I don’t have the stats to prove it, but I’d guess that a surprisingly high percentage (maybe even a majority) of the films produced in the US in a given year are independent documentaries.  Certainly that’s true of the 1100+ independent filmmakers in the Fractured Atlas membership, many of whom participate in our fiscal sponsorship program.

Of course, very few of these films ever get seen by more than a handful of people.  Movies are mass media in America, and if you’re not going to gross $50 million in your opening weekend, it’s tough to find a serious distributor.

Thankfully, the internet is systematically dismantling the very notion of mass media. Today, via Walter Mossberg, I learned about a new service called SnagFilms, which aims to faciliatate the viral distribution of independent documentary films.  As Mossberg puts it:

The service … allows anyone with a blog, a Web site, or even a page on a social-networking site, to open a virtual movie theater and show these documentaries, free.  The virtual theater is a small widget that contains the film, and that can be embedded easily and quickly in a wide variety of popular social-networking services and blog platforms.  No technical knowledge is needed.

SnagFilms already has an impressive roster of films to choose from, and a wide open content model promises an even greater bounty in the future.  Filmmakers can submit their work simply by emailing submissions@snagfilms.com.

So let’s try this out, shall we?  A quick perusal of the site turned up a few interesting-looking films.  (Disclaimer: I haven’t actually watched any of these, so view at your own risk.  They may be offensive or simply not very good.)

First up is Heavy Metal in Baghdad:

Next we have Freestyle, the Art of Rhyme:

And finally, Black, White, and Gray: a Portrait of Sam Wagstaff and Robert Mapplethorpe:

So, I am a bit of a personal finance freak. I came across a post today on one of my favorite p.f. blogs that immediately related to my work here. The post offers GREAT advice for artists who are trying to build an audience, especially if you have little experience in networking. I encourage those of you facing the issue of butts in seats to check it out. I found it useful - anyone else?

Many of our members (mostly those in NY State) received a healthcare-related mailing from us in the past few days.  Unfortunately, a typographical error on the part of the design firm we used resulted in the wrong phone number being printed in the tri-fold brochure.  If you tried to call us and found yourself speaking to a random law firm - sorry!

For the record, our correct phone number is (212) 277-8020.

If you haven’t checked out my last post about the National Performing Arts Convention, you can view it here.

Quick intro:  Throughout the week, convention attendees convened in small groups (”caucuses”) to discuss topics/issues effecting the field at large.  At the conclusion of the convention, everyone who remained met in a large group to decide how to approach these issues going forward.  Although making the final decisions via group-thought was difficult and annoying as a result of technological glitches and, in my opinion, of an underinformed group, the convening still produced some interesting feedback from the performing arts field.

Here is Issue #3….

Issue #3: The increasing diversity of our communities creates an opportunity to engage a variety of ages, races, identities, and cultures in our audiences and organizations.  Which three strategies are most important to take in order to advance our vision?

Because diversity can be a touchy subject, before I go on, I should say that these are NOT Fractured Atlas’ thoughts and opinions, but rather my own.

First off, let me be sure to clarify what I think of when I hear the word diversity.  I think of different races — white, black, Hispanic/Latino, etc.  I think of different cultures — American, French, Nigerian, Brazilian, etc.  I think of different ages — toddlers, tweens, teens, young adult, middle-aged, over-the-hill, and elderly.  I think of different sexual orientations — straight, gay, transexual, etc.  I think of different classes — lower, middle, upper-middle, upper.  There are more categories I won’t even begin to list.  Diversity means involving ALL of the different groups, including those in the minority AND majority.

Let’s be frank, though.  “Diversity” is a word that gets tossed around way too much as a hot term — something we all have to include in our organizations, in our lives, and in our grant applications.  And I think a lot of us are missing the point.  Diversity cannot be forced into where it doesn’t make sense.  For instance, let’s say there was a theatre company that set out to do August Wilson’s ten-play cycle.  One would expect their casts to be made up of African American actors.  Should they be forced to diversify their casts by including Asian Americans and Latinos?  No.  Should straight men be allowed to join the New York Gay Men’s Chorus?  Probably not (wasn’t there a Will & Grace episode about that??).  These things just don’t make sense.

Whenever possible, diversity should happen naturally.  And, we should also be looking at how we’re already diverse within our own groups.  Here at Fractured Atlas, for instance, we’re all pretty young (I won’t divulge how young).  That’s not very diverse, correct?  But, our artistic backgrounds are extremely diverse.  We have theatre artists, a dancer, visual artists, and an art historian.  Out of eight people, I think that’s pretty diverse.  As a culture, we need to start embracing the diversity we already have in our groups and organizations before we try to force diversity for diversity’s sake.  If you’re open to working with new people — whoever they may be — then, in my mind, you’re open to being diverse.  At that point, diversity should happen organically.

So, that clarifies my stance.

Here is what the audience voted for among the suggestions:

On a NATIONAL level… “Charge national service organizations to create dialogue at convenings, create training programs, promote diverse art and artists, and partner with grassroots organizations who are already connected to diverse communities.”

My thought on this… Come on, folks!  This is already happening and has not done much except result in arguments (in my honest opinion).  Let’s try something new and innovative for a change.  The strategy I was hoping to see pushed forward was: “Create a media campaign with artists from diverse communities including celebrities to provide exposure to diverse art.”  I know I dissed the media campaigns in some of my prior posts, but here is where I think it would be most effective.  I think this would appeal to diverse youth who look to celebrities as their heroes.  Cultivate these thoughts within the minds of our youth and you start paving a road for the future.

On the LOCAL level, the audience voted for: “Open an honest dialogue across community groups and sectors to share priorities and identify barriers to participation.”

Here we go again with the touchy-feely stuff.  I’ve witnessed open dialogues.  Some go well, but as soon as you say “diversity,” everyone has their own opinion and is not willing to budge.  Instead, why don’t we try to “Partner within the arts, as well as with community organizations, to build relationships.”  And I’m not talking about phony, “let’s apply for a consortium grant” relationships.  I’m talking about honest-to-goodness partnerships, where it makes complete sense to partner with the community organizations.  Not to toot our own horn, but Fractured Atlas has been doing a lot of advocacy work in the Williamsburg, Brooklyn area recently and, in order to connect with the artists in that community, we needed to connect with their community organizations (many of which are culturally-specific institutions).  Why did we do this?  Because it makes sense in the context of the project.  In the process, we are diversifying our programming and our reach.

On an INDIVIDUAL/ORGANIZATIONAL level, the audience favored: “Discover arts in your community offered by cultures other than your own and establish peer relationships.”

Hooray!  One I finally agree with.  Granted, again, I don’t believe diversity only means cultural diversity (as is noted by the suggestion above).  But, I think this gets the point across.  If you want to be diverse and want it to happen in a natural way, you have to actually be interested in the other cultures/orientations/groups.  If you’re unfamiliar with those groups, then you need to get out there and introduce yourself.  If you’re uncomfortable doing this, find someone who can serve as a connector between yourself and this group.  It’s like working across artistic disciplines.  If you are a filmmaker who wants to start working with dancers, you have to go see dancers perform!  If your interest has been peaked, follow your gut and learn more.  Discover and actively participate.  It’s really not that difficult.  If you just open your circle up to more people, you will automatically be diversifying that circle.

As I said before, many people have their own opinions about diversity.  And you’re welcome to disagree with mine.  Please feel free to post comments!

I hope you have enjoyed my series on NPAC.  I’ll be sure to get back to the member profiles next week!

Via Donor Power Blog, a helpful list of F.A.Q.s for non-profits (artists count) thinking about whether and how they should be blogging.  Much of the advice boils down to: don’t do unless it serves your mission and you’re prepared to do it in a manner that is authentic, sincere, and committed.  Worth a read.

P.S. About a month ago I announced that Fractured Atlas member profiles now feature blog syndication.  Since then, about 20 members have set up their feeds to re-publish on the Fractured Atlas site.  Here’s a list of the early adopters:

ashley
backpod
CoG
CollisionWorks
doanart
dopeswan-nyc
Dreamcatcher1
ecarlislenorton
elixir_theatre
fistinthepocket
Gregwproject
innercity
konradical
My Life as a Bald Soprano
niamapers
peoplesmonastery
phase3
playlabnyc
ShattertheGlass

Not sure how I missed this one, but last month the US Senate introduced a bill that nearly doubles the standard income tax deduction threshold for performing artists. The bill also:

• Allows the $30,000 limit (which is currently $16,000) to be applied on a per-individual rather than per-return basis, which is a boon to households with multiple professional performers;
• Indexes the limit to inflation.

Senator Charles Schumer, who sponsored the legislation, observed:

This tax code is so outdated, it’s more appropriate for court jesters from the Middle Ages than for today’s performing artists.

Indeed.

Ray D. Madoff, writing in this morning’s NY Times, laments the news that Leona Helmsley bequeathed most of her $8 billion fortune to a foundation dedicated to the care and welfare of dogs:

The charitable deduction constitutes a subsidy from the federal government. The government, in effect, makes itself a partner in every charitable bequest. In Mrs. Helmsley’s case, given that her fortune warranted an estate tax rate of 45 percent, her $8 billion donation for dogs is really a gift of $4.4 billion from her and $3.6 billion from you and me.

To put it in perspective, our contribution to Mrs. Helmsley’s cause equals approximately half of what we spend on Head Start, a program that benefits 900,000 children.

What will we get for our $3.6 billion? An eternal monument to Leona Helmsley’s generosity toward dogs.

First off, why all the canine hate?  Okay, so it’s true that few of us share Leona’s priorities, or at least her apparent enthusiasm.  But I don’t share all of the federal Government’s priorities either.  At the risk of getting political - would you rather than $3.6 billion be spent for the care and welfare of dogs or to buy bombs that will be blown up somewhere in the middle east?

This is the beauty of the charitable deduction.  It decentralizes decisions about which public services are most deserving of support.  Sometimes people make bad decisions.  Sometimes they accomplish brilliant, ambitious things that would never come out of government (witness the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation).  If you believe in the power of markets and the wisdom of crowds, then you believe that, in the aggregate, this is an efficient way of ensuring that society’s concerns are addressed.

Of course, there are limitations.  These are defined by Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.  As explained on the IRS website:

The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals.  The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.

(Notice that preventing cruelty to animals is expressly mentioned, so Leona’s gift seems unambiguously within established guidelines for charitability.  Also notice that there’s nary a mention of the arts…  That’s right, we fall under “education”, a seemingly precarious position that makes me nervous whenever I contemplate it!)

So Madoff’s pretty misguided on this point. However he raises another issue that deserves to be taken very seriously:

Most such foundations perform no charitable work but only give money to organizations that do. The law requires foundations to spend a minimum of just 5 percent of their assets a year, thus helping ensure their perpetual existence, and their donors’ immortality. In meeting this requirement, foundations are allowed to count fees paid to their trustees and other administrative expenses.

In 2003, legislation was introduced in Congress that would have required private foundations to devote the full 5 percent to charitable expenditures. But the foundations complained that this would threaten their perpetual existence, and the bill did not pass.

Some people who establish perpetual charitable trusts may assume that their philanthropic dollars will go further if the trust distributes only its investment income and preserves its principal. Anyone familiar with the story of the goose that laid the golden eggs knows the importance of not spending principal. However, because a dollar spent today is worth more than a dollar spent several years from now, in many cases, the sum of payments made over time — even in perpetuity — never equals the value of the original principal.

Anyone with the most rudimentary understanding of finance knows that he’s right.  The financial math leads inescapably to the conclusion that private foundations would be maximally effective if they gave away all of their assets within their first year of giving.  Of course, this reasoning fails to consider that wiser giving decisions will presumably be made if there’s a little more time to make them.

So where is the middle ground?  Reintroducing (and passing) that 2003 legislation would be a good start.  By requiring that operating expenses be above and beyond the 5% minimum annual payouts, you ensure that the more efficient (or less profligate) a foundation is, the better shot it has at immortality.  Another approach would be to benchmark the minimum payout threshold to investment returns, thereby ensuring that the foundation’s endowment doesn’t outpace its giving.

If you haven’t checked out my first post about the National Performing Arts Convention, you can view it here.

Quick intro:  Throughout the week, convention attendees convened in small groups (”caucuses”) to discuss topics/issues effecting the field at large.  At the conclusion of the convention, everyone who remained met in a large group to decide how to approach these issues going forward.  Although making the final decisions via group-thought was difficult and annoying as a result of technological glitches and, in my opinion, of an underinformed group, the convening still produced some interesting feedback from the performing arts field.

Here is Issue #2….

Issue #2: The potential of arts education and lifelong learning in the arts is under realized.  What strategies are most important in order to advance our vision?

Here is what the audience voted for:

On a NATIONAL level… “Devise an advocacy campaign to promote the inclusion of performing arts in core curricula.”

My thought on this… Hasn’t this been done already?  Did it work?  The strategy I was hoping the crowd embraced was: “Lobby for education reform, including rescinding No Child Left Behind.”  Look, we’re not going to get anywhere on the arts education front if we can’t first reform the American educational system in general.  I was lucky enough to go to a great public school with a great arts program.  But even 10 years later, I know that the same school is no longer at the forefront of the arts or good education.  They probably have more metal detectors than instruments!  We need to drastically overhaul this system.  And, with that, although many of us think it’s logical that improvements to arts education will be included in that overhaul, we need to actively lobby for it, using every tool we have at our disposal.  We need to talk about correlative data that shows arts education improving learning in other areas, we need to talk about businesses hiring creative people with MFAs rather than MBAs, and we need to talk about how we actively sustain a positive creative culture within our communities — starting with our youngest citizens.

On the LOCAL level, the audience voted for: “Mobilize and collaborate with K-12 and higher education institutions to strengthen arts education and arts participation as core curriculum.”

Although I agree with this, I also liked the notion of:  “Integrate arts teaching in educators’ professional development and integrate teaching programs in artist organizations.”  I think we need to work hand-in-hand with the teachers on a local level.  They are the ones that can withhold the arts from America’s children if they really want to.  If they fully embrace arts education — and we can help them do so! — then they will pass their experience onto their students.

On an INDIVIDUAL/ORGANIZATIONAL level, the audience favored: “Lead lifelong education programs that actively involve people in multi-generational groups.  ‘Make the arts part of a lifelong wellness plan.’”

I’m highly skeptical about this one… It’s too touchy-feely for me.  I’m sure it could work, but I’m also sure a lot of people will be turned off by it (ie, people that don’t like to be coddled).  Instead, I preferred:  “Run candidates for school boards and local government.”  Again, as in my previous blog post, I think that if artists ran the world (or, at least the community), then we would have a stronger impact when it comes to decisions such as funding arts education programs in schools.

So, what are your thoughts on these ideas?

Check back in coming days for a report on Issue #3 (re: diversity).

Recently, I attended the National Performing Arts Convention (NPAC) in Denver.  This was a convening of 4000+ artists and arts administrators, many of whom are involved with groups such as the National Performance Network and Dance/USA (Open Arts Network partners), Theatre Communications Group, Opera America, and the League of American Orchestras, among others.  The convention happens every four years and was a great chance to talk with peers and colleagues across a variety of disciplines.  And, we were glad to meet a few Fractured Atlas members face to face!

Throughout the week, convention attendees convened in small groups (”caucuses”) to discuss topics/issues effecting the field at large.  At the conclusion of the convention, everyone who remained met in a large group to decide how to approach these issues going forward.  This was done with the help of America Speaks, an organization that helps facilitate these types of large discussions.  Although making the final decisions via group-thought was difficult and annoying as a result of technological glitches and, in my opinion, of an underinformed group, the convening still produced some interesting feedback from the performing arts field.

What’s going to be done with this feedback?  I really don’t know.  On the national level, I’ve heard that some of the national arts organizations involved are going to take the ideas back in order to incorporate it into their future strategic planning.  But, on the local and organizational/individual levels, I don’t really see this feedback making an impact.  I expect that attendees probably returned home, saw their uber-clogged inbox, and forgot all about the decisions that were made.  We’ll see, though.

So, I thought I’d let you know what everyone decided in regards to the topics we discussed.  I’ll report on Issue #1 in this post and will report on Issues #2 & #3 in future blog posts.

Issue #1: Our communities do not sufficiently perceive the value, benefits, and relevance of the arts, which makes advocacy and building public support for the arts a challenge at every level.  Which strategies are most important to take in order to advance our vision?

Here is what the audience voted for:

On a NATIONAL level… “Organize a national media campaign with celebrity spokespersons, catchy slogans (e.g. “Got Milk”), unified message, and compelling stories.”

My thought on this… Hasn’t this been done already?  Did it work?  The strategy I was hoping the crowd embraced was: “Explore interactive new media initiatives to increase access and relevance (e.g. create a “Google Arts”-type resource, blogs, YouTube, etc.).”  I know that the performing arts are best experienced live — and that’s why this strategy got very few votes — but, as a community, we’ve been WAY behind the times when it comes to technology.  This is what the younger generation is watching… They’re fast-forwarding through commercials as a result of DVR and Tivo!  So, why should we start with a commercial campaign if barely anyone will see it?  Even if these ads were online, I don’t know that it would attract new and diverse audiences.

On the LOCAL level, the audience vote tied with: “Create an arts coalition to get involved in local decision-making, take leadership positions, and strengthen relationships with elected officials.”  AND “Forge partnerships with other sectors to identify how the arts can serve community needs.”

Those two were my top picks in the local category as well.

On an INDIVIDUAL/ORGANIZATIONAL level, the audience favored: “Build relationships with non-arts groups, including governments, corporations, community development organizations, etc.”

Although I do agree with this idea, the one I was gung-ho for was:  “Participate in the local political process by lobbying city council, school board, etc.”  I think it’s very important that we get involved in areas outside of the arts… and the political process is a great place to start, as that’s where we could make some real impact and progress advancing our ideas as a community.

So, what are your thoughts on these ideas?

Check back in coming days for reports on Issue #2 (re: arts education) and Issue #3 (re: diversity).

Happy 4th of July!

One of the best blogs on arts administration out there is Andrew Taylor’s. In his post from this afternoon, Taylor proposes a contest to develop an arts advocacy public service announcement based on his rough storyboard concept. The idea is to balance messages about art’s functional community value and its intrinsic aethetic/experiential value. This is a noble effort and one I’d love to see succeed. I also believe it’s consistent with Fractured Atlas’s holistic approach to arts advocacy.

Here are the guidelines and here’s the storyboard: