John William Bateman

Rebuild Patronage of Artists, Not Institutions

(A Policy Argument For Artist-Centric Philanthropy)

By John William Bateman

Arts funding in the United States is a multi-billion dollar industry. In 2018, private and community funders contributed $3 billion to the arts;1 and, in 2020, public funding sources provided nearly $1.5 billion.2 These numbers sound impressive, but exactly who is benefiting? Who should benefit? A range of arguments support the funding of arts programs: arts-based education amplifies learning of other subjects; arts education builds creative problem solvers as a core competency; arts is an investment in quality of life and community culture; or art builds economic impact through tourism.

Although certainly not an exhaustive list of justifications for funding the arts, what is needed is a renewed priority on who receives funding.

Without artists, there are no works for museums to house. Without art educators, there are no art teachers. Without thespians, there are no theaters or movies. Without musicians, there is no music. Without singers, there are no choirs, no operas, no bands, no anthems sung at athletic events. Without dancers, there is no ballet, no choreography, no dance halls. Without writers, there are no newspapers, no books, no stories. Although arts and culture is one of the top five funding areas in U.S. philanthropy, a systematic shift is needed that prioritizes the direct funding of artists. An artist-centric strategy creates stronger long-term impact in several ways:

  • ensures a highly developed creative workforce and corresponding cultural output.
  • builds culture assets from the grassroots level.
  • uses limited resources with greater efficiency.

By the numbers

Although artists, as makers, are the originating “source” of creative output and cultural assets, artists in the United States do not benefit from a clear, consistent priority of direct funding.3 Out of the $3 billion given to the arts from private and community funders in 2018, one-fourth of that funding went to general operating support of organizations.4 Program funding received 24% of that funding (or $714.4 million) and capital and infrastructure received 14% (or $417.3 million).5 These numbers don’t quantify how many recipient organizations support artists directly, and, given that roughly 17% of funding that year is “unspecified,” there are variances to consider when answering the key question: how much funding directly supports artists, whether in the form of grants, fellowships, employment, or funded residencies?

Despite those variables, this same 2018 study offers clues that reveal how funding is actually prioritized.6 “Individual development and student aid” received $125.9m in funding. Nearly $190m went for “financial stability” including emergency funds and endowments. The study also shows major investments in network-building and collaborations ($77.6m), research ($78.9m), and public engagement and marketing ($125.9m). Acquisitions for collections, as well as management and preservation, are carved out separately, receiving $19.1m and $15.5m respectively. These categories of funding contrast those made by state arts agencies. According to the National Assembly of State Arts Assemblies, in 2019, state arts agencies awarded nearly $11 million directly to artists.7

What does this reveal? More than 35 times the amount of funding specifically given to artists by state art agencies is given by private and community foundations to organizations for emergency funds, endowments, networks and collaborations, and marketing. Undoubtedly, some of these funders offer fellowships, individual grants, and funded residencies (or grants to support those efforts). However, other than data from state arts agencies, there appears to be little priority to identify and track these types of funders who directly support artists.

Instead of ad hoc organizational desires, there should be a common, artist-centric strategy in arts funding.

This isn’t a new argument. The U.S. government once hired artists as a course of business.

Under Holger Cahill, National Director of the Federal Art Project, the U.S. government funded a range of efforts that created an enormous art movement in the United States. This included building 100 community art centers, 2,500 murals, 18,000 sculptures, and more. Some projects promoted other divisions, such as when graphic designers created posters to promote writing and theatre projects. A research project of more than 18,000 watercolors resulted in the WPA Index of American Design published in 1950. Although the FAP was not without critics, it had strong allies in both Cahill and Harry Hopkins, the head of the WPA, as well as First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt. The impact of Federal Project Number One and, particularly, the Federal Art Project, is now seen as tremendously significant to a sense of American culture. More significantly, this history shows that direct support of artists was considered not only a valid policy, but also important to American economic and cultural growth.

Arts philanthropy should prioritize artist-centric strategies.

A thriving arts and culture does not exist without the makers. Organizations like museums, libraries, symphonies, and theatres cannot exist without artists, writers, actors, and musicians who create. Itunes, Spotify, Netflix, and Hulu would not exist. Quite simply, it’s the artists who matter. It’s artists who provide cultural resources. Creating a systematic priority to fund artists sustains the very talent pool who provides the basis for both local, regional, and national senses of arts, culture, and community. This does not mean arts organizations are irrelevant, by any means. Arts nonprofits are often poised to funnel critical resources for orchestrated projects and ongoing ventures, like libraries, public art, and performances, or organizing events and training like festivals and exhibitions that help artists generate income. These, in fact, are still very artist-centric endeavors.

An example of an under-utilized, direct-funding strategy includes place-based fellowships and residencies. Imagine a fellowship that serves dual purposes: twenty hours per week for the artist to work on their craft and twenty hours per week co-located with an arts nonprofit in a designated community. Writers placed with libraries, nonprofit presses, small publishers, or underserved schools. Visual artists placed with schools who lack resources for art classes. Musicians and singers placed with orchestras, jazz bands, and choirs. Actors placed with community theatres or small performance companies. Place-based residencies, which could mirror aspects of the existing AmeriCorps VISTA program, would directly support artists in creation of their work while simultaneously providing human resources for local cultural and educational institutions.

The advantages and potential impact

Fellowships ensure that artists remain working as artists. Prioritizing the artist ensures the growth and development of those who build a region’s cultural vibrancy. This rebalances resources away from the needs of organizations and builds an artist-centric perspective. For example, instead of investing $101 million into endowments in 2018, that same funding could have co-located nearly 3,000 artists in full-time employment as artists across the country with schools and cultural institutions at the 2019 per capita income amount of $34,140/year.8

By funding artists to create work within their communities, fellowships ensure the development of a skilled creative workforce. The resulting cultural output is incredibly more tangible, particularly in underserved communities, than locking financial resources in institutional endowments. This is because, quite simply, endowments don’t produce works of art: artists do.

Using paid fellowships as one artist-centric priority also creates an opportunity to rebuild cultural institutions from the ground up. This ensures, for example, that community theatres thrive with trained actors, school and library programs are sustained with working writers and artists, and more. Rather than building organizations from a board downward, this approach invests directly into the local cultural asset (the artist) necessary before the organization can exist. Direct funding of artists can also bypass inefficiencies that may result when funding is passed through organizations like community foundation and fiscal sponsors, that, in turn, incur expenses in monitoring expenditures. For example, Fractured Atlas, which serves as a fiscal sponsor for individual artists, charges an “administrative fee” on donations to cover its costs associated with oversight and management of those donations made to artists for specific projects.9

If an artist is given unrestricted funds as a way to support their work, that may create apprehension over loss of control. In reality, this creates the opportunity to build relationships with artists, local institutions, and communities. As others have noted, relationship-based philanthropy benefits all parties involved.10 Instead of relying on tedious reports and applications, for example, relationships allow funders and recipients to collaborate in strong, symbiotic dynamics that further the very purposes of the funding. Although not a new phenomenon, relationship-based philanthropy requires a shift in how philanthropy works and what relationships are important.

Rebuilding arts philanthropy doesn’t require recreating the wheel.

An artist-centric strategy in funding does not require anything other than a shift in policy. At a national level, the WPA provided not just a model but a core example of priorities that existed nearly a century ago. AmeriCorps VISTA currently provides a model for placing local nonprofit staff support. Similar concepts can be applied rather than creating or expanding government agencies, using existing resources more efficiently.

Focus on funding strategies that center the artist instead of organizations. Prioritize the direct support of artists. Whether through grants, fellowships, or residencies, pay artists to work as artists across regions to create a thriving cultural base and enhance quality of life.

Notes

  1. Mukai, R., Stubbs, R., & Mullaney-Loss, P. (2021). “Arts Funding Snapshot: GIA’s Annual Research on Support for Arts and Culture.” Gia Reader: A Journal on Arts Philanthropy, 31(3): 2. (https://www.giarts.org/reader-31-3)
  2. Mukai, Stubbs, & Mullaney-Loss, “Arts Funding”, 9.
  3. “Direct funding” as used in this article means funding that directly supports the artist rather than an organization or its programs. Direct funding comes in multiple forms: grants (both unrestricted and restricted), fellowships, and residencies.
  4. Mukai, Stubbs, & Mullaney-Loss, “Arts Funding”, 2.
  5. Mukai, Stubbs, & Mullaney-Loss, “Arts Funding”, 5.
  6. Mukai, Stubbs, & Mullaney-Loss, “Arts Funding”, 5.
  7. nasaa-arts.org/nasaa_research/indiv-artists-grant-making-fact-sheet/ (last accessed 9 June 2022).
  8. www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/united-states/annual-household-income-per-capita (last accessed 9 June 2022).
  9. Amy Segal Shorey, “Deep Community Relationships Drive Strong Philanthropy”, National Center for Family Philanthropy (blog), 24, September 2021, www.ncfp.org/2021/09/24/funders-support-strong-communities-through-meaningful-relationships/.
  10. Amy Segal Shorey, “Deep Community Relationships Drive Strong Philanthropy”, National Center for Family Philanthropy (blog), 24, September 2021, www.ncfp.org/2021/09/24/funders-support-strong-communities-through-meaningful-relationships/.

John William Bateman (MFAW 2023) has a secret addiction to glitter and, contrary to his Mississippi roots, does NOT like sweet tea. After nearly 20 years in philanthropy, he left his Southern unicorn lumberjack shack and moved to Chicago.