Tag

impact

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.

Expecting Too Much of Creative Placemaking?

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

As is probably clear by now, I’m deeply curious and often delighted by creative placemaking. When it comes to evaluation of creative placemaking, however, I’m stumped or underwhelmed, and I’m not alone. Over a year ago, Ian David Moss wrote “Creative Placemaking Has An Outcomes Problem” and Ellen Berkovitch wrote a summary of arguments in “Can Creative Placemaking Be Proven?

Personally, I’m on the fence if the problem is in outcomes or expectations…

Outcomes: We’re not measuring (enough)

In some instances, funders and project organizers are content with anecdotal evidence or uncertain how to establish quantitative data for their projects. Metrics and analysis isn’t an important part of the project from conception, the effort to accomplish something is good enough.

Outcomes: We’re not measuring the right things

More recently, it’s been popular to tie artistic projects specifically to economic indicators — attempting to prove that an arts festival or mural project has increased home values or brought more jobs into a neighborhood. While these are valuable things if/when they can be proven, I don’t believe the value in an art project is in raising home values any more than I believe the purpose of a painting is to match my couch.

Expectations: Vibrancy Indicators & Causation

Creative placemaking grants from both ArtPlace America and the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) are both assessed after the fact using community indicators. To simplify things, I’ll just talk about ArtPlace’s use of Vibrancy Indicators (the specifics of each program’s indicators are different; the general use and intent is similar enough).

ArtPlace Vibrancy Indicators

ArtPlace Vibrancy Indicators

Indicators aren’t meant to be the equivalent of a project’s goals … which is good, because if you were handed $280,000 (the average size of an ArtPlace grant) to increase the jobs or even the walkability of a neighborhood, it’s unlikely that creative placemaking would be the tool you turned to. However, indicators are taking the place of evaluation and, as a result, projects aren’t assessed based on their unique goals and audiences. Again, this seems to hinder our ability to assess which projects are successful and which are not and the thoughtful analysis of those results.

In looking at these broad areas, the funders are evaluating changes at a neighborhood or city level that may or may not be attributable to the actual funded creative placemaking activity. These sort of changes (e.g., increases in an area’s population, restaurants or artspaces) are the result of a variety of causes and are very worthwhile to track (see Vital Signs data) but can’t necessarily provide any clarity about whether one creative placemaking project was more successful than another — let alone why.

Finally, if the end goal for funders (and creative placemakers!) is to move the dial on some of these indicators, it would be far more encouraging to engage in long-term funding of specific projects and their evaluation and refinement. While a one-year project can positively impact a neighborhood’s walkscore, it can deteriorate into a detriment three years later if there’s no capacity to maintain it.

Scott Burkholder has written about funders questioning the impact of The Baltimore Love Project:

One of my “fondest” memories made during the project was sitting in a prolific Baltimore foundation’s offices. It was one of my first pitches to a significant investor. He had the means to pay for the entire project. Trial by fire was an understatement. Despite our passion, we were not prepared to articulate a change that was of interest to him. He pretty much asked us how many kids would graduate from high school and go to college as a result of our work. We not only didn’t know the answer, we had no response.

Seeing kids graduate from high school and enter college is an extremely worthwhile goal, but it’s not something that happens with only a year of effort (as of the publication of this article, my own kid will be a mere 275 days away from this achievement, so I can say this with some authority). There are twenty Baltimore Love Project murals total — and five of those are at area schools. Will an incoming freshman be inspired by the mural at her school? Will she go to college and get an art education degree? Will she return to Baltimore and teach, having her own hand in inspiring countless graduates?

It’s all possible, but a program evaluation that occurs as a brief requirement at a project’s end can never hope to track such a thing and expecting a project to deliver on those terms is unreasonable. (I should clarify here that the Baltimore Love Project is not specifically a creative placemaking endeavor, but their experience is not a unique one.)

I think creative placemaking projects have their impact, but we’re not doing the proper work yet to best highlight those impacts. The issue isn’t just with the outcomes, but also with our expectations for the projects and the data both.

Artscape: An Infographic

By | Art & Social Change, Art That Counts | No Comments

It’s mid-July in Baltimore, which means a lot of the arts and entertainment-minded folks of the city have only one thing on their minds: Artscape. Artscape is the largest free arts festival in the country—so, yeah, I pretty much think it’s a gift. (Yes, I know our tax dollars pay for it, but I also know that it’s a far more awesome weekend than I can afford on my individual contribution to its organization!)

In honor of Artscape—which introduced me to the Baltimore Rock Opera Society, let me see Clutch for (again!) free, which surprises and amuses me with so much creativity—I created this infographic, summarizing the event’s offerings, scope and impact. And some grudging acceptance about how hot it’s going to be out there this weekend.

Have a lovely Artscape, Baltimore!

artscape-infographic

Art to Stand On

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

There are many attributes to art. Art can have aesthetic quality. The work can be satiating to the eye, and beautiful in a very traditional sense. Art can have a purpose. The work can be functional and exceptionally well designed for human interaction. Art can have meaning. The work can challenge the mind and change our perspective. A work of art that captures all three attributes well is likely to have great impact.

Flux Foundation knows how to make work that leaves an impression. The foundation, most well known for their monstrous work at the mecca of bohemian culture that is Burning Man, recently did an installation for the Coachella music festival in Coachella Valley California. The Sidewalk’s End was a powerful work that considered aesthetic, purpose, and meaning.

With thoughtfulness about the community, Flux created a piece that was simple yet provocative in aesthetic. It played with Shel Silverstein’s title that was likely very familiar to the younger audience of Coachella. The Sidewalk’s End literally and tastefully looked like the end of a sidewalk.

The work served a powerful purpose without distracting from the event. It was a man made grassy knoll that offered a better view and means to enjoy the tunes. It also offered respite from the heat with a semi enclosed outdoor room with misters. The work challenged perceptions. The Polo Grounds venue is a flat expanse that one would think is already ideal for a concert. The piece added a physical dimension, it was 80 feet long and rose up 12 feet from the ground. It also provided an opportunity to experience Coachella in a unique way with sweeping vistas of the grounds not previously experienced.

2013-04-12-18.14.54-w1280-h1280-795x263

To accomplish work that embodies such meaning, the foundation leans heavily on process. Their mission is “to build art with community. To build community with art.” Their work starts and ends with the community, which requires a process that goes beyond just the creator. The implementation requires a team of designers, carpenters, fabricators, programmers and neighbors to bring a piece to life.

For “The Sidewalk Ends” building with community and for community was a process of considering heavily the context of the work. Coachella is a HUGE outdoor gathering around alternative music. The work could not be the end itself. The work had to enhance the experience of the younger audience enjoying music.

The Flux Foundation is onto something with their thoughtful creative process. They recognize that art has many values. When all the potential of art is explored, not just the aesthetic, we have the opportunity to change how people experience the world around them. Now imagine if the multiple values of art were applied beyond a weekend festival devoted to music. We might find that art is a solid foundation to build meaningful change.

Toward a Better World

By | Social Enterprise, The Thagomizer | No Comments

Recently I was at a breakfast with social entrepreneurs where we were asked “what do we mean by a ‘better Baltimore?'” It is something we all talk about, it’s embedded in the mission statements of our companies and nonprofits, but what does a better Baltimore actually look like? Happier people? Economic opportunity for all? Healthier physical, emotional, and social well being?

For that matter what do we mean by a “better world?” What are the metrics for determining whether or not we are effectively improving lives or if we are changing anything at all?  This question was first voiced by Angelique and it resonates with all of the work we discuss on ChangeEngine. How can we tell whether anything we promote, propose, point out, or implement actually has an effect on the community?

The social change field has gotten better at determining organizational impact. Every nonprofit nowadays seems to be working on a logic model or theory of change. However I think in order to truly measure impact effectively we need a universal measure that:

  • is a relatively objective system of measurement that allows us to effectively compare models of social change and determine failure as well as success.
  • examines the whole person and allows for collaboration. People don’t live in silos. Food effects education which effects economic opportunity, etc. In the end what makes a person or a community better and how do we measure that end result?
  • allows us to track social change trends for communities, cities, countries, and the world.

In the economic sphere of social change the universal measure is profit. I think profit has become the bottom line for most of our work because we believed in the American dream, a theory of change that suggested by increasing profit we could increase our purchasing power which would allow us to access the innovations that would make our lives easier and thus make us happier people. If you’ve read my other blogs here, you’ll know that I don’t think that’s true. I think there are ways to meet our needs without money and I think happiness isn’t measured purely by one’s bank account.

Yet the question of what we should measure is as difficult as trying to determine the meaning of life. Then you have the Herculean task of trying to figure out how to measure it.

There have been some attempts. Many people are familiar with the Bhutanese  system to combine measures of spiritual and material development into a measure called Gross National Happiness (GNH). in 2006, Med Jones of the International Institute of Management proposed a second-generation GNH measure that used the following metrics to determine happiness:

  1. Economic wellness: Indicated via direct survey and statistical measurement of economic metrics such as consumer debt, average income to consumer price index ratio and income distribution.
  2. Environmental wellness: Indicated via direct survey and statistical measurement of environmental metrics such as pollution, noise and traffic.
  3.  Physical wellness: Indicated via statistical measurement of physical health metrics such as severe illnesses.
  4.  Mental wellness: Indicated via direct survey and statistical measurement of mental health metrics such as usage of antidepressants and rise or decline of psychotherapy patients.
  5. Workplace wellness: Indicated via direct survey and statistical measurement of labor metrics such as jobless claims, job change, workplace complaints and lawsuits.
  6. Social wellness: Indicated via direct survey and statistical measurement of social metrics such as discrimination, safety, divorce rates, complaints of domestic conflicts and family lawsuits, public lawsuits, crime rates.
  7. Political wellness: Indicated via direct survey and statistical measurement of political metrics such as the quality of local democracy, individual freedom, and foreign conflicts.

Another measure is called National Accounts of Well Being, developed by the New Economy Foundation. They use the scientific definition of “subjective well-being” which suggests in addition to experiencing good feelings people need:

  • a sense of individual vitality
  • to undertake activities which are meaningful, engaging, and which make them feel competent and autonomous
  • a stock of inner resources to help them cope when things go wrong and be resilient to changes beyond their immediate control.

They also believe that it is crucial that people feel a sense of relatedness to other people so in addition to measuring the individual aspects of well-being they also look at the degree of which people have supportive relationships and a sense of connection with others. They have identified seven main components of well being which they measure using national Well-Being profiles.

These measures are just two examples of systems that have the potential to help us define the end result of social change and measure our effect on people and communities.

And now a word from our sponsors…If you have been waiting for a chance to meet me in person your time has come. I will be the Mesh Baltimore Skillshare on March 2 waxing poetic on “How to Bring Your Quirk to Social Media.” After you pump me for information on creating a wacky, bizarre, and totally awesome social media presence, you can attend sessions on writing about food, organizing your life, and homebrewing. Check out Mesh Baltimore and sign up for the Skillshare here.

But wait there’s more! I’m teaming up with UGive.org for a Tweet Chat on “Marketing Your Social Enterprise” on March 6th at 3pm EST. If you share my passion for social enterprise you will not want to miss this discussion! Sign up using EventBrite or just join us using the hashtag #HowDoUGive.

 

IMAGE CREDIT. Courtesy of mlcastle.