art and culture in communities: systems of support

A R T A N D C U L T U R E I N C O M M U N I T I E S :

S Y S T E M S O F S U P P O R T

Maria-Rosario Jackson, Ph.D.

Joaquín Herranz, Jr.

Florence Kabwasa-Green

2003

Policy Brief No.3 of the Culture, Creativity, and Communities Program

The Urban Institute, Washington DC

A B O U T T H I S P O L I C Y B R I E F

This brief is a product of the Arts and Culture Indicators in Community Building Project (ACIP) – theflagship initiative of the Urban Institute’s Culture, Creativity, and Communities (CCC) program.Launched in 1996 with support from the Rockefeller Foundation, ACIP seeks to integrate arts andculture-related measures into community quality-of-life indicator systems. ACIP is built on thepremise that inclusion of arts, culture, and creativity is meaningful when it reflects the values andinterests of a wide range of community stakeholders. This is the context in which the connection ofarts, culture, and creativity to community building processes and other community dynamics can befully understood.

The authors of this brief would like to thank the Rockefeller Foundation for support of this work.We are indebted to the many community building professionals, arts administrators, artists,community residents and our local ACIP affiliates for their contributions. Also, we would like tothank Felicity Skidmore for her editorial assistance.

C U L T U R E , C R E A T I V I T Y , A N D C O M M U N I T I E S P R O G R A M

The Culture, Creativity, and Communities (CCC) Program at the Urban Institute is a research anddissemination initiative that investigates the role of arts, culture, and creative expression incommunities. It explores the intersections of arts, culture, and creative expression with variouspolicy areas.

http://www.ccc.urban.org

design by: Brooklyn Digital Foundryhttp://www.brooklynfoundry.com

T H E U R B A N I N S T I T U T E

The Urban Institute is a nonprofit nonpartisan policy research and educational organizationestablished to examine the social, economic, and governance problems facing the nation. Itprovides information and analysis to public and private decision makers to help them address thesechallenges and strives to raise citizen understanding of these issues and tradeoffs in policy making.

http://www.urban.org

The Urban Institute2100 M Street, N.W.Washington, DC 20037

1art and culture in communities | systems of support

cultural vitality. This brief summarizes whatwe have learned so far about the supportsystems that operate in communities andthe characteristics of those systems that aremost likely to produce opportunities forcultural engagement. Because systems ofsupport for arts and culture in communities,as we define them, is a new area forresearch, it is useful to begin with theoverall framework ACIP has developed tostructure our work and the place of supportsystems in that framework.1

community level. This framework has beendeveloped through extensive fieldwork anddocument review – data gathering thatincluded in-person interviews and focusgroup discussion with professionals andcommunity residents in nine cities,2document review and telephone interviewswith staff from arts and arts-relatedinstitutions, and on-site examination ofselected community building initiativesaround the country. ACIP’s framework hassince been further refined through anextensive process of idea development anddebate in workshops and conferences ofresearchers, community builders,policymakers, funders, arts administrators,and artists – and through practicalapplication by ACIP affiliates around thecountry.3

Arts and cultural activity is an essentialdimension of communities and communitybuilding processes. It depends heavily onhaving an effective system of support – asystem that is made up of the contributionsof many different kinds of stakeholders, bothinside and outside the explicit cultural realm.This topic has received little researchattention despite the centrality ofunderstanding cultural systems of support topeople concerned with neighborhoodconditions and dynamics as well as topeople concerned with better understanding

The production, dissemination, andvalidation of arts and culture at theneighborhood level are made possiblethrough collaborations and partnershipsamong various types of arts and non-artsentities, including community organizations,churches, schools, and businesses. Thenetworks among these entities constitute asystem of support that is critical to acommunity's cultural vitality. Likewise,support systems for other issues – such asneighborhood revitalization, youthdevelopment, or crime prevention – arelikely to have arts-focused players in them.

ACIP’s focus on systems of support derivesfrom the overall framework we havedeveloped for conceptualizing andmeasuring the role of arts and culture at the

A R T A N D C U L T U R E I N C O M M U N I T I E S

T H E P L A C E O F S U P P O R T S Y S T E M S I NA C I P ’ S F R A M E W O R K F O R R E S E A R C H A N D M E A S U R E M E N T

2 systems of support | art and culture in communities

Our framework for arts and culture research and measurement has two major parts:

* Four guiding principles.

* A set of parameters that serve as both domains of inquiry (for conceptualization and classification) and dimensions of measurement (for documentation, data gathering, and indicator development).

The rationale for focusing on systems of support is given in guiding principle #4 (see leftpanel of exhibit A) – opportunities for participation rely on arts-specific and other resources.This principle leads directly to the inclusion of systems of support in our list of research andmeasurement parameters (see right panel of exhibit A). What we have learned so far aboutarts and culture systems of support follows.

EXHIBIT A: Place of Systems of Support in ACIP ’s Framework for Arts/Culture Research and Measurement

Guiding Pr incip les

1. Definitions depend on the values and realities of the community.

2. Participation spans a wide range of actions, disciplines, and levels of expertise.

3. Creative expression is infused with multiple meanings and purpose.

4. Opportunities for participation rely on arts-specific and other resources.

Domains of Inquiry andDimensions of Measurement

* Presence

* Participation

* Impacts

* Systems of support


ACIP found no well-developed research models to help us capture the essential elements ofarts and culture systems of support at the neighborhood level.4 Nor did we find establishedtheories about how such systems operate. However, through work with local affiliates, ACIPhas begun to identify the most likely kinds of players in these systems. We have also begunto discern important characteristics of the partnerships, collaborations, and connections thatare central to those systems.

Based on ACIP research and previous studies about comprehensive community initiatives, weknow that the collaborations on which systems of support depend can take a variety offorms:5

* Imposed or organic. They can be orchestrated by an external entity (e.g., funder) or developed by the collaborators themselves based on mutually recognized strengths and needs.

* Formal or informal. They can be based on specific organizational roles spelled out in a memorandum of understanding or based on personal contacts and unwritten understandings.

* Short or long term. A group of organizations can come together to sponsor or produce a one-time event, or group members may rely on one another year after year.

* Crisis-born or planned. Collaborations can be formed in response to a crisis situation, or they may come together out of a shared vision of the future.

In many cases, the relationships among the various players involved in bringing a culturalopportunity to fruition are taken for granted by them and are, therefore, implicit.

P A R T N E R S H I P S A N D C O L L A B O R A T I O N S A R EA T T H E H E A R T O F S U P P O R T S Y S T E M S


ACIP research in Los Angeles has exploredthe concept of systems of support and theprocesses, relationships, and circumstancesthat help develop opportunities for culturalengagement. For example, for several years,ACIP examined art-making workshopsculminating in traditional neighborhoodcelebrations in East Los Angeles – Día delos Muertos (Day of the Dead, an All SoulsDay celebration), Día de la Virgen deGuadalupe (Day of Our Lady of Guadalupe,patron saint of Mexico and prominent saintin other parts of Latin America), andPosadas (Mexican-style Christmascelebrations). These community celebrationswere made possible, in part, throughcollaborations among various entities,including Self-Help Graphics and Art, Inc., avisual arts organization; Proyecto Pastoral, asocial service organization associated withthe Dolores Mission Church; organized faith-based resident groups at the (former) AlisoPico Public Housing Development; theDolores Mission Church School; the AztlanCultural Center; individual artists; and theGetty Research Institute.6

The neighborhood celebrations that ACIPexamined provide an indication of the rangeof players involved, the kinds ofrelationships required, and the resources

necessary in making possible variousopportunities for cultural engagement.7 Forexample, for one of the celebrations andworkshops leading to it, Self-Help Graphicswas involved in relationships with variousorganizations that brought diverse resourcesto the collective initiative. Both Self-HelpGraphics and the organized faith-basedresident groups provided artists to teachparticipants various art forms such as altar-making, papél picado (chiseled paper), andpapier-mâché. Self-Help Graphics consultedwith the clergy of Dolores Mission Churchand members of the resident groups toidentify themes that would inform thecommunity artwork. Dolores Mission Schooland Aztlan Cultural Center were sites for thearts workshops. The Getty ResearchInstitute collaborated by providing money,supplies, and staff to help organize anddocument the events. Many relationshipswere required to make the workshops andcelebrations possible. Some were formal,others informal. Some were episodic; otherswere sustained for the long term. Somecollaborations were just between twoentities; others involved severalorganizations at once. These relationshipsamong dissimilar entities were at timeschallenging.

A N E X A M P L E F R O M L O S A N G E L E S


Based on the East Los Angeles case studyas well as other research on communityimprovement strategies, we know that thebest collaborations seem to be those thatare purposeful and include one or more pillarorganizations – organizations that areconsistently part of collaborations that bringactivities to fruition.8 Effectivecollaborations involve relatonships thatenable individual and collective goals to beachieved.9 These relationships come intobeing and evolve based on mutuallyrecognized strengths and needs. Moreover,they take the form and intensity that bestsuits the work. Collaboration of this sortrequires organizational flexibility, time, andpatience – requirements that are especiallyimportant because the organizationsinvolved often have different cultures ofwork and are beholden to different (andsometimes incompatible) standards forsuccess and excellence.

In Los Angeles, for example, the mainorganizations collaborating to bring art-making workshops in preparation for thecommunity festivals to fruition – Self-HelpGraphics, Proyecto Pastoral, and the GettyResearch Institute – over time reconcileddifferences in terminology, technologicalcapacity, bureaucratic process, and

evaluation and documentation standards.They also found ways to bridge differencesin opinion about how their shared projectsshould grow and change, or not, given thegrowing and changing aspirations of theindividual organizations involved.

Initially, despite the fact that the socialservice organization (Proyecto Pastoral) hadmany art-based programs and the artsorganization (Self-Help Graphics) had beeninvolved in the community for decades,people from the arts side had difficultyunderstanding the priorities and languagefrom the social service fields and vice versa.People from the arts field did not fullyunderstand reporting requirements tied tosocial service grants. People in the socialservices field did not fully understand theneeds and priorities related to the creativeprocess as led by artists and thepresentation standards held by the artsorganizations. And the specific requirementsrelated to arts supply and presentationneeds (including lighting, sound, and such)were unfamiliar to the people in socialservices. Joint debriefing sessions andopenness among staff and leaders from thevarious organizations were key to surfacingand addressing these and similar tensions.

F E A T U R E S T H A T H E L P P R E D I C T S U C C E S S F U L C O L L A B O R A T I O N S


Tensions like these are virtually inevitable inarts and culture-related collaborations,particularly those that are long term. Butpatience, commitment, and mediation (ofteninternal but sometimes external as well) canhelp close, or at least render surmountable,the language and practice chasms thatstand in the way of success. Peopleinvolved in a successful collaboration learnnew terminology, come to understand thepriorities and resources of others, and in theprocess invent their own collective terms,practices, and standards of success.

But new hybrid measures of success cancreate their own problems, in that they can

Even though the notion of arts and culturesystems of support at the community levelis still at a very early stage of development,what we know so far already hasimplications for practitioners, policymakersor funders, and researchers.

Practitioners, policymakers, and funders canraise the chance of long-term success intwo major ways:

* They can work to become more conscious of the ways in which various entities such as arts and other kinds of community organizations rely on collaborations to do their work.

* They can ask specific questions about how the capacity for strategic collaboration might be strengthened.

be inconsistent with standard methods ofevaluation in particular fields. While theparties collaborating across disciplines orfields may create their own terminology andmeasures of success, some of the entities(often the private and public funders) towhich they are accountable may not beaware of, or not subscribe to, the hybridmeasures of success that the parties haveagreed on. Moreover, collaborations that relylargely on the commitment of specificindividuals are at risk if those individualsleave their organizations or are encumberedby other duties.

For researchers, a systems approach tounderstanding support for arts, culture, andcreativity at the neighborhood level posesseveral conceptual and methodologicalchallenges:

* There is likely to be a trade-off between a more complete picture of how things work at the local level and the ability to distinguish analytically among various discrete elements in a system.

* A systems approach complicates the establishment of causal relationships and identification of the impacts of community-based arts activities.

* Pragmatic program evaluation and assessment becomes more difficult.

I N E V I T A B I L I T Y O F T E N S I O N S

I M P L I C A T I O N S


1. For a general “systems view” of creativity see Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi,, “Society, Culture, Person: A Systems View of Creativity,” in The Nature of Creativity, edited by R.J. Sternberg. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998, pp. 325-39).

2. Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Denver, Los Angeles, Oakland, Providence, and Washington, D.C.

3. ACIP works with local affiliates in seven places: Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco Bay Area, Philadelphia, Providence, and Washington, D.C. ACIP and affiliates work on a variety of projects, with foci ranging from citywide to neighborhood-specific levels. Our aim with the affiliate work is to create tools and methods that can be adopted or adapted by other practitioners in the community arts and community-building related fields.

4. Although recent research has begun to investigate collaborations among arts organizations, there is very little empirical research about community arts and cultural systems of support, including arts and non-arts organizations. See Francie Ostrower, Cultural Collaborations: Building Partnerships for Arts Participation(Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 2003).

5. Adapted from Maria-Rosario Jackson and Peter Marris, “Comprehensive Community Initiatives: Overview of and Emerging Community Improvement Orientation.” Paper presented at Urban Institute Community Building Seminar Series, 1996, pp. 27-30. Also see Maria-Rosario Jackson, “Coming to the Center of Community Life,” in Mastering Civic Engagement: A Challenge to Museums. (Washington, D.C.: American Association of Museums 2002).

6. The research was also part of the Getty Research Institute's Participation Project: Artists, Communities and Cultural Citizenship, directed by Josephine Ramirez.

7. Although this example emphasizes organizational ties, the community celebrations were also supported by a range of relationships among individuals.

8. Pillar organizations in a cultural system of support characteristically enable many different forms of cultural participation at different skill levels (e.g., making art, learning art, and audience participation). They have reach into multiple spheres of power and resources, play a catalytic role, and have the capacity to convene dissimilar entities (e.g. arts organizations, social service agencies, churches, and individual artists). Moreover they play an important role in validating both the creative activity pursued as well as the collaboration necessary to bring it to fruition.

9. See Jackson, 2002.

N O T E S

Despite these challenges, an approach thatrecognizes more adequately the ways inwhich both the arts and community buildingwork in neighborhoods is imperative to anytrue understanding and sustainability of therole of arts, culture, and creativity incommunities.

The Urban Institute

2100 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20037

Address Service Requested

telephone: 202.833.7200

fax: 202.429.0687

email: [email protected]

http://www.urban.org

Nonprofit Org.

U.S. Postage

PAID

Permit NO. 8098

Mt. Airy, MD

art and culture in communities: systems of support

Documents