Inferiority Complex

Last week we had a meeting of PCMI's new Leadership Project, a group of 14 arts executives who, we hope, will be the next generation of arts leaders in the city. We met to talk about a recent book called Forces for Good: The Six Practices of High-Impact Nonprofits. If there's any one basic message to the book it's that the most effective nonprofits are those that are able to galvanize people into a movement. My first response, and the first response of a number of our leadership people, was -- well, that's great for Habitat for Humanity or City Year, (two of the organizations profiled in the book), but how does a museum build a movement? Who marches in a rally for an opera company? Who runs to the barricades for musical theatre?

One of the chronic insecurities that besets those who run (and raise money for) arts non-profits is that it's very difficult to articulate in a compelling way how the arts meet a social need. when their missions are put next to those of groups that help house, feed, shelter, and heal people in need, they can look a little... thin. How do you tell a donor that your program to help seniors write poetry is more important, more worthy, than a program that provides a safety net to abused children?

Well, of course you can't. But it's not a zero-sum game, and in fact, those who raise money for social service organizations will tell you that despite the urgency and tangibility of their need, it's no easier for them to raise money from individuals. In fact, they'll tell you, it's harder for them to get major individual support. They can't raise money from the people who most benefit from their work the way that arts organizations can. They don't have as many opportunities for earned revenue, they usually don't have beautiful facilities or the social cachet that arts organizations have, etc. etc.

I didn't mean to get into all that -- but it was a detour to illustrate the very common, very difficult issue that arts organizations have in making their case about their social worth to the broader field of philanthropy.

Where I did mean to go was this article in today's NYT about Henry Louis Gates's new iteration of African-American Lives . I haven't seen the show yet, but put briefly--if you ever wanted to see an example of an archive changing lives, this is a good one.

And let me save for another day the aesthetic argument -- that arguments about the social good of arts organizations are doomed to fail because the best art, to invoke Oscar Wilde, has no social purpose at all.

PS: saw the first installment of African-American Lives last night--which was about Oprah, of course. It was awesome. I'm especially looking forward to the Chris Rock episode.

PPS: Here's an article from Wharton's Deborah Small about a study she did that shows donors respond better to stories than to statistics. This got some attention in the nonprofit press last summer when it came out, but is worth repeating here.