The Cost of Doing Artistic Business
Jul. 22nd, 2009 09:33 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mythtellerI was listening to the CBC this morning when I heard about how the Divers/Cite festival has had its funding cut (see Divers/Cite denied request for federal funding). The CBC host put a call out to listeners to give their opinions on this issue and someone wrote an email asking (paraphrased) "If this festival is so successful, why don't they use some of their profits to fund themselves?"
Having put together a couple of festivals myself, I can tell you that the measure of a wildly successful festival is when you get all of your costs covered so that you break even. I would even consider a festival successful if we got a decent turn-out, but still lost money on the deal.
Measuring the success of Art using a business model is like trying to clock a speeding car with a weight scale. Keeping Art alive and allowing it to develop costs money: it rarely makes money, especially when it depends on the attentions of the mainstream media and its consumers. This doesn't mean that supporting the Arts has no return: it certainly promotes tourism, raises the profile of the hosting city/borough/neighborhood, and local shop-owners can reap the rewards of visiting audiences. These statistics can be more difficult to measure, but it doesn't take an accounting wiz to realize that restos and cafes around a festival circuit will see an increase in customers when the festival is in full swing.
This reminds me of the precious nugget of wisdom Mr. Harper had to share with us when he stated that ordinary, working Canadians don't care about the arts. Without Arts funding, we would not have access to Canadian films, music, performance art, creation art (painting, sculpture), and even the CBC! Without funding, these artistic endeavors are not allowed to developed, get promoted, and be discovered by the public.
Look at the Montreal Jazz Festival: without sponsorship (corporate or governmental), do you think we'd be able to afford bringing big name musicians to our town (like Stevie Wonder, which was a free concert)? I can guarantee you that Mr. Wonder did not perform for free, the stage wasn't free, the lights weren't free, the security wasn't free, and all the other costs were not free. And yet, the concert was free and many people enjoyed it.
My math skills are not l33t, but even I can see that the money has to come from somewhere.
A festival allows local and invited artists an opportunity to bring their products to a wider audience, which in turn challenges, educates, and expands the knowledge and experience of that audience, which in turn, allows the artist to grow and develop. Sponsorship can mean color posters instead of black & white, it can mean TV spots instead of only word-of-mouth, it can mean having a show in a theater instead of a library or a church basement.
All of these aspects raises the profile of the art form, which increases the chances of getting a solid audience. A good-turn out (with a cover charge) can make the difference between breaking even and dealing with a financial loss. Either way, the performance can be of excellent quality, but the chances of it being repeated or allowed to develop can be crippled depending on the cost of expenses vs. the amount of income received.
The measure of artistic worth cannot be measured financially: it can only be measured by the impact it has upon a society and its patrons of the arts. Where would we be without poetry, music, performance art, literature, etc.? A society with a strong artistic identity benefits everyone, but that society needs to provide a space in which art can flourish, which continues to strengthen the society that feeds it.
Having put together a couple of festivals myself, I can tell you that the measure of a wildly successful festival is when you get all of your costs covered so that you break even. I would even consider a festival successful if we got a decent turn-out, but still lost money on the deal.
Measuring the success of Art using a business model is like trying to clock a speeding car with a weight scale. Keeping Art alive and allowing it to develop costs money: it rarely makes money, especially when it depends on the attentions of the mainstream media and its consumers. This doesn't mean that supporting the Arts has no return: it certainly promotes tourism, raises the profile of the hosting city/borough/neighborhood, and local shop-owners can reap the rewards of visiting audiences. These statistics can be more difficult to measure, but it doesn't take an accounting wiz to realize that restos and cafes around a festival circuit will see an increase in customers when the festival is in full swing.
This reminds me of the precious nugget of wisdom Mr. Harper had to share with us when he stated that ordinary, working Canadians don't care about the arts. Without Arts funding, we would not have access to Canadian films, music, performance art, creation art (painting, sculpture), and even the CBC! Without funding, these artistic endeavors are not allowed to developed, get promoted, and be discovered by the public.
Look at the Montreal Jazz Festival: without sponsorship (corporate or governmental), do you think we'd be able to afford bringing big name musicians to our town (like Stevie Wonder, which was a free concert)? I can guarantee you that Mr. Wonder did not perform for free, the stage wasn't free, the lights weren't free, the security wasn't free, and all the other costs were not free. And yet, the concert was free and many people enjoyed it.
My math skills are not l33t, but even I can see that the money has to come from somewhere.
A festival allows local and invited artists an opportunity to bring their products to a wider audience, which in turn challenges, educates, and expands the knowledge and experience of that audience, which in turn, allows the artist to grow and develop. Sponsorship can mean color posters instead of black & white, it can mean TV spots instead of only word-of-mouth, it can mean having a show in a theater instead of a library or a church basement.
All of these aspects raises the profile of the art form, which increases the chances of getting a solid audience. A good-turn out (with a cover charge) can make the difference between breaking even and dealing with a financial loss. Either way, the performance can be of excellent quality, but the chances of it being repeated or allowed to develop can be crippled depending on the cost of expenses vs. the amount of income received.
The measure of artistic worth cannot be measured financially: it can only be measured by the impact it has upon a society and its patrons of the arts. Where would we be without poetry, music, performance art, literature, etc.? A society with a strong artistic identity benefits everyone, but that society needs to provide a space in which art can flourish, which continues to strengthen the society that feeds it.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-07 04:21 pm (UTC)