Contribution to a more peaceful world

Hunt and I didn't always agree, but I credit him with this good idea that I've held on to and have repeated for others: If we can expose people to art, to live performances, and thus to culture that they were previously unaware of, or misunderstood, and their new understanding causes them to connect with people different than themselves, in a new way, then we as arts administrators can make a difference; that is our contribution to a more peaceful world.

I thought of that recently when I read Tribeca Film Festival is hosting a second Tribeca film festival in Doha, the capital of Qatar, defined as an independent, progressive Arab state. "...The festival aims to bridge the east-west divide and showcase the most innovative films from the region." One leader emphasized developing a healthy climate of freedom of expression.

Sponsorship matchmaking

Now here's a good idea. This company is called Festival Media Corporation. They match big companies that want to engage in experiential marketing by being corporate sponsors of events (fairs, festivals, rodeos, etc.) with events whose audiences are appropriate for the market segment the company is trying to reach.

If I were running a festival today, I would want to be in these guys' database. They'd send the sponsors my way; I wouldn't have to hunt them down.

Facebook and copyright law

A friend directed me to this article about Facebook.

Facebook, apparently, can use your photos, videos, or any other content you upload on your profile in any way they want, even after you deactivate your account.

Now I remember in Prof. Langvardt's class, I learned a copyright on creative work is applied automatically when the work is created. No one can use your work without your permission, of course, even if it's just facebook photos and you haven't registered for a copyright. You are automatically protected.

So I wonder about the legal intersection of these two policies. I'm sure Facebook is a responsibly run company and they wouldn't have legal policies that weren't well researched, and they're so high profile, it'd be too high of a PR liability if they were to actually use a user's photos inappropriately. But out of principle, I bet their users aren't aware what they're giving up rights to.

Digital Graffiti

Now THIS is cool. This entirely white-painted Florida town makes its starkness useful for the Digital Graffiti Festival, the world's first outdoor projection art festival, where new works of art are projected onto the blank walls. The pictures are stunning. Organizers say that design, technology and architecture intertwine to create entirely new art forms. More info here.

Stimulus package - "arts: bonbons for a leftist elite"

I'm back home in Michigan to visit my parents for a bit. I was without internet for a bit, then traveling across Michigan to see friends for another bit, and I am behind on my posting. So back to it.

On Feb 6, the Senate voted to eliminate funding from the stimulus package to help "...museums, theaters and arts centers...." Apparently, some conservatives denounced the arts as "bonbons for a leftist elite." In the final package approved this week, however, $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts was included, after supporters argued for the economic impact of the arts.

This raises one of our most common questions in arts admin; should the arts get public funding, and why? And to complicate it, during an economic crisis? And to complicate it FURTHER, with the justification of economic impact?

I won't ever agree that the arts are "bonbons" of frivolity to our functioning in society. But in the face of crisis, I understand that perception. If the stimulus package were giving money only to the basics to get things up and running again, I'd say leave the arts out (though I make myself an enemy of my field in doing so). To argue for the economic impact of arts to keep them on the bill, too, has its flaws. The arts rarely cover costs independently; they rely on generous donations and grants. Yes, they employ a lot of people and generate tourism and spending, but so do restaurants, so do athletics. I'm trained to think you can't fund the arts based on their economic impact, because they're then expected to play by those rules that says what makes money deserves to stay, and the arts have always rendered their value outside of economics.

Am I happy I'm going to be paying through the nose for this bill until I'm 80? No. But as long as everything else got money (and there are pork projects on there more frivolous than arts) I guess I'm glad the arts weren't left behind. Though justifying funding the arts through economics is treading on wobbly ground.

NYTimes article on it here:
Saving Federal Arts Funds: Selling Culture as an Economic Force