Unfortunately, the predominant arts grantmaking process in the US is critically flawed in that it lacks connection to the very artists and art that philanthropists purport to support. The work is approached as merely a clerical task, done entirely in front of computer terminals, without the benefit of exposure to the applicants’ actual work at all. There is no examination, in person or virtual, of the music, dance, theater, or video. It’s seen as inconvenient and, somehow, “not in our lane.” How can we assess an application’s excellence, however, when we approach it with the same critical and aesthetic depth as balancing a checkbook? Also, the nature of the work in the application process is out of balance between applicant and reviewer. Grantmakers ask applicants to spend time creating arcane SWOT analyses and impact studies without asking commiting to go out to do a site visit and experience the real impact of their work. That just seems arrogant to me.

Also, the way we spend much of our time needs reworking, refining, and rethinking. American arts philanthropy, and perhaps philanthropy in general, has grown into an institutional complex which lacks connection to its own mission. Officers and middle managers enjoy and are encouraged to meet with each other, share some data, and pat themselves on the back on how impactful they are. That, alone, is fine but it’s inevitably at the expense of spending time with those who are actually doing the work creating, presenting, and teaching the art. There are meetings, seminars, and even entire conferences, supposedly dedicated to the arts and arts grantmaking, which are bereft of any arts content or even participation by actual artists at all. 

Now let me disclose something here. In my own years of arts philanthropy, I have engaged in such gatherings. Some have resulted in programs, series, funding, and awareness. Where it makes sense and has the direction and capacity to effect actual change and health of the arts, of course I am in favor of such gatherings and collaborations. (To get there, however, takes a lot of work after the final session is done. Sadly, this seldom occurs.)

The problem is when the time, energy, and money expended at these gatherings don’t make their way back to the art, itself – performances, education, outreach, something. A huge chunk of it ends up being merely insular and self-perpetuating without connection to the mission.

If I am engaged in an activity which is more than two dots’ connection to some form of art, I have to ask myself some tough questions. What am I doing here? What is this for? For whom is it being done? Can I work more efficiently and directly than whatever is going on here?

Indeed, there is even a sub-group of arts activists which is solely involved with social, political, and educational issues but unconcerned with actual music, theater,  dance, or other creative forms of expression. It doesn’t matter to them. The attitude is, “Well, there’s nothing wrong with all of your swirls of paint and honking and scratching of instruments. Just get my kids’ test scores up.” Come on! Now, all of us involved with arts education are aware of powerful educational and social outcomes of learning and participating in the arts, but none of that happens without the art. Also, of course, there are many social ills, including, inequities in arts structures, that must to be addressed. But the tail must never wag the dog. At what point is one grinding an axe that will never be used to build a stage or sets or a viola or props?