March 17, 2008 at 11:47 pm · Filed under dance, resources, culture, boston, news, SUSAN, research, arts funding, fundraising, issues, america, dance culture, trends, dance companies, funding, arts, future
That the dance community at large has been facing a number of worries is not really news to most of us. (’Tis unfortunate, but true.) For the most part, most of the concerns that dominate the dance headlines have been dollar-focused; the problem of finding consistent funds and finances to pay dancers, commission choreography, license works and underwrite productions is one that will likely (and, sadly) plague us for a while longer. (For those who have not yet heard, Boston Ballet is the most recent company to fall into the financial black hole.)
In order to get a better grasp of what the dance world is facing, it is probably a good idea to get a more distanced perspective of where and how dance stands in relation to its other cultural peers. Towards the end of last year (2007), LaPlaca Cohen published Culture Track 2007, a presentation in which they summarize the results of their fourth national survey of cultural audiences.
The good news: In the past two years, there’s been a slight (2-3%) increase in attendance at classical dance (ballet) and modern dance events. (Yay!)
The bad news: A hefty percentage (52-68%) of people indicated that the genre/period/style to which a “cultural activity” belonged affected their attendance. Might this mean that dance will continue to remain a “lesser attended art form”? (Bummer.)
The hope: A significant number (31-49%) of the surveyed respondents indicated that “supporting a friend or family member” is a “very important” factor in their decision to attend performances and ‘activities.’ We can make a difference! (Hurrah!)
And, just in case your invitations meet resistance, be prepared:
Recent Posts by susan kim
October 9, 2007 at 10:23 pm · Filed under SLOAN, dance, environment, new york, new york times, funding, arts, david parsons
photo by Randy Levine.
Evil/Benevolent behemoth Altria Group (formerly Phillip Morris Companies Inc.) is leaving town (i.e. New York) and will be taking their arts funding with them. As you probably already know, Altria Group, manufacturers of cigarettes (among other things) has long been a supporter of 200+ arts organizations, many of them dance companies.
This article in the Times from yesterday gives a good slice of insight into the range of organizations they support, how powerful that support has been in cultivating the arts in New York, and how difficult it will be to replace the $7 million dollar hole that will be left when they take their funding away in 2008.
I thought this was an interesting quote from David Parsons, who has been receiving funding from Altria since 1985…
“Here’s what it was — the Good Housekeeping seal of approval,” Mr. Parsons said during a break in a recent rehearsal. “It opens doors. Other funders see that, and they take a second look at you.”
They certainly must have earned some serious street cred with the projects they chose to support. Based on the success and influence of the projects they’ve funded, they clearly have a good curatorial eye.They were even pioneers, supporting many things that were new or experimental. (Of course I suppose it’s easier to take chances when you have such a large piggy bank to work with). It does makes sense though, that for other potential funders without such a discerning eye, seeing Altria dive in would give them more confidence in a project.
Do you think there is anyone/anything out there that can begin to replace their contributions?
On another note…
Besides plowing millions into the arts across the country, Altria has been a major contributor to domestic violence shelters, hunger programs and disaster relief. In the last decade, the company and its subsidiaries donated $1.5 billion in cash and in-kind contributions to charity.
Does doing so much good make up for creating such unhealthy, addictive products? I don’t know.
In a less direct way, this reminds me a bit of the debate over carbon credits. If you (individual or organization) have a lot of money, and can afford to purchase lots of carbon credits for every carbon-emitting act you make (without even fully knowing how effectively that money will be spent), does that make it ok for you not to take strides in trying to reduce your own carbon emissions-or even worse-creating more?
Recent Posts by kristin sloan
