Tag

social change Archives - ChangingMedia

Maybe City Planners Think Your Arms Are Tired

By | Homelessness, The Race to End Homelessness | 3 Comments

I’ve always thought of London as a friendly city. The only city to thrice host the Olympic Games, London hails itself as an welcoming destination city. That is, if you’re an Olympian, or a tourist. Not if you are experiencing homelessness. 

Recently, London installed spikes outside apartments to prevent anyone from sleeping on the ground. The instillation came about a month after one man was seen sleeping outside. The one-inch spikes are not the first of their kind, and are known to exist in other parts of the United Kingdom and Canada. London mayor Borris Johnson, to his credit, called the spikes not only “anti-homeless” but also “stupid.”

He was not the only one. You may have even seen the spikes on social media, as outrage spread across London and internationally. Perhaps it was the political shaming, or the large-scale social media blitz that protested the spikes, but news reports indicate they were removed earlier this week.

This is hardly the first example of creating an environment unsuitable for homelessness. If you have ever looked at a park bench or a subway stop and wondered why the city planners were so worried about people having a place to rest their arms, they probably weren’t. Benches with multiple armrests, divided only wide enough to sit, are too narrow to lay or sleep on, dissuading homeless people from staying the night.

photo: TimberForm

Among all this techniques for making cities unwelcoming, a Canadian company created an installation that is both humanitarian and an act of advertising genius. Notice that not only do these city benches not have intrusive arm rests, but they actually prop open to create a temporary rain shelter. Inside are directions to a RainCity Housing, an organization that specializes in working with low-income individuals to meet basic needs.

vancouver homeless bus bench

photo: Huffington Post

Decisions as small as armrests matter greatly if that armrest ruins your bed for the evening. The steps we as city planners, politicians, social workers, and concerned citizen take to develop and improve our hometowns truly do affect the lives of many people, and these small injustices could easily go unnoticed if you are not the person impacted. This time, Toronto leads the way in providing both shelter and dignity to homeless individuals in Canada- perhaps other cities can also design a place for all residents, giving even the impoverished a place to call home.

 

 

To #SaveBmore, Embrace The Wire

By | #SaveBmore, ChangeEngine | 65 Comments

We’ve all heard it. Many of us have said it. It’s a plea, a prayer – uttered so often it’s damn near a mantra:

“We’re not just The Wire.”

Baltimore wants nothing more than to be seen as something other than a byword for crime and decay, for poverty and violence. We’re not just the wasteland made notorious by David Simon’s landmark series, occupied by drugslingers and sociopathic murderers and sicklied over with impenetrable despair. That’s just the image that’s been conjured up in the public imagination, we say. We’re sick of people’s eyes growing wide in horror when they hear what city we live in, the inevitable questions … “Is it like that? Is it just like The Wire?”

In the past few weeks here at ChangeEngine, we’ve been debating what might “save” Baltimore from a present and a future where so many are condemned to a shadow existence and forced to the margins by poverty and inequality. And yet it seems like what Baltimore wants to be saved from most of all is itself, to be delivered from the stain on our reputation, the shame of The Wire; to shunt those things that cast an ill light on our collective existence back into the shadows.

But that shame, left unchecked, will destroy us. If we truly want to save Baltimore, to save ourselves from the perpetual instability of illusory wealth and the criminal waste of lost promise; if we truly want to fulfill Dr. King’s vision of a “beloved community” rather than languish in the spiritual poverty of a divided society, we must not be ashamed. We must not shy away from what The Wire represents and the heavy burden it lays at our door … because we are The Wire and we need to own it.


What we’re saying when we deny The Wire is that we’re not just ‘those’ neighborhoods, not just a city of poor black people embroiled in the drug war. In trying to sweep those people and places from our consciousness, we not only caricature what The Wire actually depicted but fail to heed its prophetic call. As David Simon said:

“[T]hat’s what The Wire was about … people who were worth less and who were no longer necessary, as maybe 10 or 15% of my country is no longer necessary to the operation of the economy. It was about them trying to solve … an existential crisis. In their irrelevance, their economic irrelevance, they were nonetheless still on the ground occupying this place called Baltimore and they were going to have to endure somehow.”

When we say we’re not The Wire we’re saying we should be like one America, and forget the other. And that we can only succeed if these people, this other Baltimore, disappears. But that’s impossible, it’s unsustainable; it will undermine the very future we hope to create by ignoring the things that horrify and embarrass us. The ONLY way we can make Baltimore not just about The Wire is by embracing the story it tells about us.


“See, back in middle school and all, I used to love them myths,” says Omar, the predatory gunslinger who roams Baltimore’s streets like a swaggering pirate as he schools a sheriff’s deputy about the Greek god of war. So complete a work is The Wire, so vivid and eternally real are the likes of Omar, Stringer and Bubbles that these offending shadows have become our mythology, our epic.

Whether it’s Omar resplendent in a shimmering teal dressing gown, scowling at the terrified ‘puppies’ who fling their stashes his way on his early morning hunt for Honey Nut Cheerios; Clay Davis’s sheeeeeet! stretching on to the last syllable of recorded time; a forensic epiphany derived entirely from a dialogue of f-bombs; the death of Wallace, of Bodie and Sherrod, of Prop Joe; the fall of the Barksdales, Dukie’s descent or Cutty’s redemption – these moments confer an identity that’s deeply ours, as iconic and intrinsic as Poe’s mournful features and gutter requiem.

This is our story, an epic of the American post-industrial city struggling for existence and meaning where all sustaining truths and certainties have been annihilated. It has the power to unify our consciousness and to rouse us to collective action. The Wire didn’t focus on the “bad side” of Baltimore; it cast a glaring light on what was wrong with America. Its creators offered us a study of dysfunction and neglect – a diagnosis, a pessimistic prognosis, and no real hope of a cure. That part is up to us.

And yet the cures we’re presented with are largely exercises in denial – efforts to tell a different story rather than confronting and changing the one we have. We are told to ‘Believe’ in Baltimore, then beggar belief by proclaiming ourselves ‘The Greatest City in America.’ We swear up and down that we’re not The Wire, as though that wire is live and we dare not touch it.


In the standard gospel, salvation comes through expanding the ‘white corridor’ that runs along 83, pushing out the ‘bad Baltimore.’ The Grand Prix, the creative class, a shiny new development downtown – these are the pet miracles of urban renewal evangelism. But without justice, they can only be a mirage. Just as civil rights activists were willing to be beaten and bloodied because they knew that no-one is free unless all of us are free, not one of us can say he is truly wealthy as long as any of us is poor. As long as we’re erecting monuments to distraction, condo towers with a stunning view but no vision, we’ll be blind. No sustainable salvation can come of growing that privileged bubble. We’ll fool ourselves into complacency, into thinking we can ignore The Wire, and the bubble will burst.

Saving Baltimore requires a shift in thinking, a hard confrontation. It requires ambition and audacity – the kind that causes a person to get up every day and try to keep children from dying on the streets, to battle slumlords who profit from blight and misery, or fight to keep the prison industrial complex from throttling whole communities. We would do well to pay tribute and attention to those on the front lines of social change, who wrestle with the darkness, who suffer a thousand everyday defeats and win a thousand everyday victories in the struggle to make a better world.


Like them, we must grapple with the darkness. Most urgently, we must fight to end the drug war. As The Wire makes so vividly clear, the war on drugs has become a war on the urban underclass, a war on the most vulnerable and powerless. Each drug arrest in this city costs us at least $10,000. Statewide we spend hundreds of millions of dollars to incarcerate non-violent drug offenders, 90 percent of them African-American. This despite clear evidence that white and black people use and sell drugs at roughly the same rate.

In the starkest of terms, black (and poor) people are being arrested and incarcerated, their lives ruined, for something everyone does. And that is the greater cost. This war destroys families, robs children of their parents and leaves them destitute, cripples chances for employment and advancement, and causes young people to be murdered in the streets as they scuffle over turf in a society that gives them nowhere to call their own.

We can change that story. Think what all the resources squandered on this folly could do if devoted to social change, what dynamism could be unleashed. Think of what it would mean to reclaim all the talent and energy lost to the criminal justice system and to the miasma of distrust and despair that crushes and humiliates the spirit and leaves so many feeling that the game is rigged against them.

This is about more than just one policy. Just as we condemn an addict to the clawing, scraping chaos of the criminal underworld when we force him into the shadows, so too do we deny ourselves a brighter future and invite in all the ills we run from by denying what The Wire says about us. Baltimore could be the one city in America that truly confronts the issue of its underclass and the ravages of exclusion rather than pretending it’s not there and brutalizing it when it rears its head. We must resolve that we don’t want to run from The Wire, but rather change the system that generates those conditions.

The engine of salvation is not in our stars but in ourselves. We need a Manhattan Project for transformation, a space race for social change. Let’s work to provide the greatest rewards to those whose efforts most benefit the least well off. Let’s energize social change makers to move to Baltimore and cultivate those already here. And let’s start treating them like rock stars, not martyred idealists.

Baltimore doesn’t have a PR problem; we have a poverty problem. We don’t need a better image; we need a better way. We need to celebrate and attract those who want to make a difference, not engage in a desperate charade to prove we’re just the same. So Just Say Yes – we ARE the Wire. Only then can we change the story. Only then can we start building a city of which we’ll never be ashamed, a place where every one of us is truly cherished.

 

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].

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].

Tinted Lens

By | Tinted Lens | 10 Comments

“I don’t want no peace, I need equal rights and justice” –Peter Tosh

Language. It encourages the exchange of ideas and information. But merely by opening one’s mouth, it can also betray where you’re from and how people will label you. The words we choose convey much more than their face-value meaning.

But what happens when members of a group use different words? Or the same words with different meaning? How do you move forward? How can you ensure you are actually working towards the same goal?

A few weeks ago, a friend was in a community discussion. She noticed that while the black and longer-term white activists spoke of ‘social justice,’ most of the other white community participants spoke of ‘social change.’

Let’s unpack this: ‘Justice’ is the quality of being just, impartial or fair; the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity while ‘Change’ means to become or make something different.

When people speak of social justice, they hearken to a movement rooted in the concept that there is nothing inherently wrong with the black (and wider low-income) community. Rather, social justice takes issue with everyday ‘norms’ that serve to oppress and marginalize that community. The media perpetuates these ‘norms’ whether it be through reports of crime ‘in the black community’ or advertisements showing whites as good/pure while the black actor or model is evil/primal. These seemingly minor yet persistent depictions and images serve to imprint our collective minds with the thought that one type of people (black) is not to be trusted, that they aren’t as educated as the rest of us (white) and that any poverty is due to their own laziness. Social justice then, seeks to eradicate these lies and other barriers and to paint everyone in the same light, judging all by the content of their characters, to quote Dr. King.

This is intrinsically different from “social change,” which seeks to change behaviors, relationships and interactions independent of larger frameworks at play. It’s the difference between asking “what can we do to change this?” rather than asking why things are that way in the first place.

The social justice vs. social change dynamic can cause schisms and failure even when groups are authentic and well-intentioned. I worked in one community where half the group pushed for more community days (social change) and the others wanted to build mentorship programs and civic engagement training (social justice). The group split up and eventually the community day side was successful; but three years later there was only a minor difference in crime and unemployment was as bad as ever.

Social change is (by comparison) easier, it’s sexier, it results in happy photo ops with food and music. Social justice is work. It is shoulder-to-the-wheel every day, countering habits of privilege people don’t even know they have.

In this neighborhood, aligning successful adults with community youth, both ‘at-risk’ and successful, could have provided role models for youth that lacked images of success in their own homes or blocks. Helping youth and young adults vote, participate and make their voice heard in local issues could have lent a student perspective to school board decisions like the removal of music classes and extracurricular activities.

Here, both groups wanted to improve the neighborhood; one thought it could be done only with breaking bread together while the other wanted to tackle the larger issues without regard to celebrating the small successes. Social change is a part of social justice (it’s hard to imagine an effective mentor program without trust) but unless the larger WHY conversation is had and language explained, there is a disconnect and neither will succeed.

It is this place, at the juncture of two cities: white Baltimore and black Baltimore, that I will endeavor to explore in this column. As a mixed race Baltimore transplant, the lens through which I see this city is tinted by my experiences as a black woman raised in a largely white setting. Right now I have a foot in both Baltimores and am unsure of how to move back and forth between them. I look forward to examining that discomfort zone and discovering just how tinted our lenses really are.

 

IMAGE CREDIT. [Amber Collins].

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.

Sufferfest for Social Good

By | Social Enterprise, The Thagomizer | 4 Comments

When Andrew Yang noticed a young employee demoralized by undercompensation and having to scrounge for enough money to pay to attend friend’s weddings, he didn’t rush to the rescue. “In my old company, I would have pushed his pay to market, as he was doing very good work,” he wrote in his post on non-profit martyrdom, “But in the non-profit, I hesitated, thinking that maybe his suffering was necessary, despite my knowing that he was being paid far less than would have been the case in another setting.” This idea that “suffering is necessary” for social good has been part of the non-profit narrative for a long time. We honor people who sacrifice donations and time and expect our supporters to give something up for social good.

The growth in social entrepreneurship is changing this paradigm by giving new options to make an impact without having to be a overworked, underpaid, under-appreciated non-profit employee. This week I ran across a fantastic piece by Leanne Pittsford, founder and CEO of Start Somewhere and manager of the popular Tumblr  “When You Work at a Nonprofit.” She used Google Trends to take a look at changes in search terms people were using to find employment. She found people searching for “nonprofit jobs” (blue line) and “non-profit jobs” (red line) have gone down dramatically in the past decade.

screen-shot-2013-09-06-at-3-50-41-pm

However when she looked at the people searching for jobs at “jobs social enterprise” (blue line)  and “social enterprise jobs” (red line) both had increased.

screen-shot-2013-09-06-at-3-51-31-pm

So why is that less people are looking for nonprofit jobs even though there is an increase in people looking for social good jobs? Pittsford believes it is a sign of the sinking reputation of the non-profit industry which has a history of employee mistreatment in the name of a good cause. “Nonprofit is losing bright, motivated, socially-minded people, who now have another option for a career with meaning.” she writes in her blog, “And this option has afforded these bright, socially-minded people the things we have not: innovation, use of technology, well-paying salaries, and growth opportunities.” The story I believe these graphs tell is the promise of a new age of social enterprise and a redefinition of social good, one that hacks some of our more selfish natures to do social good rather then rely on “true altruism.”  Sacrifice is no longer the only road necessary to make an impact.

It reminds me of a quote that struck me a few months ago. “The world could eliminate extreme poverty for about $45 billion a year,or roughly the amount spent on movie tickets annually worldwide,” a Harvard economist estimated. I don’t think the nonprofit sector can access that kind of money through altruism alone.  Think how much money is spent every year publicizing a movie, engaging us, and drawing us in. Yet most people wouldn’t know where to begin to give $8 to help solve poverty. What if doing good were as easy and fun as going to the movies? What if we put the fun back in fundraising?

Those of us in the social change world have always been afraid to admit there is a selfish bone in our body. The public wants social good to happen with pure intentions, devoid of the dark stains of capitalism and self-interest. I was having a discussion with a friend about TOMS shoes and she brought up the point that “it would be much more effective if people just gave their money to a non-profit who could buy several pairs of shoes, instead of buying a pair of shoes for yourself where only one goes to someone in need.” That’s true if we lived in a world where we had plenty of money to give and no need for shoes ourselves. “How much money have you donated to a charity that provides shoes to those in need this year?” I asked her, “is it more than what you’ve spent on shoes?” My guess is many of us would answer no to this question. It’s not a bad thing; it’s reality, and new social enterprises allow us to benefit ourselves while benefiting other people as well.

While Pittsford’s graphs focus on how people are seeking on jobs in social good, my guess is that we are also seeing changes in how people are seeking out social good organizations to support with volunteer hours and donations. The social rewards of giving back are worthwhile but your needs should also be respected. As Scott Burkholder wrote in an earlier ChangeEngine blog post on the Tyranny of Low Overhead, “I think society wrongfully assumes that because creating art and social change makes people feel good, that should be sufficient compensation. It is not. If it is valuable to society, society should at least sustain and maybe even reward the change that is created.”  We are beginning to see a new breed of organizations that don’t require us to suffer for our cause and in the end that’s a more sustainable and effective practice. No one can live forever on good will alone.

Redesigning Education

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

For the past four weeks, I have been working for the Baltimore Design School. I’m convinced that design changes humanity and that our pedagogy will transform our students’ lives. Design makes finding a place to stay along the super highway of information easier. It makes us look good. It makes us feel good. Design influences human experience. But how do you teach design to 12-year-olds so that it sets them on the trajectory to success? Recently four thoughts have resonated as I contemplate what design is all about…

Design is about details. Steve Ziger is one of the co-founders of the Baltimore Design School. He is also the principal architect of Ziger/Snead, the firm that designed the new $27 million dollar building that is shaping a future of Baltimore city filled with designers. He is excited about many MANY aspects of the physical building but there are some bits of information that he is giddy to share with just about anyone who enters.

“Did you notice the buttons?”

A number of the sinks — yes, bathroom wash basins — in the building were generously contributed by a local concrete firm. Embedded into a number of those sinks are buttons. Clothing buttons to be precise. Those buttons were salvaged from the building. Prior to its 30 years of abandonment, the building was the home to the Lebow Coat Factory. Those buttons are a nod to the rich history of the space. They are a minute detail that captures much more than physical space.

Design is about collaboration. Fans of “Mad Men” can probably tell you who the driving force of creativity is for Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce. Don is the man. Similarly many non-architects could name a few of the 20th century’s most famous visionaries of 3-D art. The genius of the individual has been on display through much of history. Things have changed. Ideas and information are accessible to far more than the guy with a 150 IQ. In 2013, and likely beyond, it is teams and collaborative efforts that will create masterpieces time after time. Good design is design that has many perspectives to shape it. The design school building abounds with spaces for designers, staff, and community to gather and discuss.

Design is about the audience. Paul Jacob III spent the better part of the early 2000’s leading RTKL. The respected  firm has imagined and created breathtaking buildings that span the globe. In a conversation about design, Jacob said that “one of the happiest moments for an architect is taking a client into a building and them seeing that it is theirs. It is their story, their message and their vision.” Good design is about the audience and more importantly, audience ownership. Much like art, engagement and expression moving beyond the creator is extremely important. The common areas of the Baltimore design school are gallery spaces. Many of the walls of the hallways, cafeteria and gathering areas are “tackable” surfaces. What is created in the classrooms is not truly complete until it has been shared with others.

Design is about unexpected relationships. John Maeda is the president of the  Rhode Island School of design. RISD is among the greatest institutions of artistic education in the world. In a 2012 TED talk, John cited the ability to make connections where no one else can as the essence of what good design is all about. It is the surprising placement of two distant colors next to each other. It is the introduction of two polarizing personalities that creates a global enterprise. It is the connection between a state senator and the president of an art institution that created Baltimore Design School. It is the use of a hundred-year-old building to educate the future change-makers of Baltimore city.

IMAGE CREDIT. [www.baltimoredesignschool.com].

The Audience Is Not The Enemy

By | Art & Social Change, Of Love and Concrete | One Comment

The Baltimore Love Project worked for several months to gain permission to paint our iconic image on the side of Rite Aid. We first stopped by the store to find someone who could give us permission. As expected the clerk directed us to the manager. The manager offered words of support but had limited resources, and knowledge, to ink a deal. We proceeded up the ladder. We called corporate! It took a few calls to find the right department, but eventually we reached a sympathetic ear in marketing. Even with an advocate inside, it took several more months to have our one page contract converted into a signed sixteen page document. I am not certain, but I may have lost the naming rights to my first child.

After a three month journey through an organized institution we were ready to paint. We made one more phone call to the district’s city councilwoman. At the time we were not certain if a mural required a permit from the city. It does not. We also wanted to let her know of this great thing we were doing in her neighborhood.

She promptly told us to stop everything. She informed us that “this neighborhood has a process for murals.” Nebulous would be a compliment to the structure of the process that we walked into. We weaved our way through a myriad of community meetings, main street meetings, conversations with stakeholders, and email chains. After two months we did not know if we needed a permit (the permitting office feared making the correct legal decision based on political repercussions) or if the store up the street would call the cops on us. We pushed the councilwoman to act. She said “let’s put it to a vote”. Flyers were placed around the neighborhood and emails were sent to community lists. After a defined voting period the tally was in. 100 percent of the voters wanted the love mural in their neighborhood. 95 percent wanted the mural in the location we had worked to get permission. The councilwomen allowed us to paint, and we learned a valuable lesson.

The community does not have to be a liability. The community can be an asset.

The experience drastically changed our perceptions of engagement. If a work of art truly is about response, not just self expression, invite the audience to the entire work of art. Process is a significant part of the art. Process is also a point in which context can be experienced and understood by others. Context is how the audience gains access to a work of art. Context and process can be shared with the audience before the work exists. In so doing, the artists increases the opportunity to reach the desired goal of completing the work, which is now a shared experience with the audience, AND the artist can ask “what do you think” much earlier in the conversation. The audience can be a valuable resource to the two main objectives of the artist: creation and exploration.

Love wall number 6 at 3133 Greenmount Avenue was a turning point for our project. It gave us confidence about our ability to execute. We signed a contract with a multinational corporation. It gave us confidence as artists. We had a powerful idea that was accessible even before it was completed. And ultimately it improved our practice as artists to express ourselves AND explore new philosophies with others.

 

IMAGE CREDIT. [Sean Schedit].