Carnegie et al
This weeks' readings are meant to accomplish two goals ahead of the visit by Karen Klaverkamp of the Princeton Symphony Orchestra. 1) I want us to get a basic understanding of philanthropy, particularly as it affects arts nonprofits, and 2) I want us to get a basic definition of what a nonprofit is.
First, then, it's good to take a long look at Carnegie's “The Gospel of Wealth.” It is a famous exploration of philanthropy versus charity. He starts with the assumption that there is an underlying “Law of Accumulation of Wealth” that creates the best society. With this in mind, he notes that wealth is in the hands of the few, a situation he is happy with. He then asks,
“What is the proper mode of administering wealth after the laws upon which civilization is founded have thrown it into the hands of the few?” (66).His answer: the wealthy must be philanthropic and oversee the distribution of it to institutions. They should not simply give money to the poor:
“Those who would administer wisely must, indeed, be wise, for one of the serious obstacles to the improvement of our race is indiscriminate charity. It were better for mankind that the millions of the rich were thrown into the sea than so spent as to encourage the slothful. the drunken. the unworthy” (68).So, he draws a strict line between philanthropy and charity, two terms that we had better not mix up!
Carnegie's ethos was carried out by the Fords. As Kriedler's “Leverage Lost” shows us, the Ford Foundation was incredibly important in shifting cultural institutions from a for-profit or patronage model to a nonprofit model. By leveraging other forms of funding to match the Foundation's own grants, the Foundation was able to foster sustainable nonprofits in the arts, even leading to the federal government getting into the act with the National Endowment for the Arts.
This was fortunate, because without this support, the arts would have looked very different. Artists have a lot to deal with:
“I find that American society makes five promises to the artist. First, artists will spend more time and money educating themselves while in the work force than will other workers with the same amount of education. They will spend more of their disposable income on continuing education because, throughout their lifetimes, they are constant learners. Second, they will be unemployed more often. Third, their unemployment will last for longer periods of time. Fourth. in their lifetimes they will work less as artists--as dancers, painters, musicians-than their counterparts will work as analysts or managers. Finally. and not surprisingly, artists will earn less in their lifetimes than their colleagues in other occupations” (5th page of PDF).Kriedler's essay does raise a key question, one that has been consistently raised since Carnegie wrote “The Gospel”: is this the best method to preserve cultural or social goods? Should a “good society” leave the distribution of wealth up strictly to the wealthy? While Carnegie certainly provided something of incredible value – libraries – to communities throughout the Anglophone world, is his prohibition against charity to poor people really that helpful? Couldn't there be a mix between immediate help and long-term solutions to social ills? And, Carnegie asks for complete control over his wealth distribution, at least during his lifetime. What if there are good organizations out there that could use his support, but he disagrees with their mission? If wealth is held by only a few (which in the United States is the case), then do the wealthy have inordinate power over what social ills are addressed and how?
Kriedler's piece gives some evidence to show that this might be the case. The Ford model was predicated on other sources of funding stepping in to join, rather than simply relying upon the wealthy to preserve cultural institutions. Moreover, and more importantly: people who work like to get paid. That is, it is hard to sustain a system where the integral laborers are expected to basically donate their time to the arts.
“Workers involved with the day-to-day operations of nonprofit arts organizations will increasingly have to ask a personally difficult, but fundamental, question: How long will we be willing to carry on our work in the nonprofit arts knowing fully the ongoing necessity to sacrifice personal income?” (9 in the PDF)
Is this the end of the Carnegie philanthropic model? Maybe Karen can shed light on this.
The other goal of the readings (Salamon and Hall) is to give you a basic background in the history of the nonprofit sector. In a way, consider us moved from the overall, philosophical arguments about the existence and efficacy of civil society and into the very technical world of nonprofits. Talking about civil society is a bit fuzzy; is it really distinct from the political sphere? Is it even distinct from the business sphere? In contrast, in America, nonprofits are more clearly defined.
Or are they?
As Hall notes:
"The effort to treat organizations delivering a wide variety of seemingly unrelated services - in the arts, education, health care, social welfare - as constitution a distinctive organizational sector, primarily on the basis of a set of technical criteria having to do with their status under the federal tax code, the sources and disposition of their revenues, and their manner of governance, is part of a complex process" (112).
The rest of our semester will be dedicated to understanding this very complex process.
posted by Robert W. Gehl @ 5:59 PM
25 Comments:
Upon what I read from the readings, each author has a different view on nonprofits. Carnegie to me came from the economist/business man point of view since the term wealth appears a good bit in his writing. Nonprofits in a way are an economical benefit because donating money or raising their own money gives them an economical gain for their use. Hall comes from a historical view from 1950-1990's (Truman - Clinton). 1950 up to 1980, nonprofits were in limited numbers and growth. When Reagan becomes President, a mass boom in nonprofits occurs and more causes and growth come with this boom. Nonprofits required funding to do things so wealth is needed. Though how much you produced not how much money you make determines wealth (Macroeconomics Thought there). An example which many people seem to overlook is Special Olympics Inc. Started in 1968 by Eunice Kennedy Shriver in the States. Its belief is to dispel the negative stereotyping of individuals with disabilities. From a small nonprofit to a global nonprofit, Special Olympics proves the idea that wealth is not always needed to do things. Almost 3 million athletes and in more than 180 countries, Special Olympics has made a global impact for individuals with disabilities that 20 years after it was founded in 1968, the IOC officially endorses and recognizes Special Olympics in 1988 (1971 the USOC recognized SO). It takes a great heart and spirit to achieve your goals and beliefs.
When indiscriminate charity becomes a serious obstacle to the improvement of the human race, let me know. For as long as there is war, poverty, bigotry, intolerance, and the inequality of opportunity there will be a need for those who are indiscriminately charitable.
The wealthy may give freely (and many do, to various degrees) but, in giving, they do not fundamentally alter their ability to provide for the worldly desires of themselves those who depend upon them. In may seem counterintuitive, but economic inequality benefits neither the poor nor the rich (as the wealthy have a vested interest in stability) in fact certain economic incentives exist which encourages the rich to be philanthropic (as they are able to realize specific tax incentives). This muddies the water considerably, in my opinion. I appreciate the focus of Andrew Carnegie’s article however and believe the wealthy should act in a more altruistic manor. However, the needs of those who do without are best served by individuals who possess the profound desire to change the lives of those they interact with, regardless of their economic circumstances.
Since I just remember that I'm working for the Office of Equity and Diversity Services on campus with a project of theirs. The readings for the week are diverse in their opinion on nonprofits in today's society. Diversity is a factor in the nonprofits and the items they work on. Examples like Special Olympics and Autism related nonprofits are diverse because they have different agendas with different items. It is true about the wealthy paying nonprofits for tax cuts but some wealthy people are into the beliefs of those nonprofits they donated to. Special Olympics have celebrities supporting their cause like Michael Phelps and more. Bill Gates himself donates a sum of money to nonprofits and universities (University of Washington in Seattle primarily). Even the wealthy are diverse in the nonprofits they donated to. Diversity is a key element in the nonprofit sector and will always exist in nonprofits themselves.
The Gospel of Wealth is more than an economic sustainablity model because it highlights reasons wealthy people give. The Gospel of Wealth is a system of stewardship and investment implying philanthropists are committed to their abilities to produce. When wealth is intrinsic, people have the ability to produce more. When people know they can have control and make money work for them, philanthrophy continues beyond a sustainability or transactional level.
Imagine if the Pilgrims didn't hone their ability to continue producing food and shelter for their fledging community. If one member of their tiny community was content with charity, the entire mission could atrophy in the direction it wanted to go.
The fact that 80% of wealth sits in the hands of 20% of people became a strong argument for stewardship and Christian social outreach during Carnegie's time. Like Manifest Destiny, the Gospel of Wealth ties to American culture in that free citizens can find a system to produce, and that investing in free enterprise, wealth will come to them and benefit the lives they touch.
Rich DeVos is an example leader who implementsd the Gospel of Wealth. A child of the depression, DeVos created a hospital and gave to charities and universities throughout Michigan becuase the wealth he earned allowed him to understand the economic and social needs of his community.
After reviewing the readings, it appears that Ford and Carnegie had two different approaches toward non-profits. Carnegie’s approach was making a clear distinct difference between charity and philanthropy. Additionally, Carnegie viewed that the wealthy had the responsibility to improve society by distributing its wealth to institutions to make a better society. Furthermore, Carnegie viewed that the wealthy are “wise” and thus they should have direct control over how and to what organizations the wealth should be distributed. On the other hand, Ford’s philosophy is more in line with today’s view of non-profits. Ford did not solely rely on the wealthy, but rather found other sources of funding to support the National Endowment of the Arts. I believe that this was a very wise move on his part as it ensured that his foundation did not have to totally rely on the wealthy and would give his foundation the freedom necessary to pursue its mission. I tend to agree with the Ford model rather than Carnegie’s model. I believe that to have non-profits under the sole control of the wealthy would inhibit the true mission of the non-profit, whereas the Ford model demonstrates that using multiple sources of funding increases the non-profit’s mission without any interference by the wealthy.
I agree with what David A. said. Indiscriminate charity is not an obstacle to the improvement of the human race. I know that for some people it is a concern when someone is on the street begging for money and you have no guarantee where the money will go and they would rather give to an organization where they can be sure their money is going to help someone. Carnegie says that people should be very careful to not aid the unworthy. Who determines who is unworthy? If I see someone in the street hungry to me they are worthy and I will go buy them a dinner if I want to ensure the money I give goes to something I approve of.
I do agree that those with lots of wealth should be using their money for the good of society more so than is happening right now. I don't think that all the weight should be placed on the shoulders of the rich. Everyone can contribute.
This week's case study shows how the decision to pursue or donate to non-profits lies in proportion to economics, standards of mission, and belief that philanthrophy influences a community. While these factors come into question with the arts, teaching, and numerous youth programs, they should be resolved internally before demanding government subsidy.
The model of the Ford Foundation as a national springboard to advance the arts proves the nonprofit sector can further meaningful endeavors the government cannot pursue. The fact that the NEA receives federal funding hurts credibility for the arts and stagnates what mission a family foundation advances.
As a donor, I would not give to an organization recieving federal funding because I believe the mission should exist on its own merit. Federal involvement dissipates the idea of private citizens with an abundance mentality engaging in creative outreach to further what they believe.
Furthermore, the article highlights how cultural acceptance and civic-mindedness determine how the arts and other non-profits are received. The fact that the National Endowment for the Arts produced pornographic and sacreligious work on taxpayer dimes for public museums angered and alienated civic-minded individuals. If a tree is judged by its fruit, the article is correct that social factors are ultimately responsible for whether a non-profit advances or dies.
Of the readings assigned for this week, “Inventing the Nonprofit Sector: 1950-1990” by Peter Dobkin Hall connected best with my current work with a local nonprofit. In this piece, Hall discusses how nonprofit organizations, or philanthropic groups, form a particular relationship with the federal democracy. Some are of the impression that this relationship is necessary for the functioning of nonprofit groups to be carried out. Others view it as simply as a cause of friction and should be left as separated, unrelated entities. However, for certain, if not all, circumstances, assistance and cooperation from the government is essential to the continuing existence of a group who focuses on philanthropy.
I am currently working at a local nonprofit called Food for Others, which distributes food for the unemployed as well as low-income individuals in Northern Virginia. It is a 501(c)(3) that is funded by foundations, churches, donors, and also the Fairfax and Arlington governments. I understand that many people believe that there are certain lines that should not be crossed when it comes to the dealings of business within the private sector. However, without some government participation, nonprofits like Food for Others would not be able to continue its mission.
The debate outlined in the Hall reading covers excellent points. Changes have been made, such as the 1969 Tax Reform Act, which has made quite an impact on the roles of nonprofit groups in today’s society. Although the debate seems to be ongoing with no real end in sight, I believe that the fact that individuals are so enthused about the issue shows just how much we want these groups that do such great work to continue to grow. I do not know that there will ever be an answer to how we should delegate “public task to private groups,” but I do know that the efforts made so far have been quite beneficial to society today.
I enjoyed reading the comments by both David and Sam that reflected on the Carnegie piece. I agree with both of you in that there are so many ways charity could be contributed and distributed in much broader ways to benefit a greater amount of people. Unfortunately, we cannot force actions upon any particular party, whether it is the ones who are donating or the ones who are receiving the donation.
Again I find a correlation with my current experience at Food for Others. The requisite for receiving food packages is that an individual most be unemployed or only receiving low-income wages. We also have emergency packages in place, in case there was a sudden loss in income or some other circumstance preventing someone from being able to afford enough food for his or her household. Although each client is aware of these stipulations, some will come in and deceive the system. We have had several instances in which three different people from the same household will pick up packages three different times in one day. Of course these people are in need and we would hate to deny someone food, but Food for Others realizes that with the growing number of clients each day, they must draw a line somewhere when it comes to how much they can give.
It is difficult to see certain individuals struggle, especially during these trying times. Sam raised the question of how one determines who is unworthy of receiving charity. I do not know that anyone has the answer to that. In Food for Other’s case, restrictions must be made in order to benefit a greater amount of people. They believe that it is better to help more, even if it means that families might be receiving less food than they would like.
Although I agree with most of the points made by Laura B., I would disagree with her stance on federal subsidy and its relation to the mission of a non-profit. I don’t really think non-profits can really survive without federal help; I recognize that there might be a lot of associations that pursue their mission without federal funding, but I think the connection between non-profit sector and government is inevitable, and the gravitation of a non-profit for government support is unavoidable. I felt the assigned case study supported this idea. One of the reasons art related non-profits are struggling in the post-Ford Foundation era is because they need federal funding to survive, and the method of “leveraging funds” from non-federal areas as envisioned by the Ford Foundation has not really raised enough to support these arts organizations as non-profit. I understand that a major reason behind the difficulties faced by arts related organizations is that they the idea of accepting discounted wages is no longer embraced by artists, but I still feel for the most part achieving a mission requires funds and political change and this makes the role of federal government in this sector necessary. If there were a lot of rich men out there who contributed in the non-profit the way Carnegie expects of them, then maybe federal government’s role wouldn’t be as critical in the non-profit sector. I think his ideas are too idealist. He doesn’t just ask a rich man to give but it asks him to do so during his lifetime, so he could spend and direct his funds in a way that benefits the society. However, most businessmen, who give like Warren B. and Hilton, the pledge that most funds to be used after their death; Carnegie discourages this idea as he says that if they could take the money along with them, they would have. In short, all I am saying is that the reason the line between government and non-profit sector is so blurry is because non-profit missions’ cannot, for the most part, be achieved without federal funds. For instance, I am working in the Alzheimer’s Association, its main mission is to increase research on this disease so hopefully in the future it can be prevented and treated. They are the largest private contributor of Alzheimer’s disease, they raise millions from private contributions, but a significant amount of their funds to achieve their mission come from the county, state, and national government.
What struck me was your question of whether or not a "good society" should leave the distribution of wealth up to the wealthy. I think the answer is no. How could it possibly be a good society when it is run by a small, elite group with money? How they decide to distribute their wealth is subjective and in cases biased. Perhaps some wealthy in control are against homosexuality and therfore would not distribute any money to Aids/HIV awareness groups. Carnegie also said (Sam also said this) people should be careful to not aid the unworthy. Again, the idea of who is and who isn't unworthy is subjective.
I was thinking more about Mr. Gehl’s comments about the relation between non-profit sector and the “good”. Pertaining to the idea of the “good,” for the most part I disagree with this week’s reading. This week’s reading seems to association the achievement of “good” with the non-profit sector. In “What is Non-Profit Sector,” Salamon describes achieving and pursuing the good as one of the characteristics of non-profit. Even Carnegie associates good with the non-profit that is the reason he supports the “Law of Accumulation of wealth,” as he thinks that the negative externalities arising from the disproportional distribution of wealth can be mended in the non-profit sector. Therefore, he explains the method in which a rich man should contribute to fight societies ills, so he tells a person with wealth to create means through the non-profit sector to help those who can be successful with your help. In all these readings, there is an assumption that not only is it perfectly clear that “what is good” but also this good can be achieved through the non-profits. However, I think one person’s good is another person’s bad. What is “good,” anyway? For any organization that does one thing, there is an opposing organization, thus, this is the struggle in the non-profit arena. If there are two non-profits that take opposite stands on an issue, then are they both pursuing the “good.” Are they both good? I would think it depends, as our judgment of good is based on our values.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I began the reading this week with Salamon’s readings since there where certain aspects of nonprofits structure and actual purposes that was very vague in my mind. There are numerous reasons and purposes carried out by nonprofits and nonprofits are have specific defining characteristics that make them specifically nonprofit, such as Salamon states organizations that are ,”formal, private, non-profit-distributing, self-governing, voluntary, and of public health.” More importantly Salamon’s readings helped support the distinction between private nonprofit sectors and philanthropies, as well as the fact that one is really part of other. (p. 163) Although at the conclusion of Hall’s readings it was stated that there is still public issues with the idea of Philanthropies that continue to provide more positives purposes than to the entire population. Hall’s portrayal of the creation of the nonprofit sector throughout history appeared to be one greatly influenced by the leader and the governmental control. It was interesting how throughout other legislations nonprofits were not supported and investigated, whereas when Kennedy came through he and his wife were great supporters and icons that help turn around the perspective of nonprofit sectors. Although throughout time nonprofits have been seen in a better light, Hall does portray how relying on private organization to deal with public matters still appears as a shaky issue. Carnegie’s reading displayed how throughout history society has been plagued with the poor distribution of the wealth. I feel it’s hard to rally the wise distribution of wealth, when the wealthy is a smaller portion of the population that holds the world greatest percentage of wealth. It may always appear easier to donate to charity but to see to it that the desires of the donations are followed through may be a bit more difficult. I disagree to some extent when he portrays the idea that the wealthy support and know how to distribute their money wisely, in the aspect of organizations. Wealth can be donated to charity but there is no truth that it will be used wisely. He portrays how the people donating the money need to be there to see to it that it is used to its potential. Since there is obviously no guarantee that the money given to the charitable organization will be used wisely when it is no under the person’ direction who bestowed the money to the organization. It is obvious that he also did not approve of money being given to organizations to help the less fortunate when it is by no means was used for this benefit. Instead he urged that we produce an outcome where those less fortunate will benefit themselves as a result of our charitable giving.
When I read through some of the comments it really helped to open my eyes to different aspects of the readings and authors' ideas that I had not picked up on by myself. It's great to be able to learn from everyone else and to now have insight on some knowledgeable ideas! I agree with Alissa on her comment regarding Food for Others. They are such an important organization in NOVA that provides a tremendous supply to those less fortunate. Without government participation this organization would probably not be able to thrive, which could also be the case for most other organizations.
Nya J
I agree with Carnegie’s theory that there is a need to differentiate between philanthropy and charity. But at the same time the wealthy shouldn’t just devote their wealth to philanthropy and long-term improvements of cultural institutions. They must find a means of striking a balance between giving some of their wealth “to charity” or toward the short-term goal and also investing their wealth in philanthropic projects or long-term aims. I agree that the larger focus should be on the long-term. In New York they are pushing people to give their money toward philanthropic projects and not toward charity. For example, it is illegal for subway riders to give money to panhandlers on the train; instead they give list of organizations where you can donate money in order to encourage people to give to organizations as opposed to individual people. It is dangerous though for organizations to rely completely on the wealthy to distribute their wealth because if they control the purse strings or are the sole givers of donations to an organization they will more than likely want to have a role in the managerial operations of the organization. Non-profits aren’t a completely separate entity from for profit organizations because they still have to be involved in the political process in order to gain support and funding for their programs and organizations. There are large differences in for profit and non-profit organizations that distinguish the nature of the two sectors but there is much room for overlap between the two sectors as well.
I thought the "Leverage Lost" article was a very interesting look at the formation and evolution of the nonprofit sector. It’s kind of funny, because as an avid NPR listener, I was actually aware of the organizations mentioned in the article but had never really understood the far reaching ramifications of the NPR sponsors. While the Carnegie model for nonprofits makes a certain amount of sense, one cannot expect to survive based on the good graces of the wealthy. The Ford model for nonprofits seems to be a much better sustaining way to gain and retain support and funding. When the people who actually connect with the nonprofit and are interested in its services are involved with the maintenance of the organization, the long term effects will be much greater. The philanthropists Carnegie describes are clearly far removed from the services that many nonprofits provide. As the Salamon article states, most nonprofit organizations are involved with health and medical operations. Chances are, if the philanthropist has enough money to donate as Carnegie wishes, then he is not likely to be the beneficiary of a charitable organization providing medical services. When one is worried about finding food or somewhere to sleep, the pertinent services needed are not apt to be the same as for a stockbroker. Besides the issue of discovering what another sector of the population might need or want done with philanthropic funds is the idea of having a stake in the organization. The attitude of someone who is or has been in need for nonprofit services is certainly distinct from someone what never uses public goods. In the long term, the person who has a personal connection with the organization is likely to make a more significant sustaining contribution than someone who is simply acting as a distant pocketbook.
Nya J
I agree with Alissa’s argument of the importance of the relationship between federal, state, and local governments and non-profit organizations. Non-profit organizations/philanthropic groups have a reciprocal relationship with government at all levels. Most levels of government use indirect tool s of government such as contracts, grants, regulations, and tax incentives in order to encourage other levels of government to do things they might not otherwise have done or to encourage private organizations to pursue public goals. Many times it is more efficient and effective for government to provide philanthropic/non-profit organizations with grants or contracts to deliver goods and services because they are the “local experts” and are more familiar with the issues and the clients they are serving because these are their areas of expertise. This relationship between government and philanthropic groups allows for the effective execution of policy and delivery of goods and services while allowing government to focus on more pertinent issues.
Danielle S.
I agree with Alissa and Nya's argument about the importance of federal, state, and local governments and non-profits having a stable relationship, being very important. With issues in the community being brought to the forefront by non-profit organizations, the community would benefit even more because they know the needs of the people more than the government because they live where the problems are and they see them everyday. The government only knows most of the problems because of complaints by constituents who need to see a change. Without the government and non-profits working together a change for the better will not occur because the people of our country will not be appropriately served.
Ilana Epstein
I agree with Yerayewa,Ford seems to prvide a more appropripate model for how philanthropy works today. Resources can not not solely come from one source, they need to come from multiple sources. Not only is this more practicle then relying soley on one group of people it also prevents the possibility of one group having too much power and influence over the nonprofit organization. I found the reading very informative in helping me understand what a nonprofit is.
Nya, made a good point regarding Carnegie’s theory and the distribution of funds by the wealthy. The wealthy definitely should strike a balance between charity and longer-term philanthropy projects. There are specific problems that we must pertain to immediately, such housing for the homeless and food which would fall under the category of charity. With a portion of funds going towards short-term needs, we can focus on the long-term needs, which if done right will alleviate the amount of funds needed for short-term charity.
This weeks readings gave me more of an understanding on how nonprofits work in today's society. In order for the organizations to prosper, donations from various donors enable the organization to do their mission. By having funds the organization can reach out to those who need their services. By the wealthy donating money to the nonprofits, there is a balance between the two. The wealthy have a personal connection with the organizations and the nonprofits can continue their acheivements in helping others.
Though there are different theories on how nonprofits work, I believe that all the readings have some truth in it. Though it is not up to the wealthy to donate money, I believe it is up to everyone to do their part in helping others. By these services continuing their duties, the government can focus on other issues.
I guess I mostly want to comment on the Kriedler piece which in some ways I find to be extremely disheartening because of some of the realities that were pointed out in the statistics concerning the amount of money and employment status of artists. This is something I knew; the statistics were kind of old but it's something that I've experienced. I've got friends that went to school for fine art. Or not fine art. I've got a friend that went to school for radio -- he's been working at an awesome public radio station for about 4 years now and still doesn't get paid. That's what he wants to do with the rest of his life but he can't seem to find a paid position so he works at Starbucks in order to pay the bills and have insurance. I have three more friends that went to undergrad for photography; one worked a terrible desk job to pay the bills until deciding to go back to grad school for something "more practical", one worked in a museum gift shop until deciding to go to grad school, and the other works at Starbucks when his band is not touring. I moved to the city, lived in the ghetto, worked 2 paying jobs to pay my bills, and "interned" and freelanced as a photographer. It's kind of a terrible life but yet, so many people do it. I'm just one person so I guess I see this on a more individual basis but......how can I make this process better? Assume that my dream is being an artist, performer, photographer, or what have you.....how can I make that dream sustainable?
Kriedler says, "At a time when "family values" are in ascendancy, it has become
increasingly difficult to justify public spending on art that challenges the societal mainstream. In some ways, the arts have become
discredited as a career: not a place for virtuous people."
I'm assuming he's saying this from the mid-90's. I don't know about family values going up these days but I definitely agree that if whatever it is that you're doing is not deemed useful by the mainstream then you're either going to be poor or you're going to have to adapt. I have a teacher this semester that goes on and on about YOUR PASSION this and YOUR PASSION that but the truth of the matter is that if your passion is arts-related then you have to tailor that passion to a)make enough money to survive and b)make it seem more noble than it is.
That first part is fairly straight forward. I want to be an artist so I go to school to study the classics and learn fine art? No. If your specific dream is that then prepare for a career at the museum gift shop where you'll be paid 9 bucks an hour (maybe 11 in the DC area) to work 20-30 hours/week and in your spare time you can make/sell art. What do you do? You go to school for graphic design or something else related that there's actually demand for. Make enough money to survive, you know? Learn some skill that's useful enough to make people want to give you money.
As far as that second part...chasing the art dream totally makes you look like less of a person. What do you think my parents thought when I moved to the city, lived in the ghetto, worked two jobs, and didn't get paid to make art? It's not very practical, is it? There could be a whole group of individuals like that involved in a nonprofit. With tons of "do-gooder" organizations out there that feed the hungry, save the environment, help the homeless, educate the children, and cure diseases why would anyone want to give this stupid group of kids money when it's entirely their fault for not going to college or not having more stable careers? Why would my parents attend Relay For Life and not a fund raiser for a music festival? There's nothing terribly noble about the arts. Or maybe there is. I don't know; it's subjective. The trick is to make it look like there is. It's in presentation. It's also in meeting a demand.
These days I just tell people I am interested in nonprofit business. That sounds good. That sounds more charity than philanthropy. I feel that NCC particularly wants me to be charity-oriented. I honestly don't want to make a living out of that list of do-gooder things. I want to set up music festivals or work in public radio or find a way for musicians & artists to have healthcare (this is viewed as do-gooder work actually).
When reading the piece I scribbled down a note that said that working in the arts is like being an unpaid intern. When you're in college it's all dandy but once you've actually been in the real world and gotten paid you begin to feel cheated.
How do I come to some sort of resolution about this without being bitter? Concerning the idea of enhancing art education Kridler asks, "But would enhanced education by itself be enough to offset negative public attitudes toward public
service and artistic expression, declining leisure time, slippage in middle-class prosperity, and the constant pressure of new
entertainment technologies?"
By itself? No. I believe that a liberal arts education is important and I do think that some form of "fine" art such as music, drama, or painting should be included as an introduction. However, I think those things should also be coupled with some sense of realism. I took 3 years of chorus in middle school, a year of drama in high school, and two years of art in high school. We sang songs, acted in plays, and drew pictures but never once did we talk about real world application. No one mentioned the sorts of jobs available or how to find them so there were these people will great talent and a lot of passion but no knowledge of the real world. No one told me artists don't make money. No one brought up nonprofits. No one brought up for profits, either. Business and careers were never a part of arts education and to me, that could be a step in the right direction as far as education. I was 23 years old before I took my first business or marketing class; it wasn't required in high school or community college (I took it after I got my AA). At this point I can't really fathom separating marketing and the arts; why would someone go through formal schooling for art and not be required to take a course in marketing?
It's hard for me to believe that so many kids graduate from college and come into the real world having no clue what it's like but that's how a lot of the art school folks are in particular. I feel like being educated in the way things are and having common sense would also be a good thing to include within the pairing of business and arts.
I know that perhaps this is a more individual way of looking at things but in my opinion, that individual way of looking at education will change the way nonprofits work and will hopefully change the way we think about them. If my parents had been educated about something like live theatre paired with the business of it perhaps they would be more compelled to go see plays and give to an organization that puts them on.
Joary C.
These readings really focused on the nature of nonprofits and how they are suppose to work. My personal theory has to do with our (Americans) duty to our citizenship. Even though there are people in the world who are rich enough to run a nonprofit organization and still live a comfortable life, I believe that it is everyone's (working class citizens) duty to make sure nonprofits keep running because they serve a good purpose. I agree with Hoang-Khanh P. With everyone helping to donate money and their time, nonprofits would not have a hard time running even though we could still argue about if some nonprofits are worth putting any time or money into. Hall mentions some organizations having to seek monetary help from overseas companies. I think that is absurd. Americans should help take care of Americans by donating to the causes that are being brought to the surface here. Other countries shouldn't have to help towards that because they have their own homelessness, hunger, AIDS, and whatever else problems to deal with in their own communities.
Joary C.
I agree with Nya. Carnegie's article is interesting, but it isn't something that I haven't heard before, learned before, or seen before. The first thing that I noticed in this article is that Carnegie highlights the uprise of technology. He notes that commodities that rich people could not afford before are now being enjoyed by the poor people. He says that things that were "wants" before are now "needs." Our society is changing everyday, but as the poor get poorer, the rich continue to get richer. This is not good for our economy. The wage gap continues to stay the same as the poor continue to stay poor. But as Carnegie says, "there is no need to criticize the inevitable."
I personally believe that the wealthy have a responsibility to help towards nonprofit causes that cannot otherwise run without donations and charities. There are many causes that are at risk of needing help this instant. Homelessness and hunger are two big causes that shouldn't be prolonged day to day.
The wealthy should distribute their money a little better than they do or don't do. As Carnegie says, when the rich man dies, his money sits, not going to a nonprofit cause. It will be sad to see all that money go without going to help out a good cause.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home