Comments on: Bay Area Arts and Culture http://www.myphilanthropedia.org/blog/2010/03/08/bay-area-arts-and-culture/ Come Together. Give Better. Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:51:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Charles Dowe http://www.myphilanthropedia.org/blog/2010/03/08/bay-area-arts-and-culture/comment-page-1/#comment-7132 Charles Dowe Thu, 29 Sep 2011 23:00:23 +0000 http://blog.myphilanthropedia.org/?p=78#comment-7132 For anyone one of the lucky people’s, referring purchase certain products, and in addition you charm all of the envy of all the the many any other people around you that tend to have effort as such make a difference. motor movers For anyone one of the lucky people’s, referring purchase certain products, and in addition you charm all of the envy of all the the many any other people around you that tend to have effort as such make a difference. motor movers

]]> By: Connie Solley http://www.myphilanthropedia.org/blog/2010/03/08/bay-area-arts-and-culture/comment-page-1/#comment-2982 Connie Solley Mon, 04 Oct 2010 14:36:29 +0000 http://blog.myphilanthropedia.org/?p=78#comment-2982 Thanks a ton for reveal very wonderful informations. Your internet is great.I am impressed by the details that you've on this weblog. It shows how well you realize this subject. Bookmarked this page, will appear back again for far more. You, my buddy, amazing! I discovered just the info I previously looked for everywhere and just wasn't able to uncover. What a perfect site. Such as this web page your web-site is one of my new most liked.I like this data proven and it has given me some kind of idea to have good results for some reason, so maintain up the great do the job! Thanks a ton for reveal very wonderful informations. Your internet is great.I am impressed by the details that you’ve on this weblog. It shows how well you realize this subject. Bookmarked this page, will appear back again for far more. You, my buddy, amazing! I discovered just the info I previously looked for everywhere and just wasn’t able to uncover. What a perfect site. Such as this web page your web-site is one of my new most liked.I like this data proven and it has given me some kind of idea to have good results for some reason, so maintain up the great do the job!

]]> By: hartford insurance claims http://www.myphilanthropedia.org/blog/2010/03/08/bay-area-arts-and-culture/comment-page-1/#comment-2846 hartford insurance claims Sun, 26 Sep 2010 04:40:18 +0000 http://blog.myphilanthropedia.org/?p=78#comment-2846 I need to know exactly what Colin can do about this?! Enrique I need to know exactly what Colin can do about this?!

Enrique

]]> By: gowin insurance agency http://www.myphilanthropedia.org/blog/2010/03/08/bay-area-arts-and-culture/comment-page-1/#comment-2838 gowin insurance agency Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:57:56 +0000 http://blog.myphilanthropedia.org/?p=78#comment-2838 I need to hear exactly what Rosa has to say with this. I need to hear exactly what Rosa has to say with this.

]]> By: sbi life insurance http://www.myphilanthropedia.org/blog/2010/03/08/bay-area-arts-and-culture/comment-page-1/#comment-2830 sbi life insurance Thu, 23 Sep 2010 21:28:34 +0000 http://blog.myphilanthropedia.org/?p=78#comment-2830 Maybe the most interesting paper that I read today?! Maybe the most interesting paper that I read today?!

]]> By: Tangela Steinlicht http://www.myphilanthropedia.org/blog/2010/03/08/bay-area-arts-and-culture/comment-page-1/#comment-2826 Tangela Steinlicht Thu, 23 Sep 2010 09:21:12 +0000 http://blog.myphilanthropedia.org/?p=78#comment-2826 Just about the most concise and current facts I stumbled upon for this area. Sure glad that I discovered the web page by chance. I will be subscribing to the rss feed to make sure that I can receive the current posts. Truly appreciate all the details here. Just about the most concise and current facts I stumbled upon for this area. Sure glad that I discovered the web page by chance. I will be subscribing to the rss feed to make sure that I can receive the current posts. Truly appreciate all the details here.

]]> By: National Arts & Culture Research » Philanthropedia http://www.myphilanthropedia.org/blog/2010/03/08/bay-area-arts-and-culture/comment-page-1/#comment-2747 National Arts & Culture Research » Philanthropedia Wed, 25 Aug 2010 15:51:48 +0000 http://blog.myphilanthropedia.org/?p=78#comment-2747 [...] the Bay Area, I’m not going to repeat much of what we said in that blog post which you can find here. We had a similar thought process for how to narrow the scope of our research. However, I feel [...] [...] the Bay Area, I’m not going to repeat much of what we said in that blog post which you can find here. We had a similar thought process for how to narrow the scope of our research. However, I feel [...]

]]> By: Erinn Andrews http://www.myphilanthropedia.org/blog/2010/03/08/bay-area-arts-and-culture/comment-page-1/#comment-1538 Erinn Andrews Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:47:29 +0000 http://blog.myphilanthropedia.org/?p=78#comment-1538 Great clarification and additional description! I like the way you break it down--producing work that adds to the diversity of art that's out there and producing work that adds value to the lives of those people who are least exposed to art (or at least connect them with it)! Great clarification and additional description! I like the way you break it down–producing work that adds to the diversity of art that’s out there and producing work that adds value to the lives of those people who are least exposed to art (or at least connect them with it)!

]]> By: Ian David Moss http://www.myphilanthropedia.org/blog/2010/03/08/bay-area-arts-and-culture/comment-page-1/#comment-1536 Ian David Moss Thu, 18 Mar 2010 07:07:10 +0000 http://blog.myphilanthropedia.org/?p=78#comment-1536 That's actually a really good distillation of what I said. In fact, I think it could be boiled down even further. I would say that for me, the desired outcome of subsidizing the arts is "cool stuff that we wouldn't otherwise get to see." The extent to which stuff is "cool" or not is inherently (and highly) subjective, but respect from peers is as good of an objective proxy as I can come up with.* The "otherwise get to see" element can be measured by comparing the nature of the artistic product to other products already available on the commercial market. So if philanthropic subsidy produces artistic work that is both respected by peers and substantially different from what's widely available on the commercial market, then the subsidy is justified and the investment is a success. One could also envision an alternative track which focuses on underserved audiences: people who, for whatever reason, can't easily access even the cool stuff that <i>is</i> widely available. Think the poor, people in prisons, people in nursing homes, etc. In that case the criteria for success changes to "stuff they enjoy that they wouldn't otherwise get to see." The key difference here is that it doesn't matter if the artistic product is especially impressive or significant on a broader stage - what matters most is whether audience members enjoy it or connect positively with it in some way. *This is going on the theory that if something is popular with audiences, then it should be able to support itself on the commercial market. Of course this isn't always the case, but in practice I think artistic peers are good at spotting future potential commercial successes, so it works out in the end. That’s actually a really good distillation of what I said. In fact, I think it could be boiled down even further. I would say that for me, the desired outcome of subsidizing the arts is “cool stuff that we wouldn’t otherwise get to see.” The extent to which stuff is “cool” or not is inherently (and highly) subjective, but respect from peers is as good of an objective proxy as I can come up with.* The “otherwise get to see” element can be measured by comparing the nature of the artistic product to other products already available on the commercial market. So if philanthropic subsidy produces artistic work that is both respected by peers and substantially different from what’s widely available on the commercial market, then the subsidy is justified and the investment is a success.

One could also envision an alternative track which focuses on underserved audiences: people who, for whatever reason, can’t easily access even the cool stuff that is widely available. Think the poor, people in prisons, people in nursing homes, etc. In that case the criteria for success changes to “stuff they enjoy that they wouldn’t otherwise get to see.” The key difference here is that it doesn’t matter if the artistic product is especially impressive or significant on a broader stage – what matters most is whether audience members enjoy it or connect positively with it in some way.

*This is going on the theory that if something is popular with audiences, then it should be able to support itself on the commercial market. Of course this isn’t always the case, but in practice I think artistic peers are good at spotting future potential commercial successes, so it works out in the end.

]]> By: Erinn Andrews http://www.myphilanthropedia.org/blog/2010/03/08/bay-area-arts-and-culture/comment-page-1/#comment-1513 Erinn Andrews Mon, 15 Mar 2010 23:15:36 +0000 http://blog.myphilanthropedia.org/?p=78#comment-1513 What thoughtful feedback, Ian; thank you for contributing your perspective. I really like your definition of impact for arts nonprofits/artists. To me, impact is an output. So if I'm interpreting your ideas correctly, it sounds like the output you value from nonprofits or artists is experimentation, risk-taking, and whimsical creation. Another measure of impact you might consider is the respect a nonprofit or artist earns from a peer. And, above all, you value keeping diversity within the arts alive and possibly, always changing. I believe many of the experts with whom I spoke would agree with you. And while many of the professionals who participate in our research are highlighting individual nonprofits doing great work (as they define it), some identify foundations (also nonprofits) as doing the best work, likely for the same reasons you cite. There is value in being able to assess the whole sector and redirect funding to shape the environment (to encourage diversity within the sector or some other goal). I hope you'll participate in this research and contribute your well-informed and thoughtful perspective. Thank you again for your comments! What thoughtful feedback, Ian; thank you for contributing your perspective. I really like your definition of impact for arts nonprofits/artists. To me, impact is an output. So if I’m interpreting your ideas correctly, it sounds like the output you value from nonprofits or artists is experimentation, risk-taking, and whimsical creation. Another measure of impact you might consider is the respect a nonprofit or artist earns from a peer. And, above all, you value keeping diversity within the arts alive and possibly, always changing.

I believe many of the experts with whom I spoke would agree with you. And while many of the professionals who participate in our research are highlighting individual nonprofits doing great work (as they define it), some identify foundations (also nonprofits) as doing the best work, likely for the same reasons you cite. There is value in being able to assess the whole sector and redirect funding to shape the environment (to encourage diversity within the sector or some other goal). I hope you’ll participate in this research and contribute your well-informed and thoughtful perspective.

Thank you again for your comments!

]]>