NEA Sees Increase in President's 2013 Budget Request

Budget season is upon us. There may be no more exciting time of the year, if you are like me and revel in the workings of our federal government and how policy gets made. Even though Congress is perhaps not the most popular body of work these days (and that may be an understatement), the budgetary season is important because it tends to set the tone for the policy and political arguments for the rest of the year, and in an election year like this one, it becomes even more so. President Obama’s 2013 budget request, released last Monday, contained spending cuts across dozens of federal agencies, including the armed services, health care, and energy. But one area, accustomed to cuts in recent years, received a welcome surprise this year, seeing their funding request increase from 2012: the arts community.

The president’s budget, which clocked in at about $3.7 trillion dollars, included a request of $154.255 million for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), which is a slight increase of about $8 million from the funding that the NEA received this year. While still lower than the funding NEA received in 2010 ($167.5 million), it is a step in the right direction.

As the New York Times reported, included in the increase is about $4 million that would go directly to non-profit arts organizations and another $2.7 million for state and regional arts organizations.

As many in the arts community are well aware, the NEA serves a critical role in supporting artists and arts programs around the country. The vast majority of its annual budget goes towards grants that support artists in the communities of music, art, photography, theater, literature, and more. Just as important are the group’s efforts in art education, educating and introducing children to the wonders of the arts.

Not only are the group’s efforts vital to the artistic community; they also help create jobs and boost the economy in a tough economic climate. As NEA Chairman Rocco Landesman said last week, “A dollar invested directly through the NEA is matched by $8 in additional investment and generates $26 of economic activity in the community. In short, art works.”

Now when I say “budget request,” it is specifically that: the President is required by law every year to submit his budget request to Congress. This document is not law, but merely the budget that the president would like to see. It’s more of a wish list, or set of funding appropriation requests, that the president would like to see fulfilled. It is up to Congress to pass appropriations bills for each federal department and send them to the president for approval.

(If you’re interested in hearing me talk about the budget more in-depth, I appeared on the Carnegie Mellon radio program “Policy that Matters” last week to talk about the president’s proposal, and it is now available online.)

The important thing to remember about budgets is they set forth priorities. They help set the president’s agenda and represent a list of what he believes is worthy of investment. The commitment to the NEA, even though the funding increase is minor, represents a commitment to improving the lives of artists everywhere. In a tough economic climate, this commitment has never been more important for the arts community.

I last wrote about protecting federal funding for the arts this past October, and while the president’s budget is an encouraging sign, the calls for budget cuts and austerity measures continue in Washington. There is certainly still a chance that funding for the NEA may decrease when the budgetary bills are passed by Congress later this year.

There are certainly more pressing budgetary topics in the news, and the amount dedicated to NEA is a very small percentage of the overall budget. But for the artistic community, and for those who depend on the programs NEA supports, they remain a vital part of our American psyche and play a huge role in advancing the joys and benefits of the arts. In tough economic times however, and calls for budget austerity by some, there will be an incentive to decrease the budget in as many areas as possible.

The arts are as deserving as ever of our continued commitment to support the NEA and the causes it advances. Seeing the increased budgetary request for the endowment is a welcome sign. Even though it seems like Congress can agree on nothing these days, it is surely our hope that the continued support of NEA and arts programs everywhere will be one area where all sides can agree.

Expanding the Dialogue with the CultureCode Initiative

While the intersection of technology and the arts has always presented a series of exciting opportunities for us here at Technology in the Arts, the reality is many cultural and arts organizations find technology challenging. It can seem especially prohibitive to small organizations and individual artists who may lack expertise. The Arts Council England and Codeworks have developed an interesting forum to increase the dialogue between arts organizations and the developers of this intimidating technology, the CultureCode Initiative.

No definition fits the CultureCode Initiative better than the one straight out of their digital press release,

“The CultureCode Initiative is a series of free events designed to open up new opportunities for highly skilled developers, designers and assorted geeks to work collaboratively with cultural organisations and artists.”

Here’s why I find the idea of the CultureCode Initiative so fascinating: technology often overwhelms people and appears antithetical to cultural organizations that feel that new technology can make them obsolete. The CultureCode Initiative seeks to completely debunk that myth, as Tyneside Cinema Chief Executive Mark Dobson explains, “You don’t need to have any previous experience of digital to attend this event”.

The CultureCode Initiative’s website even states “you don’t need an IT department” to partake and learn from their events, and some are guaranteed to be "jargon-free". The advent of web 2.0 and the current culture of sharing absolutely everything via the internet has democratized information. The CultureCode Initiative, to me, is increasing accessibility and informing arts and cultural organizations know that it is possible and it is easy for them to join this discussion.

Most importantly, perhaps, the discussion is not meant to be in one direction. While most similar opportunities are aimed at instructing arts organizations in utilizing technology, the CultureCode Initiative encourages two-way dialogues, with events showing developers how they can take a new look at cultural organizations and how cultural organizations can reconsider their “digital assets”.

If you’d like to join the discussion live, their first events start early next week (Tuesday, February 21^st ) and CultureCode ends with a huge twenty-four hour Hack towards the end of March.

If you don’t happen to live in the North East of England (where these events take place) you can join the discussion digitally by tweeting @Culture_Code.

Any of our readers going? Be sure to let us know your perceptions of the events – you can bet Tech in the Arts will be watching to see what cool solutions come out of the CultureCode Hack.

The Participatory Museum: A Must-Read Book for Current and Future Arts Managers

Traveling this weekend, I decided to put aside my school work, leave my laptop at home and finally read Nina Simon’s, The Participatory Museum. As an arts management student, I cannot emphasize enough just how relevant this book is for cultural institution administrators, especially future ones. I have decided procrastinating over the weekend was in the name of the future of museums (at least that’s what I’m telling myself…).

Nina Simon, the author of the book and Museum 2.0 blog, is the Executive Director of the Museum of Art & History in Santa Cruz. Simon shares her own experiences of visiting, working and participating (or not) in museums throughout the book. What I find most critical to the book’s success in discussing participation in the museum setting, and doing so credibly, are the countless examples and case studies ranging from science museums to art museums, and Simon’s personal, professional accounts to events she observed and experienced. The case studies are relevant, contemporary, and thematically and geographically diverse.

The purpose of this post is not to offer a summary of the book, though if it were, I would say this: it is an introduction, resource and guide for cultural institutions on where/when/why/how to engage visitors as “cultural participants, not passive consumers.”

Instead, I will focus on three components of visitor participation and engagement: the different types of participants, the need for constraints and the four models of participation.

Until this weekend, I was under the impression there are two types of museum goers: those who will sit down at a computer screen to video record their reaction to an exhibition as prompted, and those, like myself, who will not. I don’t think I’m alone in that fallacy either. If video-recording or commenting on my experience is the extent of the museum’s participatory program, well then, I’m out of luck. Simon applies research conducted by Forrestor Research to explain the participatory trends and types of audiences in the cultural institution setting. These audiences are:

1.The creators

2.The critics

3. The collectors

4. The joiners

5. The spectators

6.The inactives

Think about YouTube and Flickr. These social media sites encourage participation from all types of audiences, including those who want to post content, share videos and upload photos (the creators); those who want to publicly like, dislike and rate content (the critics); those who like to aggregate the videos and photos they most enjoy in their own profiles (the collectors); those who are members or have an account on social network sites (the joiners); those who consume the videos, photos and blog posts of those who create them (the spectators); and finally, those who have no interaction with online social sites (the inactives).

Ah ha! So those of us who don’t feel comfortable sharing at the video commenting station aren’t lazy museum participants! Rather, the museum has neglected to incorporate a means of participation that engages our type of audience. It is often the case that cultural institutions engage either the creators of user generated content, or the spectators, polarizing the museum audience into those two groups.

Knowing there are critics, collectors, joiners and the inevitable inactives who have what Simon calls, “intermediate participatory behaviors,” a museum must create participatory experiences to discourage participation inequality and to encourage engagement.

Participation inequality leads me to my next point. To encourage participation from all audience types, exhibits must be designed with limitations, constraints and scaffolding. This may seem counter-intuitive if you want open, unrestricted and expressive responses from your audience. However, open-ended questions and activities cause many visitors to run away in fear and self-consciousness. My most favorite art-related quote (by Oscar Welles) so brilliantly addresses this barrier to participation, productivity and creativity: “the enemy of art is the absence of limitation.”

Simon writes

The best participatory experiences are not wide open. They are scaffolded to help people feel comfortable engaging in the activity. There are many ways to scaffold experiences without prescribing the result…A supportive starting point can help people participate confidently – whether as creators, critics, collectors, joiners, or spectators.

Scaffolding and constraints make participating less daunting and audiences feel more confident in themselves and their ideas. Simon provides examples and case studies of successful, constrained projects and activities that engage all types by limiting self-expression and open-ended opportunities. This is brilliant. Is it a completely new idea? No. But Simon provides all the information you need to create quality outcomes for all. She explores what limitations in the cultural institution setting are, how they work, why they work, who they benefit, and how you can implement them in your organization.

Now that we understand the diverse needs and types within the audience and how to scaffold the creative experience, we can now take a look at Simon’s four different models for participation:

1. Contributory

2. Collaborative

3. Co-creative

4. Hosted

The second half of Simon’s text focuses on each model of participation. You can access a handy PDF version of Simon’s matrix that organizes each model according to the organization’s commitment to community engagement, need for control in the participatory process, vision of relationship with the participants, goals for the participants and nonparticipants, etc.

Depending on the organization’s mission, capacity and the situation, different models of participation will be more effective than others. The most critical factor to determine when deciding what model of participation to employ is the extent of control the organization wants over the process and its participants. Once the question of control has been addressed, museums can then determine their vision and desired outcomes for the project, the type of participation activities required to reach those goals and the role of museum staff. The final task  is to measure the success and impact of the participatory project.

I recommend this book to current students and professionals in the museum field. As we enter an age of an increasingly diverse society, it will become even more critical for museums to create opportunities that encourage all audiences to attend, engage and participate.

The Participatory Museum is available in three formats: as a paperback book ($25), a downloadable file ($18), and online (free). I encourage our Technology in the Arts followers to read the book, or simply a chapter of it, and contextualize the material in terms of your own arts organization- be it a museum, community center, arts center or gallery. How do you currently encourage visitor participation? Are you engaging all types of participants? If not, what types of programs, projects or exhibits can your organization support to better engage more visitors?

For further information, check out this previous Technology in the Arts post on a talk given by Simon at the Pittsburgh Children's Museum.

Mobile Fundraising Applications: The Apple policy over one year later

Apple banned fundraising apps for the iPhone, iPad, and iPod over a year ago (to much controversy) just as the first fundraising app hit the market through eBay/MissionFish.  The field of software for fundraising as a result of the ban is anemic. Until this policy is removed it seems unlikely that major fundraising will take place via mobile applications.  As the iPhone is the number one smart phone on the market developers have much less incentive to build software for fundraising purposes.  It can be extrapolated that once the ban is lifted the fund-raising/development world will be playing catch-up for years.

Here are two notable successes/efforts to do fundraising through mobile apps over the last year:

eBay and Missionfish are on the verge of offering donation capabilities through eBay's mobile application for Android (it was originally intended for the iPhone).  These donations should be relatively easy to put through and involves the user downloading the mobile eBay application and then searching for your cause.  On the organization's end the donation item has to be set up as well as the account which will interface with paypal.

In the UK a group called Marie Curie Cancer Care managed to get around the ban by setting up an app that allows users to request donations from friends through text messaging.  The application itself doesn't collect the funds but is party to gathering them.

If you want to take action, you can sign the current petition to overturn the ban here.

Speaker Series' Spotlight: Chad M. Bauman, Director of Communications for Arena Stage at the Mead Center for American Theater

On February 10th, the Master of Arts Management program at Carnegie Mellon University will welcome Mr. Chad Bauman, Director of Communications for Arena Stage at the Mead Center for American Theater to speak as part of our Speaker Series. His presentation, Confessions from an Arts Marketer – Learning from the Past, Looking Toward the Future, will highlight the worst practices in the field, what can be learned from them, and how to move beyond them. I recently chatted with Chad and talked Tweet Seats, fire in the belly, and what he wished he had known about the field from the very beginning…

Elizabeth @ Technology in the Arts: You’ve held top, senior positions as the previous Director of Marketing and Communications for Americans for the Arts and now as Director of Communications for Arena Stage. You’ve clearly figured it out. But even so, what’s the one piece of advice you wish you had received before entering the field?

Chad Bauman: I am very thankful for my education from CalArts in Producing and Theater Management. But I would have to say…I wish I had learned how to get stuff for free. When you are first starting out, it’s how good are you at convincing people to give you stuff for free- advertising space, promotional opportunities…it’s absolutely critical for smaller companies; you have to do it really well.

E: Now, with all the social media networks out there, it must be easier to get recognized and make connections with those who CAN give you stuff for free.

C: Earlier on, it was super controversial for arts organizations to be on social media; they didn’t understand what the value would be. It also used to be a smaller company could distinguish itself on social media, but now there is a lot more clutter. Being on social media is an exceptional way to get free promotion, but now you have to compete with everyone else out there.

E: So I have to ask, in your opinion, which is the better platform to get a message out and to get attention, Twitter or Facebook?

C: I’m liking Twitter more and more. It’s the most efficient platform. It began with Friendster, then MySpace, then Facebook. I think Facebook use is on the decline and Twitter is on the incline. It’s more of a conversational tool.

E: How about audience members Tweeting during a show? Tweet Seats?

C: You have to be careful; you have to find a balance with Tweet Seats. There was a case where a theater established Tweet Seats for a show, but the resident writers of the production were never consulted and they were not on board with it.

E: What are you more in favor of then, Tweet Seats or post-experience Tweeting?

C: I am more in favor of post-experience Tweeting. You can’t get the full experience if you are on your phone, you’ll miss something. You can miss the most crucial detail, especially in a very nuanced performance. There are many other ways to invite conversation about a production.

E: For those of us logging in hours on online job boards and stalking career services on an daily basis, what are the qualities you look for as Director in a potential employee or intern?

C: Fire in the belly. By that I mean, a person who is internally motivated. I’m not sure you can teach it. They want to do a great job and are motivated by wanting to do a great job. You can teach skills, but you can’t teach internal motivation.

E: In particular to marketing?

C: I look for people who are not afraid to take risks, calculated risks, but risks nonetheless. You have to be willing to take a risk in an entrepreneurial spirit.

E: We, my fellow job and internship seekers, thank you for that advice! I don’t want to take up too much more of your time, so one last question. In a recent blog, I looked at the changing face of America over the next four or five decades and its shift to a minority-majority population. How can visual arts or performing arts organizations expand their audience to reflect this change?

C: First, it’s about programming and community outreach. At Arena Stage, we go out into the community, to churches, to schools, to make personal relationships. You can communicate to younger demographics about your organization’s activity and productions using technology tools. But it’s about programming. Marketers are very good at targeting a specific demographic and figuring out what tools to use. But regardless of the tool, there has to be an interest in the production or the organization’s mission.

You can read more about this Speaker Series event on the Master of Arts Management Speaker Series' website, discuss arts marketing with Chad on his blog, and find further information about the Master in Arts Management (MAM) program on the Heinz College webpage.

Interview with Chad Bauman conducted and condensed by Technology in the Arts contributor, Elizabeth Quaglieri.

Artistic Inspiration and the Fall of Kodak

A new exhibit in our nation’s capitol is as breathtaking in its quality as it is in its simplicity: seven world renowned artists offering up private photographs of their daily lives and sharing them with the world, alongside beautiful works of art. The uniqueness of the exhibit, however, lies in its inspiration. Kodak, the company loved around the world for its handheld cameras and impact on the lives of artists everywhere, serves as the inspiration for the exhibit, as all of the photographs taken are from simple Kodak handheld cameras. Given recent events, however, the inspiration is bittersweet: having recently declared for bankruptcy, and fear of liquidation rampant, artists everywhere face the reality of a world without the company that inspired so many of them to take their first photograph.

The exhibition, Snapshot: Painters and Photography, Bonnard to Vuillard, opened this past Sunday and continues until May 6th at The Phillips Collection Museum in Washington, D.C. Organized in conjunction with the Indianapolis Museum of Art and the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam, the exhibit features the work of seven dynamic artists: Pierre Bonnard, Maurice Denis, Edouard Vuillard, Felix Vallotton, George Hendrick Breitner, Henri Evenepoel and Henri Riviere.

The idea behind the exhibit is simple: taking their cue from the inspiration of the Kodak handheld camera, first introduced in 1888, all seven artists experimented with the simple device and provided images that captured their daily lives and the world around them. All seven artists captured images of beauty and resonance, and all together compiled over 200 photographs for the exhibit. The artists as a team took over 10,000 photographs with their trusty Kodak cameras, and the great thing about the exhibit is that most of the photos are unpublished and never seen before in public. Most of the images were meant to remain private, and instead of keeping them in their personal collections, the artists have decided to share them with the world.

One of the nice things about the exhibit is how some of the photographs in the collection served as inspirations for later paintings. You can see, side by side, the original photographs next to the paintings. The other parts of the exhibit feature over 70 paintings, drawings and prints from the artists.

The larger point here, at least for me, is how this relates to the recent news of Kodak’s bankruptcy. As reported by the New York Times and others, Eastman Kodak filed for bankruptcy last month, with many in the business world predicting that liquidation may be in its future. Founded over 131 years ago, Kodak has struggled to remain competitive in today’s technological environment, with more and more photographers going digital and leaving the company’s tried and true 35mm cameras behind.

Kodak is not the first company to struggle in the face of new technologies, and it certainly will not be the last. But as it relates to the arts and technology as a whole, this case takes on additional meaning. So many artists and photographers first fell in love with cameras and taking photographs because of Kodak and their simple 35mm cameras. In the age when film was king, Kodak had a near monopoly on the 35mm business, with competition from Fuji in recent decades. Kodak’s efforts were responsible for creating millions of artists and some of the images that have resonated with us for decades.

Kodak’s lessened stature may not have been noticed by many over the past ten years, as digital cameras have boomed and consumers have been more concerned with LCD screen size and optical zoom size instead of remembering what kind of film to buy. But for anyone who has ever bought a Kodak handheld and been introduced to the wonderful world of photography, it stings a little bit.

Even as Kodak sought to expand its portfolio over the past decade, knowing that this moment was going to come, it could still count on people seeking that old fashioned thrill of the disposable camera. But as more and more people turned to digital, and the company failed to do well enough in the other fields it has ventured into in recent years, including printers and digital cameras, it was only a matter of time until the company was in danger of folding.

I still remember taking pictures with a Kodak handheld when I was a kid, eagerly joining my mother as we went to the store to develop pictures of our family vacations. When I worked in retail in high school and college, I worked with Kodak vendors who introduced us to their latest 35mm and digital cameras. I had friends who worked for Kodak, both at their main offices in Rochester and as field representatives.

So as it relates to the exhibit in Washington, it’s refreshing to see a new exhibit that seeks to capture the joy of artists taking simple pictures with their trusty Kodak handhelds. Even as technology changes, ultimately for the better, a nod to the photograph’s past is especially appreciated.

The beauty of technology is that current and future generations will find inspiration from the arts in new and exciting ways. Digital cameras are becoming extremely affordable and are allowing more and more people to experience the joy of photography. Online editing tools are allowing people the tools to create beautiful, dynamic images at resolutions as large as their imaginations.

Twenty or thirty years from now, will museum exhibits look back on the era of our current technology, digital cameras, as society leaves them behind for something else? It’s too soon to tell, but we do know one thing: the beauty and joy of photography will continue to entertain and capture the imaginations of people of every age and background. As we move forward in an era of exciting technological breakthroughs and products, it’s a shame that a company like Kodak may not be around to enjoy it.

(Photo: courtesy of the Phillips Collection)

Welcome to the World of Old School 3D Photography

Over a hundred years before 3D technology invaded movie theaters and living rooms, another form of 3D image technology was incredibly popular around the globe. The images were called stereographs, and the technology was quite simple: two pictures of the same image, shot from slightly different angles, were viewed through a narrow device that only let you see one image with each eye, giving the appearance of a 3D image (remember playing with a ViewMaster as a kid? The technology is quite similar). Now, thanks to the work of the New York Public Library, you can view over 40,000 stereographs, most of them over a century old, and create your own animated GIF that offers the illusion of a 3D image. In addition, you can also create modern 3D photos of the same images, viewable through those hokey blue-red 3D glasses. The best part? Sharing your creations with your fellow arts lovers!

As reported by the New York Times last week, the NYPL Lab’s site, called the Stereogranimator, is simple to use. To create an animated GIF, first, you select a pair of similar looking pictures from a collection of over 40,000 images, some of which date back to the nineteenth century. Second, you choose your focal point within the image and the speed of the animation. Finally, you can share the animated GIF on social media sites or embed in your blog. You can see my custom image below!

GIF made with the NYPL Labs Stereogranimator

The process for the 3D anaglyph image is similar. After choosing a pair of images, you choose your focal point within the image and hit the create button. You can see my 3D image below, which can be aided just in case you have those old-school blue-red 3D glasses!

ANAGLYPH made with the NYPL Labs Stereogranimator

As I scrolled through the photographs, it surprised me how many images were taken back then that look so similar. As artist Joshua Heineman, the brains behind the operation, describes on the NYPL Lab site, this was intentional: looking at both pictures, the viewer could be provided with a sense of depth that simply was not possible by looking at one image. With so many of these image pairs being captured, the public would use the stereograph, the ultimate entertainment device of the late 19th century, to see a very early form of 3D technology for themselves. Like video games or movie theaters today, the technology was a hugely popular for several decades.

The New York Public Library’s site is another example of an encouraging trend: more libraries opening up their vast collections to an online audience for free. While some library systems have been hesitant to open up too much of their catalog to online audiences, the NYPL has been a leader in embracing the online community: in addition to their stereograph project, the library also has a project titled “What’s on the Menu?,” where people can help the library transcribe historical restaurant menus to add to its data of food prices and trends.

Even better? Improving the experience through technology, in this case with animated and 3D images. While the technology is far from groundbreaking for today’s audience, it does offer a unique historical look back at a technology that was so popular a century and a half ago.

We here at Tech in the Arts have written before about all the cool things happening today with 3D technology, and none of them have to do with the latest films hitting the movie theater. Through collaboration, open source technology and access to historical materials, the New York Public Library and others are embracing a new movement towards more social interaction between institutions and their patrons, a movement we strongly embrace and encourage.

Cultivating a More Diverse Audience: The Future of Museums

A 2010 report published by the Center for the Future of Museums, an initiative of American Association of Museums, forecasts the changing face of the United States over the next four decades and the future of museums in light of an increasingly diverse population and “majority minority” society. The report, “Demographic Transformation and the Future of Museums” is a must-read for museum managers and administration- if only for the graphics and statistics projecting the upcoming drastic and rapid shift in demographics in the United States. A concise report, complete with graphics, a call to action, and a list of online resources for demographic information and socio-economic indicators, the American Association of Museums (AAM) analyzes the data on patterns of museum use and trends in societal growth to answer the questions

How will people use museums in the future? And which people will use them?

The forecasted demographic transformation directly affects the museum audience and museum professionals as today’s typical museum goer, a 45-54 year old non-Hispanic white adult, is no longer an accurate reflection of the American public.

Below is a summary of the report’s key findings, surprising statistics, focus group outcomes and suggestions on how to cultivate a diverse, museum audience that’s users reflect the diverse, 'majority minority' communities of America’s future.

Sometime between 2040 and 2050, depending on which projection model is employed, the current U.S. minority groups- African Americans, Latinos (of any race), Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, Native Americans and others, including those identify as multiracial- will collectively become the new majority in the United States. The proportion of non-Hispanic whites will fall below 50 percent for the first time since the country was founded.

The future of American society is one of “majority minority” in which disparate groups and minorities constitute the collective majority of the population. This compares to the data collected from 2008 on the racial and ethnic composition of the U.S. population in which, by both race and ethnicity, Whites and non-Hispanic whites, made up 74.3% and 84.9% of the population.

The AAM recognizes the imperfections of the monolithic and conventional categories of white, black, Hispanic, and Asian as more and more individuals seek a more multi-racial and ethnic option for classification.

While there are many factors affecting an individual’s decision to attend what the National Endowment for the Arts terms “benchmark arts” (attendance at musical plays, non-musical plays, jazz concerts, theater, opera, classical music performances, the ballet and visual art venues), such as distance, accessibility, cost of admission, income and education, the latter two are most often the major determinants of attendance.

Who has traditionally been the art museum user? And who will it be? While the percentage of the U.S. adult population visiting art museums/galleries declined by 4% between 1992 and 2008, non-Hispanic whites, ages 45-54, are the predominant attendees. Consider this graphic:

If the forecast for the next four decades is correct and the current pattern in museum attendance remains unchanged, art museums and galleries will not serve the majority of the American population. There are economic, cultural, historic, educational, scheduling and interpersonal barriers to entry that affect an individual’s decision and motivation to attend; however, these barriers must be broken in order to create a more inclusive and inviting museum experience for the future America.

What can be done to increase museum/gallery attendance among diverse groups and reduce the great ethnic and racial disparities in museum participation? It is up to the museum administrators, managers, marketers, developers, programmers, educators and front-line personnel.

Know your audience. All of them. Know your neighborhood and community. Read the newest research. Many Urban Studies institutes have published reports on why specific demographics do or do not attend museums or visual art venues. For example,

…studies suggest that African Americans are more likely to attend events characterized by black themes and in which blacks are well-represented among performers, staff and audience members. This has been dubbed the ‘FUBU test’ –for us, by us.

Further research indicates African Americans and Hispanics are

More likely than others to list the desire to ‘celebrate heritage’ and support a community organization’ as a reason to attend arts and cultural events.’

Studies specific to Hispanics found

Hispanics with lower education and income levels tend to seek cultural activities that engage extended families and promote family unity, as well as providing broadly defined educational activities for children

The report features six brief case studies on museums  that have studied the composition of their audience and considered what the future of their audience and community will be. In response to their analysis, museum administrators and managers have implemented unique education programs and outreach activities to address the needs of a growing diverse community. Additionally, youth focus groups have helped to identify what deters younger ages from attending museums and what they would like the museum experience to be- their candid answers are published in the report.

Perhaps the most telling graphic is this map of the United States indicating the metropolitan areas throughout the country in which non-Hispanic white children (defined as younger than 15) are now in the minority:

To quote the infamous Whitney Houston, "...the children are our future," and this map indicates just that- a future of great racial and ethnic diversity. As society's make-up changes, so must the institutions that serve it. Listen to the youth in the community. Not only will they be the future constituents of your museum but they also offer valuable insight as to what will get them to and through the door. And let's not forget the Millennials; a generation that cares more about a global community, participatory experiences (a la Nina Simon’s ‘participatory museum’) and engagement, than making distinctions of race and ethnicity.

As a result, their [Millennial] tastes and motivations may be previews of a future that is already taking shape. In this particular future, race and ethnicity may turn out to be less significant influences….What they [Millennials] want from museums are interactive, immersive, and participatory activities. They want to be more than outside observers looking in.

Still not sure how to address the Millennials' need for an interactive, engaging and participatory experience? Consider this standout suggestion for arts and museum managers: the report cites Jane McGonigal’s theory that museums should take a lesson or two from video games and game designers. Here’s what the report say

…museums can learn a lot from game designers, who know how to design attractive, even addictive experiences…unlike the best games, museums often fail to provide visitors with clear instructions or the feeling of having successfully accomplished something.

Looking forward, racial, ethnic and generational changes will require the museum to encourage new users to attend and to implement programming that is as varied as the community in which it exists. The future composition of the United States is vastly different from that of today. And if museums do not grow in reflection of the changing demographics and population, well, I will leave you with this graphic and you can decide what the future of museums in America will be…

Performing Arts Legacies Online

Recently the Merce Cunningham Dance Company shut down following the death of Merce Cunningham.  The action taken by the founder are somewhat unique in the world of the arts and there have been observations of what this means.  Meanwhile the content of the Merce Cunningham Company, at least in part can still be found online through various video projects and the archive left by the company through the Living Legacy Plan and maintained by the Merce Cunningham Trust.  The continued availability of this content is carrying on the legacy in the true spirit of its founder who frequently wrote of the transitory nature of his performance and was a student of Buddhist philosophy.

Further performances have resided online for years through projects like On The Boards TV which is currently celebrating its two year anniversary with a sale of online content.  The content can be accessed through one time rental, purchase, and through subscription and is high quality, having been shot on 4-5 hi-definition cameras.  Through content providers like On The Boards TV  and do it yourself online venues such as YouTube and Vimeo the amount of online performing arts content has grown significantly.  Artists are gradually recognizing that real content online is critical for accessing new audiences and maximizing market penetration.

Innovation in the field of dance and theater can go deeper than this.   Critics have noticed a trend at fringe festivals of micro-performances and intimate theater.    While artists seem to be taking advantage of physical spaces for the time being, the possibilities for using digital spaces are increasing everyday.  The idea of doing live performances online has certainly received attention.  The growth of services such as Skype make interfacing virtually and therefore using these same services as a performance venue more likely every year.

The Most Artistic City in America? The Answer Might Surprise You

Merely the question itself is bound to spark controversy: what is the most artistic city in America? It is a difficult question, and the answer is often hard to gauge. Just what do we mean by “artistic?” And how does one measure how “artistic” a city is? Cities across America will often claim their museums are better and more unique, their shows are of superior quality, and their artistic communities are thriving. But when it comes to actually quantitatively measuring how artistic a city actually is, the answers are few and far in between. Thankfully, two writers have sought to settle the debate once and for all: which city holds the crown as the most artistic city in America? The answer might surprise you.

Two months ago, Richard Florida of The Atlantic sought to find which American cities had the highest concentration of artists, along with which cities had the highest concentration relative to their overall population. The data that Florida used was derived from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS), a handy site that offers a treasure trove of data about Americans’ professions, income levels, education, and much more.

Florida, and his colleague Kevin Stolarick of the Martin Prosperity Institute, looked specifically at the number of Americans that self-identified their profession in the field of “artists and related workers.” While this is not an exact measurement of all Americans working in the arts field (some artists will naturally label themselves in a different way, and others may not have participated in the survey), it provides a good measurement of how many Americans are employed and self-employed in the arts field today. The ACS found that about 237,000 Americans identified as “artists or related workers,” with the vast majority of these individuals living in cities or metropolitan areas.

There are a couple of ways to measure how “artistic” a city is, and if you just do an overall count of the number of self-proclaimed artists in a given city, naturally, the largest metropolitan areas in the country will populate the top of the list. Listed just by population, to little surprise, New York City tops the list, followed by Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco and Seattle. The rest of the top 10 is comprised of other large cities/metropolitan areas known for their artistic communities: Atlanta, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Orange County, California, and Dallas.

If we really wanted to be specific, however, we could take a look at which areas have the highest concentration of self-identified artists relative to their overall population. The ACS is capable of producing this data, by using what Florida describes as a “location quotient,” or LQ, that takes a ratio of an area’s proportion of artists and compares it to the national average. By using this metric, we can take a look at smaller cities that have disproportionately larger artistic communities that may be somewhat of a secret at the national level.

After running the data, some surprises leap out. While larger cities that were present in the original list re-appear here, some much smaller cities make the list as well. Here is the Top 10 list of self-identified artists in the United States, relative to their overall population, in order:

1. Santa Fe, New Mexico

2. San Francisco, California

3. New York City, New York

4. Los Angeles, California

5. Santa Cruz-Watsonville, California

6. Danbury, Connecticut

7. New Bedford, Massachusetts

8. Boulder-Longmont, Colorado

9. Barnstable-Yarmouth, Massachusetts

10. Jersey City, New Jersey

Santa Fe! Not only is Santa Fe at the top of this list, its LQ score is double the score of the #2 city, San Francisco. Some of the other cities on this list, most notably Boulder, are home to universities and have a high percentage of young people living there. Another point: every city on this list except for Santa Fe and Boulder are situated on either the West Coast or the East Coast.

Santa Fe has always been home to a vibrant and proud arts scene, albeit being unknown by most Americans. The state capital of New Mexico is very proud of its arts community, as artists provide an important economic engine for the town in this tough economy: the arts community as a whole provides more than $1 billion in revenues each year and supports more than 17% of all jobs in Santa Fe County.

Every city and metropolitan area across America can certainly make their claim about why their area deserves a spot on this list. While a city may not have a high percentage of self-identified artists, they can still point to unique works of art, groundbreaking museums, or even highly ranked arts schools. This is, after all, only one metric, and there are certainly other ways to measure how “artistic” a given city is. We here at Tech in the Arts would certainly vouch for our home base of Pittsburgh (home of Andy Warhol!), and I have a soft spot for my home town of Phoenix. But by strictly this metric, and information derived from the U.S. Census and the American Community Survey, Santa Fe takes the crown for now. With the amount of change and innovation taking place in the arts community these days, especially through the use of technology and social media, this list could be completely different five to ten years from now. And the more artists that are employed and working in all of these cities, the better it is for arts lovers like us everywhere.