his art career. He shared the inspiration behind PRH with The New York Times in 2006:

In 1990, “a group of high school students came over to my studio,” he recalled. “I was doing big, billboard-size paintings and cutout sculptures dealing with social issues, and one of the students told me that, sure, the work reflected what was going on in his community, but it wasn’t what the community needed. If I was an artist, he said, why didn’t I come up with some kind of creative solution to issues instead of just telling people like him what they already knew. That was the defining moment that pushed me out of the studio.”

He tried to think afresh what it meant to be a truly political artist, beyond devising the familiar agitprop, gallery decoration and plop-art-style public sculpture. He considered what the German artist Joseph Beuys once described as “the enlarged conception of Art,” which includes, as Beuys put it, “every human action.” Life itself might be a work of art, Mr. Lowe realized: art can be the way people live.

The resulting project, which started out only a block and a half in size, split the properties between residential homes and spaces dedicated to art, photography and literary projects. Today, there are a dozen artist exhibition and/or residency spaces and nearly 270 local and national artists have visited the community for periods of five to six months. It’s an amazing flow of creativity and, accordingly, the project has received much national attention and funding from The Ford (2004) and Kresge (2010, 2012) foundations. This month, Lowe was appointed to the National Council for the Arts.

Those accomplishments, though, seem to be so small in comparison to this: One of PRH’s programs involves seven homes set aside specifically for young, single mothers. Along with a rent subsidy, they receive mentorship and educational workshops. According to PRH’s web site, “To-date, over fifty (50) participants have “graduated” from the program. Some are still pursuing their degree; others are professional artists, college professors, accountants, pharmacists, interior designers, teachers, bankers, business professionals and lawyers.” One of the first mothers to participate in the program was Assata Richards. She went on to teach sociology at the University of Pittsburgh and has since returned to Houston; today, she manages the program that helped her succeed and is running to represent District D in Houston’s City Council. Richards perfectly sums up PRH success as an art project to the NYT:

“I had heard Rick was an artist when I got there,” she said, “but I thought, what kind of art does he do? Then I realized we were his art. We came into these houses, and they did something to us. This became a place of transformation. That’s what art does. It transforms you. And Rick also treated us like artists. He would ask, ‘What’s your vision for yourself?’ You understood that you were supposed to be making something new, and that something was yourself.”

View the trailer for the Third Ward/PRH documentary:

The Secret Garden and The Share Economy

By | Art & Social Change, Of Love and Concrete | No Comments

Last night my wife Jenn and I had dinner with complete strangers in our home.

The dinner was organized with the help of Peers. Late in the summer of 2013, Peers emerged to promote the share economy. This “new” economy seeks to explore the bounds beyond zero sum and suggests that win-win can be achieved in many of life’s pursuits, particularly when information is shared and is readily accessible. I think the share economy can be applied with amazing success to art, but some context would be helpful for understanding how.

From my own experience:

In the last 18 months the spare bedroom in our home has provided a night’s rest or a month-long home for over 70 guests. Jenn and I have hosted people from across the globe traveling to Baltimore for everything from an O’s game and weddings to workshops on the latest surgical procedures and health food conferences. In the process, AirBnb, a website market-place of private bedrooms, apartments, beds and spare sofa space has generated substantial revenue for us. Just as important, AirBnb has introduced us to a spectrum of new friends.

AirBnb claims to be a part of the share economy. The value of my home is “shared” through a novel website that allows me to post information about my spare bedroom. This system may just be a reinvention of economics 101 but with the help of the internet. We have a product (supply), our bedroom. You have a desire (demand) for a bedroom. We have a dollar amount (price) for which we are willing to let a complete stranger stay in our bedroom. You have a dollar amount (price) you are willing to pay to use a bedroom in this location in a complete stranger’s house. We believe our price point is sufficient to cover our time to keep our house tidy, prepare the room for your stay and make arrangements for your arrival. You feel that the price point is fair and MUCH less than what you would pay to stay in the hotel three blocks away. We both come away feeling like winners, and we have experienced how economics “should” work. Besides the ease with which information can be shared with the internet, what is difference between the share economy and the “regular” economy?

Last night’s dinner is a big part of what is different. The share economy is about reaping value beyond dollars and cents. It is about seeing the value in human relationships, new perspectives, and new ideas. It is about experience. Hence Peers’ notion of share a meal, share an idea; don’t just satiate yourself. The share economy is about sharing life as opposed to just doing life.

Our home is not a commodity to us. It is not something we are selling or leasing and expecting just a transaction to be created. Certainly our house is an object that serves a function, but it is more than that. It is an intimate personal space that provides respite and joy for us. In the share economy we have the opportunity to provide to others those same values (intimacy, peace and enjoyment), but only if we see the relationship as more than a transaction. In other words, the party on the other side is not just dollars and cents, or even worse our nemesis to be screwed for our advantage. They are a human being. They are a guest. They are potential friends. To my understanding, AirBnb is really only for people who understand it as such.

I think art has amazing potential in the share economy. Art is an object with financial value, but as I have stated in many places in this blog, art is much more. Art is an experience. It is therefore ripe with opportunity to be shared. But what might that look like?

Stay tuned for the next installment…

IMAGE CREDIT. [Scott Burkholder].