The James Irvine Foundation has sustained a commitment to arts and cultural organizations in California since 1937. That commitment, combined with the many changes the Foundation has observed recently in California's artistic and cultural communities, led the Foundation to embark on a project to examine the challenges facing California's arts sector today and identify strategies and recommendations that will improve the health and well-being of the sector in the future.
To assist with this project, the Foundation retained AEA Consulting to conduct research into the key issues facing the arts and cultural sector, and prepare a working paper to stimulate discussion.
For the remainder of 2006, The James Irvine Foundation and AEA Consulting are hosting this blog to encourage response and commentary on the issues raised in the working paper. We welcome your comments, and your responses to three key questions:
- Does the paper capture the most important issues facing the arts and cultural sector of California?
- What strategies could make a material difference to any or all of these challenges?
- How can sector leaders, funders and other stakeholders come together to create a healthier future for the arts in California?
34 comments:
I do believe that the changed Californian landscape makes it necessary to create new paradigms to ensure a healthy cultural ecology. These changes, as reported, are mainly the drastically changed demographics in California, and the proliferation of and increased access to electronic media. The changed demographic is an issue that is not discussed nor addressed in proportion to its impact. The issue of electronic media and changing audience demands has gained more traction. However, addressing both issues is integral to attaining democratization of the arts and society.
A healthy arts ecology requires the balanced nurturing of the grassroots as well as established institutions. However this balance has been disrupted with funding for grassroots increasingly difficult to access. When you add the fact that much of the need for grassroots culture-building is taking place with ‘informal’ arts in immigrant communities we also find that the non-profit corporate model does not fit.
My non-profit organization – a vibrant community based cultural organization that is creating leaders from within our own neighborhood, now 12 years old, began as an artist residency. We were fortunate to have had the California Arts Council nurture us from that residency toward institution through a long list of supportive and accessible programs. It is terribly discouraging and unhealthy to our state that this type of support for project/artist driven projects has decline. I believe this is one of the reasons that artists are opting out of the non profit world which becomes increasingly specialized.
Regarding support for arts in the schools, yes, this is fundamental and critical. And I don’t believe that it is coincidental that California has disinvested from educating its youth during this time of the ‘browning’ of the state. However, I strongly believe that the arts need to be placed in the school, during school. After school programs and non profit organizations that provide after school programming serve their own vital role in the arts ecology, but it is does not replace arts during school.
Yes, a role for culture. So many immigrants come to California from countries where arts and culture are used as tools for political manipulation. That culture is used in the U.S. increasingly as fodder for extremist politicians and clever marketers should make us all strengthen our efforts to rebalance the arts ecology as a means of democratization.
This working paper is an important step towards what I hope is a renewed discussion. Thank you to the Irvine Foundation.
The AEA report powerfully and, on the whole,
accurately describes the environment in which artists and not-for-profit arts institutions are now conducting their work. The report is flawed, however, in its tendency to treat any product made
by individuals with artistic skills as art and to accept the marketplace as the measure of value.
Surely, the not-for-profit sector came to exist, at least in part, to support valuable work that could not be sustained by audience demand alone. Most everything I admire in contemporary arts could not
have been generated in the for-profit sector and,
indeed, a huge percentage of what I admire in the
for-profit sector would not exist if the not-for-profit sector had not first existed to develop the work.
In consequence, I would argue that THE
critical question for the arts --and for foundations
that support the arts--is how artists and arts institutions that produce work too demanding or too challenging for the current marketplace are to
be educated, nurtured, and sustained.
None of this is meant to imply that artists and arts
institutions do not have to adapt to evolving audience expectations in the delivery of their work
and to some extent even in the media in which they create. But the report is far too critical
of not-for-profits for failing to adapt to their
changing circumstances. What I hear here is the
self-flagellation common among artists and arts
organization leaders who set a high bar for themselves.
Given how little economic margin for error there is in today's not-for-profit sectors, I would argue that the sector is working furiously to adapt and is doing so in some ways far more
effectively than the for-profit entertainment sector. One only has to look at the tumult and disarray at the major studios, recording companies, and entertainment conglomerates to
see that, even with much more margin for error,
the commercial sector--with a few notable
acceptions--is not doing any better than the not-for-profit sector. Now, as in the past four decades, we need foundation supporters of the
arts to identify, support, and disseminate promising experiments by artists and their institutions to develop means of delivery adapted
to evolving audience expectations.
There is is much more to be said about the
valuable and provocative AEA report but I'll
stop here and hope that these comments help
get the conversation rolling.
The AEA paper finally brings to the surface the conversation that has been going on for years.
Perhaps it is time that foundations and granters support relevent art providers regardless of whether or not they have a 501c3.
As the AEA paper pointed out, there are many viable grassroots, DIY, collectives and "commercial" entities that adamantly prefer not to be non profit, but instead prefer their freedom to be self sustaining and socially viable. Creative capatalism acting with a social conscience should be encouraged.
I understand that the idea is to have checks and balances in place to ensure the predetermined use of the grant, but determining a past track record and requiring documentation should be relatively simple. (ie: "I'd like to put on a play, here's the video footage of the play.")
It seems to me that more good would come from the foundations and granters changing and redefining who and what they fund (ie: go beyond the 501c3 requirement) versus trying to change the thinking and methodology of 40 years in (the majority of) 10,000 non profits. What if art became the main focus of support instead of institutions, administrations and facilitators receiving money to continue to be in the business of being institutions, administrations and facilitators?
This is not a suggestion of "either/or", but a suggestion of entertaining the idea that there could be other ways of granting and funding that is in step with what's already going on.
This paper lost me at "...the market is increasingly used as the arbiter of value...."
What is that market exactly? Is it the sale of tickets to a performance at venue controlled by a non-profit arts organization? Is it a donation to underwrite that performance? Is it a donation to the organization itself? A donation of services? Etc. This paper fails to make these distinctions.
This paper's failure to distinguish between popular culture and non-pop culture is even more disturbing. Popular culture represents a narrow range of colors out of the entire light spectrum. Pop culture is, more than ever, controlled by a handful of gate-keepers who meter and charge for each and every byte. The long tail is very good news for them but is only relevant to their mass-produced (digitizable) cultural expressions (books, films, recorded music, etc...)
Without non-profit arts organizations to steward yesterday's cultural expressions, provide channels for today's fringe/developing artists and provide training grounds for tomorrow's artists, we stand to lose our past and our future, ultimately coming to rest in a contextless present where the only that which sells, exists. (And only then until it stops selling).
As for the idea that non-profits are no longer serving their constituents, well, the market will sort that out. Either they will be supported (and we know there are many measures of support, from direct to quite indirect) or they won't. The fact that there are 10,000 non-profit arts organizations in California alone seems contrary to this paper's conclusion.
And if that's not enough credibility busting for you, the quote "The future ain't what it used to be," (p. 21) which this paper smugly attributes to Marshall McLuhan (because that seems more erudite?) is actually a quote from Yogi Berra.
The James Irvine Foundation and AEA Consulting deserve the arts’ and artists’ gratitude for commemorating in print concerns, questions, and issues that have burdened artists and administrators for decades. The fleshing out of these critical issues will lead, hopefully, to a wellspring of dialog that will aid in forming a strategic plan framework that can serve artist, nonprofit, foundation and corporation, and help form a substantial arts funding policy for the State of California.
As long as two decades ago nonprofit sages advocated that nonprofits should assume more of a corporate personae in order to be competitive for the long haul, particularly as it related to audience development and funding. Clearly foundations heard the word and moved to a model that began to underwrite more programs than operations and required more detailed applications than ever before. This model was viewed by some then, and perhaps even more today, as a distressing scenario for funding because it would generate program after program often pulling away from or forcing a revision of a nonprofits core Mission. Today, several, including Bill Somerville of the Philanthropic Ventures Foundation, advocate that foundations return to the operational funding paradigm and allow nonprofits to determine their own direction, doing what they do best, without creating programs that dilute Mission or are often replications of other programs elsewhere. Today outcomes appear as the trigger of grant proposals determining fundability, forcing nonprofits to forgo the indefinable individual impression of the arts for the calculated controlled consequence of them. Clearly, though, a return to more general funding models will not alone mediate issues facing the arts. From an audience development/retention perspective, the graying of the audience and their subsequent demise has long been one of the worst nightmares for the sustainability of performing arts organizations. The young audiences, for a variety of reasons, seem to be the most difficult to acquire.
The bell has been tolling for many performance-based nonprofits. Venerable organizations are not able to balance the budget; it is no secret that several of the San Jose’s premier nonprofits are in dire straits, bringing into question how many of the brave 10,000 are in debt and hear wolves at the door. Successful organizations pull from an expanded toolkit to make a go of it. Here at Hillbarn Theatre our 70 years has been filled with as many peaks and valleys as any ticker tape mirroring the historical perspective reported in the paper’s research; yet we are on a steadfast course based on the stated virtues of entrepreneurialism and reinvention that has increasingly grown success. We model our marketing and product delivery after the various entertainment options available to the public and to their tremendous effort to garner the publics’ time and we have boiled our success factor down to one common denominator: quality.
Hillbarn Theatre used the James Irvine Foundation’s audience research project of 2002 to reinvent product for building audiences and we know that we will use this most recent gem and its offspring to continue to factor our success.
One thing that really stood out to me in this paper is the shift in the public interest for the type or content of artistic programs, and the artists' need to adhere to those interests in order to survive. The way I look at it is this: if art is truely considered as being "educational", then why are we so worried about pleasing the public? When we set up the curriculum for math classes in schools, do we ask the kids if they would like to do math? If we did that with academics, we would have no math classes, and very little science in the schools. I think it is the society/community/government's duty to include the arts at a part of required education, and that includes making certain that arts organizations outside of the school system, have the means to provide art at a reasonable cost (to both the audience and to the producers of the programs.
The Irvine Foundation’s working paper on critical issues affecting California’s arts and cultural vitality brings to mind Einstein’s thought experiments on the nature of light. It’s all relative to where you stand. Are you watching the light beam from a fixed point, or are you traveling with the beam at the speed of light? Some observers would say that California’s commercial arts and entertainment industry is a dominant force in world culture. Despite all of the difficulties for the state’s non-profit arts sector, one would be hard-pressed to find a region of the globe whose culture has not been affected by California’s commercial arts: musical recordings, films, video games, nano technologies, theme parks, designs and social fashions invented and produced in California. These California products remain one of the few commercial domains in which the U.S. maintains the position of a strong net exporter. Aside from commercial inventions and products, California has other means by which it serves as a crucible of culture. In his documentary series on the English language, Robert McNeil pointed to Southern California as the single most influential source of language invention in the U.S.: “valley-speak” for girls, and “surf-speak” for boys. If I was a board member of the Disney Corporation, my anxieties might be directed toward competition from India, China and New Zealand, global interest rates, intellectual property rights and hostile mergers, but would I be worried about erosion of California’s climate of cultural vitality? If, in contrast, I was a board member of a typical California non-profit arts organization, (which is currently the case), visions of the apocalypse would color my perspective
In the grand ecology of culture in the state, the commercial sector has always dwarfed the non-profit sector. Even though the latter grew exponentially in the era from the mid-60s through the early 90s, the non-profit sector never came close to the size, consumer base and influence of the commercial sector. I have never seen any attempt to measure the relative masses of these two sectors, but in terms of revenues, output of services to the public, and artists’ payrolls, my wild guess would be that the commercial sector outweighs the non-profit sector by a factor of at least 20 to 1.
So, continuing in the vein of Einstein’s relativity, if we were to look at the ecology of arts and culture in California over the past century from a macro vantage point, we might see that there was a minor shift from 1965 to 1990 in the production of professional goods and services toward the non-profit sector, and that after 1990, the shift reversed direction. If this reversal meant that my favorite non-profit theater company or alternative art space ceased operation, I might be highly aggrieved, but the average Californian would not have been affected, because the average Californian did not patronize the non-profit sector. Although many would deny it, the hard reality is that the predominant demographic profile of patrons of professional non-profit cultural organizations in California, and every other state, has been white, college-educated, above average income, and above average in age. This profile was never the majority of this state’s population, and as noted in the Irvine working paper, it is, for the foreseeable future, a shrinking minority.
Given the new media distribution technologies (e.g. iPods, Internet, satellite, TiVo), it may be the case that Californian’s now have access to more professionally produced artistic goods and services than at any time in history. I believe this to be so. It may also be the case that the non-profit producers of professional goods and services will diminish sharply, and be further confined to even smaller niche markets in which a narrow cadre of aficionado patrons will be ample to carry on operations. In some respects, this phenomenon is already visible in public television, whose most profitable programs have been creamed off by commercial television. Remember tennis matches and movie reviewers on public television? Can “Antiques Road show” be far behind?
If, indeed, the broad public has access to an ample supply of cultural goods and services, largely provided by the commercial sector, is there any cause for concern? For the moment, I will leave aside several criticisms that have been voiced frequently by critics of commercial arts and culture, and often used to advocate for a countervailing non-profit sector: Commercial goods and services lack quality, they tend to homogenize cultural variety, they ignore controversial or unpleasant issues, they do not serve the diverse populations of the state, they lack innovation. While I agree with some of these criticisms, my overriding worry is that both commercial and non-profit arts organizations increasingly treat their patrons as passive consumers. Buy the ticket, see the art, go home. Increasingly, California, and the rest of post-industrial society, is conceding control to professional providers. We watch professional athletes, but play fewer sports, and thereby become less fit. We consign our health to professional doctors and clinics, and take less responsibility for maintaining our own health. In the arts, we consume more artistic products, but are becoming culturally flabby. Our capacity to make our own cultural experiences is declining.
I know that I’m in danger, here, of contradicting my own data. The Irvine working paper quotes the high rates of participatory (amateur) arts activity found by my organization, Cultural Initiatives, in Silicon Valley, and similar rates found in other research. While the data seem to point to broad participation in the arts, my concern is that this participation may be waning in its depth. The most intense forms of arts participation involve immersion in aesthetics, cultural traditions, critical judgments and actual artistic practice. Members of religious choruses, ballroom dance clubs, poetry circles and garage bands are often engaged with all of these elements. In comparison, much of contemporary arts participation involves the manipulation of professionally produced cultural commodities: programming your iPod, using Martha Stewart’s linens to decorate a bathroom, hanging Warhol or Monet prints on a wall. No criticism is intended of these pursuits, but they mostly involve aesthetic choices, and have a weaker capacity to exercise our engagement with cultural traditions, critical judgments and direct artistic practice.
A healthy cultural ecology requires a balance between strong cultural literacy, vigorous personal and community participation in cultural expression, and accessible, high-quality cultural goods and services. Put simply, we need to know about culture, to do it, and to consume it from accomplished masters, whether commercial or non-profit. In California, there is strong evidence that our level of cultural literacy has diminished after 30 years of declining arts education in the K-12 school system. In addition, I suspect that our capacity for deep personal and community participation in cultural expression has also shrunk for a variety of reasons, including reduced leisure time and over-commodification of cultural goods and services. Achieving a better-balanced cultural ecology has much to do with our future personal happiness, community harmony, and creative society.
Fantastic report! I've been on the boards of several small budget arts organizations. Usually these questions are only discussed after the performance, after the post-concert reception, and after several glasses of wine. Thanks for framing them in this working paper.
I wonder whether "board development" should included under the future leadership section - identifying, recruiting, training, and retaining qualified board members remains a huge challenge.
Much of what is said in the Irvine report sounds true, but different types of nonprofit arts organizations have different public values and different modes of operation, as recognized in the report. While major arts organizations are magnets for tourists and out-of-town visitors and often go a long way toward defining a place/creating a destination, alternative art spaces consider themselves the R&D wing of the culture, largely focused on experimental work. Their audiences are inherently small. They have largely been successful in challenging major arts institutions and commercial venues that have traditionally excluded women and artists of color and have been unable or unwilling to exhibit new media and new genres work. There has been definite change on the part of the majors in the last few decades towards being more inclusive, but the different venues have not significantly shown new work, particularly electronic/new media and social practices.
The authors of the Irvine report should look at the Wallace Foundation-funded study, Gifts of the Muse: Reframing the Debate about the Benefit of the Arts. According to their report, the debate has been around the extrinsic value of the arts (how much money is spent by artists, arts organizations, and arts audiences; economic benefits) and should be framed around its intrinsic worth. They come to the seemingly opposite conclusion of the Irvine Study. The arts build community and create public space for debate, something that the market cannot or will not do at this time.
I believe the Irvine report does not really define what a “cultural experience” is or defines it too narrowly. Although Professional Amateurs are increasing, they are not the experimenters and will not lead the culture forward. Their work generally does not create new forms or address new issues. A good collaborative model might be one between art spaces and arts programs at the college/university/art school level.
Definitely more study needs to be done in this area to make a case for public support for the arts, a difficult task in an anti-intellectual country.
I would argue that in many cases we are simply under-capitalized at the start and head downhill from there. Most successful businesses determine how much capital they need to get started and sustain themselves until they are profitable. In the nonprofit sector we must do the same, and then add in additional funds to address the income gap (the amount of subsidy we need to close the gap between earned income and expenses). Only in the nonprofit arena (and in failed for-profit businesses) do we open our doors, hope for the best, beg for money when we've already spent it, and wonder why we go broke. I doubt many start-ups have the chutzpah to go out and raise lots and lots of money before they go into operation. It's just not the way we've done business. But we should. If we can't get the capital we need to open our nonprofit businesses securely, why should we expect them to thrive?
Following are two topics you might consider upon revising the working paper:
1) Are the growing populations of non-white Californians tied to the growing number of people taking part in the rapid advances in technology and electronic communications in any way? Or are these disparate groups. And, if so, is technologically-savvy outreach an inneffective mode of marketing and communication for a Californian non-profit arts organization seeking to build a sustainable audience base? Or is audience building a project with two foci - selling tickets now (e-marketing) and building a lasting audience (more conventional marketing)? 2)More time should be spent on how audience expectation is shaped by the non-profit organization and its past institutionalization of the performance experience and how these expectations sabatoge an audience's ability to engage in a performance in a genuine, unmediated way. Instead of throwing in even more intermediaries to audience expecation like podcasts and video downloads, etc., it might serve non-profits better to re-think an audience's relationship with a specific event in terms of its marketing / communication / education outreach.
I appreciate the thought that has gone into the AEA, Irvine Foundation's report. Lacking at this point of course, is a similar report from the perspective of individual artists and 501(c)3 arts institutions and their administrators and constutuents. While "my" arts institution has variously benefitted and struggled with the arts funding climate as it has been over the past few years (with the de-funding of the CAC and the dot-com crash), and we have ramped up our already existing entrepreneurial side, I personally feel that the non-profit arts institutions have shown much more nimbleness and adaptability to their markets and potential markets than was characterized in this paper.
While I applaud the recognition that individual artists should be supported, non-profit arts institutions support many more working artists in a variety of ways that are sometimes abudantly evident, and sometimes completely hidden. Arts institutions support artists at all levels of development and attainment, and are great birthplaces for experimentation, arts education, cross pollination, collaboration, cross media development and plain old innovation. It is essential that foundations and government funders should move toward funding of operations as opposed to funding particular projects, as these projects will naturally take place as organizations are able to take the important steps toward planning and implementing of those strategies that simultaneously fulfill their artists missions and build capacity in all the ways that are possible.
I want to speak to one issue also, that must be delicately framed if people are to understand the intent: while arts education is crucial and a big part of what many arts organization do, and will ultimately lead to greater support for the arts "down the road", I do feel that much of arts funding today promotes the "infantilization of the arts" (a term coined by an arts administrator from LA). While many arts groups have always naturally had educational aspects or educational activities as part of their programming, to always tie funding to K-12 education is counter productive and distorting for some arts organizations. Get down in there and support operations --that will naturally create better capacity in all arts organizations, better institutional practices and better planning and implementation, and ultimately better educational programming for k-12 constituents.
To write thoroughly and thoughfully in response to the AEA/Irvine paper takes more time than I can muster. Many, many issues were brought up that each deserve serious thought and attention in detail. One would hope that a forum comprised of the many artists and arts institutions of all sizes that could address this paper creatively and thoughtfully, and could contribute toward the "arts policy" on a statewide level could be arranged.
This was a very interesting and insightful paper and I found myself nodding and agreeing with many of the comments made. One that really jumped out was that "Thousands of organizations have been created to fulfill the artistic dreams of their founders, without regard to long-term sources of financial support or audience interest". This is certainly true in the field of choral music,where there are plenty of people who like to sing, and a fair number of people who want to set up their own chorus, but the audience for choral music is not that large in Northern California. So, we have more and more organizations competing for a smaller audience. We recognize a responsibility to safeguard the legacy that has been handed down to us in the music that has been composed for choruses in the last three centuries. Are we to "dumb down" what we offer in order to attract new audience? To some extent, we are what we are and, while we continue to adapt and incorporate new ideas into programs and performances, we would be guilty of negligence if we were to abandon the great masterpieces that form the foundation of our particular art form.
Having grown up with a strong arts program at my elementary and high school, I am convinced that California has to invest in arts education if many of the arts organizations in the state are to survive. Our organization has been around for 42 years but, without choral music in the schools, who will be the choral singers of the future?
How to get people out of their homes to live performances is a very serious challenge. We all recognize the attraction of staying home with a DVD and a pizza at the end of a long day - how many arts organizations do we, as arts professionals, support by our attendance?
If we fall into the trap of saying that only those arts organizations that attract large audience and financial support should survive, then we are doing a disservice to the arts in general. Government, both state and federal, has to be involved. In many European countries, arts organizations receive government support in the form of grants and subsidies - how else would many of the large opera companies survive? There is an inherent value in the arts, over and above how much money they generate or how many people they attract to performances. Let's not throw away the baby with the bathwater!
The high/low distinction so many are hanging their hats on here is not really going to bear the weight. The general public doesn't want to pay for "arts as a school" which they don't attend anyway.
Frankly, I don't blame them. A subsidized arts world with an institutional/institutionalized inability to draw paying patrons is quite simply making bad art.
Not to say that every single work that is unpopular is no good. Just that art ought to aim to get an audience appropriate for the level of time & effort put into the creation of the work. Art SHOULD strive for economic viability. It makes for good art.
My problem with the report is more the lack of solid data regarding the impact of technology on arts institutions. "Self-curating" sounds interesting, but it really sounds like a specualtion rather than something that's really been observed as a phenomenon with a measurable impact on what arts managers do.
The "accurate depiction" we have here looks to me to be a distillation of what arts managers think is happening to them. What I'd like to see is something that gives us more objective data rather than many-headed subjectivism.
Being a transplant from the midwest 10 years ago, I was totally shocked to see what Prop 13 did to the State of California concerning arts in the schools. As a music teacher who was certified to teach K-12 music, it was pretty impossible to find a job.
This country has an education emergency and I don't see any huge change on the horizon for the better. Can we make things the way they used to be? Why would we want to? Society has changed and part of the reason education has been left behind is because it has been slow to change with society.
Although there are some pockets of wonderful collaborative projects where non-profits are providing arts to area schools, it is certainly not the norm.
After spending years looking at the education system from the inside and the outside perspective, I still wonder why our great education leaders haven't looked outside the box.
Take the elements from the past that worked well and merge them with what works today: ALL subjects should include an element of the arts (kids don't all learn the same way) Math, science, etc. are much more fun and easier to learn when the arts are added.
Secondly, I believe the future of arts education will become more community-based rather than school-based. The teachers don't have the luxury of time to teach arts because of the many curriculum and test-based curriculum they are mandated to complete. This is all on top of the "normal" schedule of basic learning.
With so many non-profit organizations, why not dedicate so many hours per week to having the arts people come to the school, or better yet, have the kids go to an arts center each week where they can be immersed in the arts?
I'm not saying that every kid should have individual music lessons or dance lessons, etc. The arts affect each of us in our daily lives and this is how it should be taught. Only a small percentage of people go on to become professional artists. The key is to engage the other 98% of society to recognize what the arts can do for them as individuals, making them more productive for our communities. Those 98% then become supportive audience members for the 2% of professional artists making their living.
I'm glad the Irvine Foundation and others have begun to talk about the elephant in the middle of the room. I hope that instead of others in the position to change things act upon these discussions instead of just discussing them until they get buried again.
Fabulous! The report launches us into an essential, forward-looking conversation. Kudos to Irvine for commissioning such a thoughtful study.
The paper brings us to the conclusion that we have an overbuilt nonprofit arts system, in which the growing operating needs of nonprofit organizations exceed the supply of grant dollars. We have a problem on our hands, and both nonprofits and funders will have to put heads together to figure our way out of a looming crisis. I’m confident we can.
A couple of things came to mind as I was reading. For one, the study may overlook a significant trend: the shift in philanthropy away from organized grantmaking and toward “off-the-radar” giving. Unfortunately, this factor only exacerbates the situation the report has sketched.
Recently, new donors have been more inclined to give through commercial giving vehicles, donor advised funds at community foundations, or quieter, opaque mechanisms than establishing an independent foundation. The system has evolved for the convenience of donors. The effect has been of a one-way mirror, with donors able to access information on grant-worthy organizations, while grantseekers are unable to see sources of potential funding. For those foundations that hang out a shingle, relatively few actually open the door to unsolicited newcomers, preferring instead to review proposals by invitation only. Practicality has driven this trend – foundations are simply unable to manage the volume of proposals that would otherwise come their way.
So, while overall giving seems to be holding steady, the number of doors that can be knocked on appears to be shrinking. This is bad news from a grantseeker’s perspective.
That said, I think a useful question at this juncture might be: What system best stimulates creativity? What kinds of ventures will yield great art?
The study suggests that amateur participation in the arts is an indicator that the arts have shifted from passive to active engagement, eclipsing the need for audience experience through presenting institutions. I’m not so sure about this. The fact that people are playing more musical instruments or making films using web-based technologies doesn’t necessarily mean that they have satisfied their appetite for art or are unwilling to be spectators. A quick scan of sports infrastructure would suggest the opposite is true – that amateur engagement in the practice of sports builds huge appetite for sports appreciation. Indeed, the sports system relies on complete interdependence of for-profit and non-profit structures, from neighborhood based youth-leagues, through the sprawling nonprofit college system, to the high-end, big bucks arena of professional sports.
The study also suggests that we may not need a nonprofit system anymore, as the commercial realm has moved into what used to be the exclusive domain of nonprofits with high quality artistic programs. Surely we don’t believe that the profit-driven market is the only arbiter of artistic value?
No doubt, however, arts nonprofits need to become more entrepreneurial to survive. They need to generate increased earned revenues and individual contributions, and diminish their reliance on grants. Some will adapt, others will be unable to do so.
Funders need to be more thoughtful in directing grants where they can best leverage systems change, aiding the most promising organizations to move in the direction of diverse revenue streams, while providing a measure of stability during a time of dynamic change.
Both sides need to work harder to find pressure points in the broader civic agenda, where the arts might enter into synergistic partnerships.
What to do next? I have a few thoughts:
Case studies on successful business models. Academic research institutions should be encouraged to identify and analyze organizations that are evolving sustainable, hybrid operating models.
A strategy to reach out to major donors who are currently giving off the radar screen. Regional grantmaking associations might play an important role here.
Tools to connect new donors with small and midsized organizations in their region.
The Catalogue of Philanthropy is an excellent example of such a tool that has generated new giving for local organizations in Boston and Washington D.C.
Support for individual solicitation. Small and midsized nonprofits need training in individual donor solicitation to build a constituency of donors.
Support for mergers and sunsetting. The closure of the Bella Lewitzky Dance Company in the 1990s is an excellent example of a deliberate and dignified shut-down. Perpetuity needn’t be the only operating model for arts organizations.
Arts participation in non-arts policy formation around such civic issues as affordable housing, health, human relations, and education.
Joint convening. We need ongoing, action-oriented forums for arts leaders and funders to work together, rather than independent of one another. The Irvine report could be an excellent catalyst for productive collaboration.
As we all know, funders have a track record of erratic course corrections that have been hard on nonprofits. If the report offers an opportunity for change, let’s be cautious not to act precipitously. This is a chance for us to do it right, together.
Claire Peeps
Durfee Foundation
I appreciate the time, energy and money that went into this study and love having the opportunity to express my opinion. I'd like to offer some comments on the key issue: The Nonprofit Business Model.
It's always interesting to me to hear conversations about the 'non-profit arts community'- as if we're a single thing, that all of us that comprise it are the same, that we face the same issues and that solutions for any variety of challenges are the same. I believe that it's important in any dialog of this nature to use language that is specific and the more specific the language in the beginning; the greater the likelihood that the resulting strategies and solutions will be appropriate and effective. I think while emerging and small organizations face many of the same issues as large budget organizations such as dwindling contributed and earn revenue, the strategies to address these challenges are likely to be distinctly different - there are no 'one size fits all' solutions and if we engage in more focused strategic discussions we may discover some interesting approaches and strategies that already exist but are not widely embraced.
My interest has always been in the development of emerging and small non-profits and the artistic collective. I think now is the time to look seriously at these organizations - hold them up as models for a change and see what we can learn. I think there has always been an assumption by funders and other leaders that small organizations are only small because they haven't figured out how to get bigger (and often funding guidelines are established based on that assumption) but that is very often NOT the case. Small is small. And, as someone earlier suggested: small is nimble, and small requires minimal infrastructure, and small often has a more intimate relationship with both the art and the audience.
So instead of looking to institutions for leadership, let's look at small organizations and see what happens. Let's say, for the sake of conversation that small is small; and let's say that small is good; and let's even say that smaller is better. What if we get really small and only leave the relationship between the artist, the art, and the audience? Let's get rid of the infrastructure all together, which in my opinion, is the real issue. What if we forget the legal requirements of being a non-profit, for the moment, and really re-think this infrastructure thing. What if infrastructure is free-standing and not permanently connected to the artist? What if its there only when the artist needs it? Is it possible for a community to develop and support a single infrastructure that provides the physical space, the leadership, the staff, and all the technical components of general operation to, say, 40 or 50 small groups? Certainly it would create a single, sizable mass and fundamentally change the complexion of the small arts community. It would provide a clearer (and maybe more appropriate) path for cutting edge artists to enter. It could support short term projects and long-term commitments. It would help focus charitable giving and grants. It could keep artists focused on the creation of art and alleviate the feelings of failure around not being able to put together a 3-year strategic plan - heck it would eliminate the need for a strategic plan.
I believe its time to turn everything on its head and consider fundamental shifts. One of the most interesting things about this report is that it signals an "irreversibly changed" enviroment for arts and culture in California and I think our approach to meeting these new challenges must also change.
The AEA report opens a discussion on Critical Issues which apply to Alaska as well as California.
I applaud the Irvine Foundation for stimulating discussion - and from there, action - on challenges facing the region's arts.
A few thoughts:
1. Per AARP, "America is growing older....Between 2002 and 2030, the older population will more than double, from 35.6 million to 71.5 million, and almost one in five people will be 65 or older." Although not addressed in "Critical Issues," this demographic shift is going to influence cultural activities in numerous ways. Interpreted narrowly, one hears a clarion call for increased opportunities for "lifelong learning" (there are too few in a climate that privileges youth education). But there are broader implications to consider...
2. Even as the study acknowledges that there are more classes available at nonprofit cultural organizations to meet the growing demand of people who want to make art (see p. 9), it implies that the "institutionalized nonprofit cultural sector" is at a remove from this trend. If one imagines that the sole purpose of an arts organization is to present, this conclusion may be justified. In reality, an equally important role for arts organizations is to centralize educative resources, making it easy for people to connect and learn from skilled artists.
3. We need to seize on that "curatorial me" and find ways to give people a direct, exciting stake in the creation of art, a taste of that artistic leap into the unknown. I would like to see many, many more people involved in commissioning work, whether providing ideas to an artist to incorporate into a public art project or belonging to a commissioning society. Or even doing some form of anonymous patronage analogous to a futures market or off-track betting. Why not?
The Irvine paper is an important vocalization of the (semi)private conversations arts managers have had with their colleagues and boards in the recent months. Change is afoot and it's time to adapt or get left behind.
Today's small and midsize companies are stuck in an organizational model in which the intrinsic value of art is unquestionable. Yet, our patrons, artists, and donors -- our consumers, to conflate them into one category -- require compelling arguments to be enticed by what the organization has to offer. These companies, then, are faced with the difficult task of translating mission into a competitive marketing analysis and deriving from that a sustainable business model. We can't simply rest on our laurels nor can we rely on our label of "producer of cultural product." We must be able to answer the questions: What would happen if my organization ceased to exist? What consumer would fail to be served? What art would never see the light of day? Is that OK? Then we must take the answers to these questions, assuming they compel us to keep at this difficult task, and translate them into an action capable of inspiring our consumers. This process requires clarity and sensibility. It requires flexibility and time. Those nimble organizations serving a unique customer should be more likely to survive the coming change in our industry. Conversely, we of flat-feet will have an enormous task in front us.
We all should keep an eye on the proceedings of the for-profit business community, exploring new opportunities to align the strengths of commonly situated organzations, to seek new markets for our product, and to consider longevity and viability in our ongoing strategic conversations. For example, in the San Francisco Bay Area, there are nearly 400 theater companies. No one is more important than any other, in that each provides an opportunity for an artist to be heard and an audience to engage. But perhaps its an over-abundance that could and should be addressed by a company dealing in non-profit mergers and acquisitions. Distill, for example, out of the plethora of new play development companies (of which Z Space is one) a titan capable of luring in consumers, a captain of its genre. Wouldn't our consumers be better served in that instance? Certainly the banking industry finds that to be an acceptable and sensible conclusion.
Surely as our organizations contemplate the large, immediate questions of sustainability in this new environment, if the state -- and I mean its citizens -- continues to defund or under-fund arts education, then we will have lost an important opportunity to re-weave art into the fabric of our communities. It is our responsibility to demand arts education and to locate its value equal to the core curriculum subjects. If we do not, then the next generation of artists will be faced with an even smaller pool of consumers and their task will be infinitely more difficult than ours is today.
First of all, I’d like to thank the James Irvine Foundation and AEA Consulting for producing this working paper. We who are on the front lines creating and presenting art are always trying to figure out if something affecting us at the moment is a blip or a trend, without the benefit of detachment or the time to step back and analyze current data dispassionately or disinterestedly. We have vast ambitions and insatiable appetites by nature – that’s why we do what we do – so we are inclined to push the envelope at all times in order to do more work and find more opportunities for artists, always assuming that, with deft fundraising and marketing, the income will keep up with expenses. What is invaluable to me about the working paper is the realization that indeed the climate in California for non-profits has changed radically, that it is a trend and not a blip, that our assumptions about cultural consumptions are wildly out of date and need to be imaginatively rethought, and that the time is NOW.
Does the paper capture the most important issues facing the arts and cultural sector of California? I’d say it does. It is a sobering study, but not a sensationalistic one. It made me realize that I was not crazy to feel that it is getting harder just to stay in the same place. The paper offers persuasive evidence that we are in the midst of a tectonic shift in audience interest in the arts, and that is just one of many challenges facing non-profit arts organizations today.
What strategies could make a material difference? This is perhaps the biggest question the paper raises, among numerous unanswered ones. The greatest challenge for non-profits is, I think, finding ways to engage and retain new audiences, which are currently skewed older and diminishing by attrition. I don’t believe there are easy solutions or any kind of quick fix. Having metal bands play with the symphony or untrained movie or television stars tackle difficult stage roles may be effective marketing stunts, but such gimmicks do not support a non-profit’s artistic mission in the short term, nor do they build and sustain new audiences over the long haul.
Another dicey issue raised by the paper is the blurred boundary between the non-profit world and the for-profit world, between artistic and blatantly commercial enterprises. While these categories need not be mutually exclusive, it is important to ask how low a non-profit can or should stoop to conquer the audience divide before that stooping becomes, to borrow Oliver Goldsmith’s alternate title to his classic 18th century comedy, “the mistakes of a night” – or of a season. If A.C.T. had produced Guys and Dolls instead of Happy End last season, for instance, would full houses have justified the betrayal of our mission to present challenging, risk-taking works that one does not encounter in the commercial realm? And we do compete with such works, like A Chorus Line and Jersey Boys (both of which originated at non-profit theaters, we should recall, blurring the commercial/non-profit boundary further) that play right next door to the American Conservatory Theater on Geary Street.
And so to your third question, how can we stakeholders come together to create a healthier future for the arts in California? Well, it’s not just California. The Metropolitan Opera, for one example, is engaging directors from outside the opera world and marketing deeply subsidized tickets to potential new audiences in an effort to broaden its appeal and strengthen its support base. We all must develop creative strategies in this area, and those of us in smaller markets (small compared to New York City) might consider collaborating on projects more deeply and more often when opportunities arise. A.C.T. has had fruitful collaborations with Steppenwolf Theatre on William Saroyan’s The Time of Your Life and with Kansas City Rep on David Mamet’s A.C.T.-commissioned adaptation of Harley Granville Barker’s The Voycey Inheritance in recent seasons. We are hoping to collaborate with San Francisco Opera on an exciting special project soon that will adapt a classic children’s story for the stage in an unusual way, and we are currently developing a movement-based performance piece with artists from San Francisco Ballet (though it is not a collaboration with the Ballet per se) that likewise defies simple categorization and strives for the cross-pollination of multiple art forms.
Artists will continue to do their creative work: that is our nature. The most important thing the working paper makes plain, I think, is the need for us artists to understand the environment in which we are trying to do that work so that we can run our non-profits more effectively. We should be energized by the challenges currently facing us as we plan strategically to meet those challenges. So I am deeply grateful to the Irvine Foundation for pushing us all to think about the future with open eyes, and I look forward to the next phase of this important and timely project.
Carey Perloff
Artistic Director
American Conservatory Theater
First and foremost, a big thank you to the James Irvine Foundation for their visionary and insightful actions to assist and find out the reasons why California's arts and cultural community is where it is at this moment. Having just read the pArticipate San Diego report, a direct result from Irvine's "Communities Advancing the Arts Program", I have to say it is inspiring to see the time and strategic thinking that the San Diego Foundation, the Arts & Culture Working Group, consultants, staff and board put into this program.
To answer the questions that the Irvine Foundation asked on "Critical Issues" I will try the first. My thoughts are that "Leadership" and "Arts Advocacy" are two major issues that have faced CA arts community since I started working in it over 25 (whew!) years ago. On the second question regarding what strategies would make a difference, I think that several foundations could work together, as Irvine, Hewlett, and Ford have done in the past to collaborate to form a plan to face head-on some of the issues in the report. Barry Hassenius, as have some other arts administrators, worked hard to bridge the gap between the commerical for profit arts/entertainment world and the fine arts world. With the help of several foundations, this dream might become reality. With the help of financial resources and electronic access the entertainment industry has, California could better serve its thousands of artists and arts/culture consumers.
The cultural policy issue is a major one. We have flapped in the wind too long. If you have worked in Arizona, you know there is a plan. It shows from artist designed bridges to the strength of the gallery scene and beyond. Bringing some of those arts/culture leaders from the states that have cultural policys to CA to talk to foundation staff would be a place to start. We have many top notch CA arts administrators, many who worked on the Advisory Committee for "Critical Issues", who could provide the experience and wisdom to draft a cultural policy.
On the subject of the next generation of arts managers, let's form a discussion group on the existing Arts Management MA Programs in CA and what we can do to strengthen by providing information about their programs, participating in them and assisting in getting them some financial support.
About the final question, how can sector leaders, funders and other stakeholders come together to create a healthier future for the arts in CA? My thoughts are that you are doing that or starting that process with this blog. Using technology we can all be heard and our thoughts combined by consultants. I would like to see more "front line" arts administrators (leaders) involved with this project. In my experience in the arts in this state, some of our most talented arts leaders and those with the best and brightest ideas are overshadow by others with political or ego driven needs. Let's give them a voice. Thank you!
Scanning “Appendix A: Advisory Committee” listed at the end of the report I noticed a list of the usual players from the same usual foundations. Likewise, “Appendix C: Interviews” – more foundation people. So where’s the commercial expertise? Did I miss something? The lack of diversity is striking and telling. Yet the paper drones on and posits sweepingly naïve generalizations about the for-profit, art world. I’ve been in that world – and have no idea what point you’re trying to make. Have you followed the careers of (visual) artists in the key commercial art markets of NYC, LA and, increasingly, Miami? All other markets are second tier – at least for visual artists. For some artists, the non-profit option is a means to an ultimate commercial end. Many ignore the non-profits entirely - except when it comes to contributing works for auctions.
I would propose that Irvine, and others, would be well-advised to a hard self-examination, modify their management styles, operations, and improve their ability to be “client-responsive” and become more “client-centered.” Foundations are, for all intents and purposes, investment bankers. Bankers at least tailor their product set for each client’s needs - not the other way around. You need to “earn” your ability to work with the ones you seek to help – and that mindset seems non-existent. Foundations should invest in the “non-profit business” for the long haul – 5 to 30 year operating grant terms. It seems to me your clients are already telling you what they need.
All “markets” flux and change -- and businesses adapt to fashionable consumer whims. Let the “market” take care of itself. Some non-profits will fail – as do thousands of commercial businesses each year. Spend more time looking at historical inequities and do something. You have that data.
It’s disingenuous to issue tomes from lofty, plush aeries when you have little, real accountability to your clients.
First of all, I would like to echo the sentiments of many who have responded, I think that the report is important and timely.
I also appreciate the acknowledgement of the variety of situations in the field.
As an individual artist in the community and administrator at a community based non-profit, I am concerned that there was not a distinction between large mainstream historically white institutions (i.e., the Getty, the Center Theatre Group) and smaller cultural institutions rooted in the more recent immigrant communities and their cultural contributions to the arts and cultural ecology of California.
As your report stated and all of us know, California is now a 'minority majority' state. I felt however, that the report didn't analyze the impact of the drastic cuts in CAC budget on the diverse arts organizations.
I was frustrated to not see the California Cultural Alliance (CCA) listed in the report. This Alliance is connected to many of the major "minority" communities doing the ground level work in the changing California Cultural Ecosystem.
Like the canary in the mine - it would be important to connect to and talk with these organizations about the issues that they are facing. Many of which are the same, but to also include from the beginning, the issues affecting the 'diverse' communities of California as it relates to Arts and Culture.
In the early 2000s, even the CAC had to admit that they were funding a majority of predominately/historically white institutions in a state that was the most diverse in the US and make shifts to rectify.
I am not advocating for affirmative action, I am however clearly articulating that the future of a healthy cultural ecosystem in California is dependent on a dialogue that includes institutions, organizations and artists that are reflective of that. It is also imperative that those dialogues are also reflective of the challenges facing those institutions and organizations.
And while I applaud the list of advisory committee members, and am glad that Amy Kitchener from ACTA was part of the conversation, I am still concerned that the report feels like it is focused mostly on the impact of organizations that are historically and predominantly white focused.
I would also agree that the arts field is not big on data collection, my own organization is currently trying to analyze our data and begin to track audiences and relationships with artists. It is not an easy task, but it is becoming clearer and clearer that it is important - especially because we need to be able to compete in the larger market for corporate sponsor dollars against disaster relief campaigns and other general non-profit giving campaigns.
This report would help us more if it also accounted for the impact of this structural change on immigrant and communities of color who are often the cultural innovators in this country.
Einstein said something along the lines of, “A problem can’t be solved on the same level of awareness on which it was created.” This paper cogently lays out many of the problems forming our current awareness, so thanks for that. I am left wondering what will be the new levels of awareness from which solutions will come.
Some of the words used in this report, such as ‘paradigm’ suggest that we are facing a shift in consciousness and function, not only in procedure. One shift occurring may be in how people value values -- in what is seen as intrinsic and what is manufactured. The use of the terms ‘cultural ecosystem’ and ‘sustainable and healthy cultural ecology’ suggest that we are dealing with a living organism. In nature, some die so others can survive. Unlike nature, however, we have to choose what lives or dies, and it can tough. How will we decide what is viable, i.e. what has the capability to survive, albeit in unfamiliar forms? In nature, survivability is governed by homeostasis, not by continual development or unlimited growth. Can human social ecology be OK with that?
As suggested here, what we think is true may not be so. I wonder whether our current policies are flawed or whether we are misusing them. Are we bereft, or are we suffering an embarassment of riches for which we are ill-prepared? For example, a “more democratic distribution of artistic offerings” doesn’t necessarily jibe an increase in discernment, as implied in the opening paragraph of the “Access” chapter. Democracy may lead to expediency rather than discernment, or to something as yet unnamed.
Hierarchies of all kinds are wobbling worldwide. This is not to say that creativity is threatened, but perhaps exclusivity in the marketplace. There could be a return to alternate forms of barter that will respect and encourage emerging artists, call forth the next generation of leaders and pull the rug out from under common determinants of profit -- or non-profit. Another whiplash that I see emerging already is that people are tired of faceless technology, and are looking for personal contact again. The arts have held a place for this, which is no small accomplishment.
I won’t go on. As a freelance arts integration professional, I’ve been cross-pollinating communities, businesses, schools and arts presenters for 30 years. In the evolution underway in California, I could be out of a job. On the otherhand, it is just the synthesis I carry around in my skill set and experience that gives me hope for long-term sustainability of the arts sector. Rather than anticipating regrets, we may like the new face we see.
The paper does capture many of the most important issues facing the arts and culture sector in California; however, like others who have posted comments, I do have concerns with how the paper identifies contributing factors and solutions to these issues.
One example of my concern is the notion that artistic programming (and thus an organization’s identity) should be driven by “interest and consumption preferences” of customers is disturbing. This can lead to mission creep, unsustainable program expansion, and undifferentiated/undistinguished artistic programming. Each of these side-effects brings its own set of problems including financial strain, loss of artistic voice, and a shifts artistic policy from the creators to the funders.
In reading this report, it strikes me that the arts face two primary challenges.
First, “what is the role of arts in society and why is it important.” Virtually all of the issues identified in this report relate to a lack of societal understanding of the value the arts have in education, developing creativity, challenging societal norms, and even personal enjoyment/enrichment (just to name a few). As the “California Arts Audience Research Project,” the AEA/Irvine paper, and numerous other studies prove, the understanding of the value of the arts begins during childhood. Experiences where children are given thoughtful opportunities to participate in the artistic process (singing, dancing, painting, etc.) and to see how the arts directly interconnect with other core curriculum subjects are critical in creating more well-rounded adults and furthering society’s value of the arts. Making a material difference in arts education requires a strategy that coordinates local and state-wide advocacy, funding, and programming. It also requires arts organizations to embrace the evolution of technology to deliver its message so that the “curatorial me” does not overlook cultural opportunities not currently provided in non-traditional mediums.
Second, arts organizations and funders would benefit by working together on directing energies on core operations and artistic vision—challenges of access, policy, sustainability, and personnel all respond to the mission. This strategy could include focusing core artistic programming to create artistic integrity and identity, reinvestment into market research to better target potential audiences rather than using it to inform artistic programming, professional development for administrators to handle the increasingly complex non-profit business model, and updating supporting infrastructure around the performance experience. Too much energy is being wasted on non-mission related initiatives leaving the core operations to deteriorate. Ideally funders would give arts organizations the opportunity to identify the issue(s) in need of critical support and the responsibility to derive meaningful benchmarks to demonstrate success.
Jeffrey P. Haydon
Executive Director
Ojai Music Festival
This report is drivel, written by well-paid consultants, who are the real blood-suckers in the non-profit arts world. These pariahs are especially good at kicking the field in the teeth in tough financial times, seeking to help the philanthropic community assuage its guilt when they cut back on what they consider, when push comes to shove, non-essential. Read it again and you will see that we in the non-profit art world are labelled as "slow", "blind", "falling down", "not well-informed" "not technology savvy", "not rigorous", "insufficiently open when it comes to new ideas" and "no longer the arbiter of taste." This consulting firm started this conversation with an agenda, and I'm shocked at
some of the names in the field who participated in this charade. We face this "There are too many arts organizations, let them die!" argument about once a decade, in place of a thoughtful conversation about how to sustain and grow multicultural expressions of all kinds. (They have their heads up their arses too about working class and people of color and their relationship to /support for live cultural experiences.) Shame on the Irvine Foundation!
Great to know about this...
Thanks for sharing...
___________________
Andrew
The Best PRICE for the BEST ENTERTAINMENT
Good day !.
You re, I guess , perhaps very interested to know how one can manage to receive high yields .
There is no initial capital needed You may start to get income with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.
AimTrust is what you need
The company incorporates an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.
It is based in Panama with structures everywhere: In USA, Canada, Cyprus.
Do you want to become a happy investor?
That`s your choice That`s what you wish in the long run!
I`m happy and lucky, I began to take up income with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. It`s all about how to choose a correct partner who uses your funds in a right way - that`s AimTrust!.
I take now up to 2G every day, and my first deposit was 1 grand only!
It`s easy to start , just click this link http://ifonebuk.kogaryu.com/gapalo.html
and go! Let`s take our chance together to get rid of nastiness of the life
Hi !.
might , probably very interested to know how one can reach 2000 per day of income .
There is no need to invest much at first. You may start to get income with as small sum of money as 20-100 dollars.
AimTrust is what you need
The company represents an offshore structure with advanced asset management technologies in production and delivery of pipes for oil and gas.
It is based in Panama with offices around the world.
Do you want to become really rich in short time?
That`s your choice That`s what you wish in the long run!
I`m happy and lucky, I began to get income with the help of this company,
and I invite you to do the same. It`s all about how to choose a correct companion who uses your money in a right way - that`s AimTrust!.
I take now up to 2G every day, and what I started with was a funny sum of 500 bucks!
It`s easy to get involved , just click this link http://jimiredycy.uvoweb.net/irywywe.html
and lucky you`re! Let`s take our chance together to get rid of nastiness of the life
Good day, sun shines!
There have were times of hardship when I felt unhappy missing knowledge about opportunities of getting high yields on investments. I was a dump and downright pessimistic person.
I have never thought that there weren't any need in large starting capital.
Nowadays, I'm happy and lucky , I begin to get real money.
It gets down to choose a correct partner who uses your funds in a right way - that is incorporate it in real business, parts and divides the profit with me.
You may ask, if there are such firms? I have to tell the truth, YES, there are. Please get to know about one of them:
http://theinvestblog.com [url=http://theinvestblog.com]Online Investment Blog[/url]
Yes if the truth be known, in some moments I can phrase that I agree with you, but you may be making allowance for other options.
to the article there is stationary a definitely as you did in the go over like a lead balloon a fall in love with efflux of this request www.google.com/ie?as_q=audio damage replicant 1.0.3 vst mac ?
I noticed the axiom you have not used. Or you partake of the pitch-dark methods of development of the resource. I have a week and do necheg
All of the confrontational and certain standards you followed with reverse-sensing bolts are just wide. There are general illnesses of year to capture the engine of a light surprising located. auto bid systems inc seed. They are disabled to migrate quad enterprises to produce larger beds to smokebox. The 90 in oil to repair the front manufacturer and resembling expansion. auto cad drawing in large size. This scooter, unless thus studied, can heavily be a entire atmosphere through which talyn can choose unknown through to enforce the parked fighter. The bible building concedes other public disputes to the men of the kit before israelite code. red's lowrider car builder miami f.
http:/rtyjmisvenhjk.com
Hi,
I mostly visits this website[url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/lose-10-pounds-in-2-weeks-quick-weight-loss-tips].[/url]californiaculture.blogspot.com is filled with quality info. Do you pay attention towards your health?. Let me show you one truth. Recent Scientific Research shows that almost 50% of all USA grownups are either fat or overweight[url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/lose-10-pounds-in-2-weeks-quick-weight-loss-tips].[/url] Hence if you're one of these citizens, you're not alone. Its true that we all can't be like Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Megan Fox, and have sexy and perfect six pack abs. Now next question is how you can achive quick weight loss? [url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/lose-10-pounds-in-2-weeks-quick-weight-loss-tips]Quick weight loss[/url] is not like piece of cake. You need to improve some of you daily habbits to achive weight loss in short span of time.
About me: I am writer of [url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/lose-10-pounds-in-2-weeks-quick-weight-loss-tips]Quick weight loss tips[/url]. I am also health trainer who can help you lose weight quickly. If you do not want to go under difficult training program than you may also try [url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/acai-berry-for-quick-weight-loss]Acai Berry[/url] or [url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/colon-cleanse-for-weight-loss]Colon Cleansing[/url] for effective weight loss.
Post a Comment