Welcome to the GIA 2013 Conference Blog!
Grantmakers in the Arts is pleased to have a great team of bloggers covering the 2013 Conference in Philadelphia. Diane Ragsdale, Barry Hessenius, and the team from Createquity–Ian David Moss, Daniel Reid, and Talia Gibas–will be posting their comments and reactions beginning Monday, October 7.
This is a syndication of a post on my blog, Jumper.
A few weeks back I was invited to attend the 2013 Grantmakers in the Arts Conference in Philadelphia as a Conference Blogger. I joined Barry Hessenius (Barry's Blog) and a whole team of bloggers, led by Ian David Moss (Createquity), from Fractured Atlas. I wrote three posts summarizing the activities I attended and reflecting on key themes, which you can find here. I vowed (to myself) that I would let the conference sink in a bit and then write a post for Jumper–a brief summary of the sticky points, if you will. This is that post.
In a relatively short period of time (since I was last at GIA in 2009) it seems that the conversation has shifted from being largely organization-centric to being oriented to the needs of both organizations and individual artists (with increased attention being given to the latter at the moment). This was certainly noticeable from the way artists were incorporated into the plenary sessions, but was also evident in the sheer number of sessions dedicated to artists, or artist collectives, or the relationship of artists to institutions (not including the Support for Individual Artists Pre-Conference).
Of course support for individual artists (in practice, or as a topic for conversation at GIA) is not new. What does seem new, however, is the idea that such investments are needed not simply because most artists exist outside of institutional structures but because artists are potentially important agents of change in the arts sector. If we want to see innovation in the arts sector, goes the argument, then perhaps we need to support artist-driven enterprises and encourage the presence and influence of artists within institutions.
For the first time, in a long time, I was at an arts conference in which artists (rather than organizations) seemed to have primacy. Where are the new ideas going to come from? Artists. Where does the energy to create community organically originate? Artists. Who are the entrepreneurs in the arts and culture sector? Artists.
If this is a growing sentiment, perhaps it would be worthwhile to structure a discussion next year around this idea and its implications for arts organizations?
A second (rather minor) theme was one that I experienced in large part due to the sessions I chose to attend. It's the idea that funders now have the motive, opportunity, and means to give communities-at-large, or expert citizens, greater influence in the grantmaking process. Whether they want to take advantage of these tools is another matter; however, it appears that some long established grantmaking processes and structures may be shifting.
When the Knight Foundation first launched the Knight Arts Challenge in 2008 my sense was that it was perceived as a quite radical leap for a private foundation. I didn't see (m)any other established foundations following Knight into the land of crowdsourced grantmaking. Even a couple years ago when Ian David Moss gave a TEDx talk and wrote an essay advancing his idea for Citizen Curators to be engaged in the panel process, the funding community seemed rather perplexed by the idea, and it didn't really seem to take off. At this year's conference,however, it felt as though the tide may be shifting. Many arts funders acknowledged that they are rethinking their panel processes and some expressed receptivity to the idea of opening up their decision-making processes for direct engagement, or at least influence, by the end users that they are trying to reach through the arts. You can read more about this theme in my third blog post, which includes a discussion on the shift in Irvine's program goals and strategy.
If I'm right about this then, again, it could be worthwhile to engage a discussion or debate around the implications of such shifts.
After writing this blog I decided to read the wrap ups of my fellow bloggers and I was struck by two things: (1) None of us attended the same conference–in the sense that we each walked away with a different perspective depending on the sessions we decided to attend. (2) If you attend GIA every year (as I did for years) it is hard to sense the change that may be happening.
In advance of going to GIA I was told by those organizing the conference that GIA had changed quite a bit since I was last in attendance. I was skeptical. And wrong to be so. Being away from the conference the past four years has, I believe, enabled me to detect the degree to which some things have, indeed, shifted with the times. When I was last at GIA the conversation seemed to be largely focused on the mis- or under-capitalization of arts organizations and ways to enable and encourage flailing organizations to either innovate or die gracefully. No doubt this was in large part due to the influence of the recession.
Don't get me wrong—Systegic Survibrustainadaptinnovaccountabeffectipreneurism (my mash up of current funder jargon) continues to waft through every discussion and capitalization, in particular, is still cooking on the front burner. However, the conversation seems more evolved now. I sense (and hope I am right on this) that funders have begun to see innovation as a process rather than a destination (and one that should not be institutionalized by funders) and to ask themselves a question that the chair of my department at Erasmus, Arjo Klamer, might ask. Namely, "What's capitalization good for?" In other words, what are the "goods" (the values, ideas, benefits to the world) that foundations are striving to realize in supporting the capitalization of organizations?
As I understand it, GIA has been actively recruiting new members to the fold the past few years (e.g., family foundations, local and regional arts councils, and community foundations). Additionally, it feels as though the median age of participants at GIA has dropped. It makes me wonder if the evolution in the conversation (if I'm right about that) is a result of having a wider lens on the world … and the role of the arts, artists, and arts organizations within it.
I approached the 2013 Grantmakers in the Arts conference as an opportunity to revisit my roots while stepping out of my comfort zone. I grew up in the Philadelphia area and my first job out of graduate school was in grantmaking. Since then I have been living and breathing arts education. I arrived last week happy to be "home" and eager to take a break from edutalk. I wanted to sit back and revel in topics I know little about.
Wouldn't you know it? Of the nearly ten pages of notes I wrote over those three days, almost half are about public education.
So much for that break.
I did go to a few sessions specific to education: an update on GIA's Arts Education Funders Coalition's advocacy efforts, for example, and a session about the Hive Learning Network's support for digital learning. Most, however, didn't explicitly have much to do with K-12 classrooms. One described a multi-city performance festival. Another shared lessons learned from one foundation's attempt to coax a bit of "ridiculousness" from its grantees. They were fascinating in their own right, but as I listened I kept writing vague questions to myself about "evolution," "innovation," and "the system." Something was nagging at me, and I didn't know what it was.
Then Ethan Zuckerman made my head explode.
I don't have a Facebook account but I don't live in a cave. The idea that the Internet and social media are changing how we consume information isn't new to me. However, Zuckerman hammered home both the speed and uncertainty with which the world is shifting beneath our feet. We can't yet judge whether these changes are for good or ill, but must be flexible in our understanding of what things like "citizenry" and "creativity" mean. Creativity, according to Zuckerman, isn't just about creation. It's about settling into a space between concepts, actively seeking divergent points of view, drawing connections between people and disciplines that seem to have nothing to do with one another, indulging in an "import-export business" of ideas, and resisting the temptation to lapse into homophily.
It was also clarified my vague musings about "evolution" and "the system." In arts education we seek "systemic change," trying to determine the structures we must put in place so all students have equal access to studying visual art, dance, etc. Those structures are based on our own understanding of the artistic disciplines and our experiences with "the system." In light of what Zuckerman described, however, they seem, well, rigid. To give one example, our advocacy efforts often make clear that "the arts" refer to four specific disciplines – visual art, dance, drama, and music. (With the advent of new national core arts standards, a fifth discipline, media arts, is getting its due, though the fact the word "digital" is missing may be testament to just how far our efforts lag behind student experience.) We do this because our field is a "big tent" and we want to be sure no one is left out (unless, like both our plenary speakers on days one and three, you happen to work in the literary arts). So we are careful to call those four-or-five disciplines out as separate-but-equal, and maintain that students should have high-quality learning experiences in each.
Those decisions make sense to us. But do they make sense to our students? Do they align with their "pointillist" worldview? Will they be relevant in 2020? Will they be relevant in 2016? How on earth do we craft policies that have the "teeth" to get to issues of equity, but not the rigidity that will render them obsolete? How do we take a "systemic" view to support students with a "pointillist" lens? What if a "pointillist" generation doesn't want or care about four-or-five separate artistic disciplines? What if our desire for policies and definitions that reflect how we think about our work are getting in our way of supporting what they need?
Uncomfortable thoughts, but not unwelcome. I came to Philadelphia thinking I would lend a newcomer's perspective on foreign topics. I left with those foreign topics challenging my longstanding perspective. The "space between" is interesting indeed.
To this newcomer, the 2013 Grantmakers in the Arts conference in Philadelphia was a whirlwind tour through dozens of ideas and themes that have currency among arts funders, from creative placemaking to creativity and aging, from combatting racism in our own practice to ensuring all students receive a robust arts education. A few days after the final breakfast, I've achieved some distance from the details, and from that vantage, I want to reflect on a fundamental question that cropped up in various plenary presentations, breakout sessions, and side conversations throughout the conference: How can we as grantmakers most effectively support excellence in the arts? The question has special resonance for me as I step into a new role as Executive Director of the Whiting Foundation, which gives to individual writers.
Two remarkable artists gave plenary talks that not only moved and inspired everyone I spoke to in the audience but also demonstrated the speakers' facility with the written and spoken word. Each is the kind of artist any of us would be proud to have supported, the kind we have in mind when we think about artistic excellence. And, in the course of retelling her own development as a writer, each offered important lessons for how to think about grant program design.
Pulitzer- and Tony-winning playwright Quiara Alegría Hudes, author of Water by the Spoonful and In the Heights, grew up "in the barrio" in Philadelphia; among her family, she was "the one who got out," though not the only artist: a cousin was inspired by her success to write his first novel from prison. He has just finished his third. That inspiring success was enabled – or at least facilitated – by three critical grants, one received when Hudes was a sophomore at Yale, one when she was a graduate student in playwriting at Brown, and one when she had achieved enough commercial success with In the Heights to face the hard choice between signing up to write for the screen and re-devoting herself to less remunerative but more personal writing. In each case, as she put it, it was the length (one to two years), quantity (enough to allow her to quit the jobs she held to pay the rent), and quality (no strings attached) of the grant that made it transformative. At least in this case, it seems that the best thing a grantmaker could do was spot a potential talent, give her the gift of time, and get out of her way.
These grants worked differently from each other in an important way, it seems to me. The first freed a young artist who had thrown herself into theater at college from the need to work over a summer, offering what may have been her first chance to get lost in a single project; the second gave force to the eternal promise of the MFA as an uninterrupted opportunity to focus on craft, to experiment, and to produce. Both awards encouraged an early-career artist in important ways: they were bellows to a spark that, for all anyone could know in advance, might have sputtered out rather than catching.
The third grant, by contrast, emboldened an artist in full command of her powers to turn down a lucrative screenwriting gig – "my agent fumed," Hudes gleefully recalled – to pursue a project with much less commercial promise that she couldn't quite get out of her head. The result was the Pulitzer-winning Water by the Spoonful, the second play in what is now a trilogy. This third grant was a different kind of gamble: by this point, we could be pretty sure Hudes was going to make something wonderful (television and film are both vibrant media, after all), but the grantmaker presumably believed she would make something more wonderful without financial pressure.
It's hard to know what might have happened without any one – or even all three – of these philanthropic interventions. Hudes clearly has immense inner resources to complement her immense talent: she had made it to Yale before the first of the grants she mentioned, and from the lectern she conveyed such mastery and conviction that it was hard to imagine her not creating art and amazing audiences. If cultural philanthropy did not exist, perhaps Hudes would have made the time and mental space to make equally acclaimed work. Or perhaps she would have followed so many of her classmates into business or medicine or law and put her art on hold, for a few years or a lifetime. Ultimately, we can only celebrate what did happen, and take Hudes seriously when she says that the support she received – long-term, sufficient, and unqualified – was crucial for her.
We can also think hard about what Hudes's example tells us about how we select grantees. Of course we do our best to assess talent, but is there a way to know in advance who has the grit to persevere in a life dedicated to art, which can be hard even with grant support? Is there a way to identify the established artist who has a new, brilliant idea that won't attract commercial support, that she can only pursue with philanthropic dollars? How can we nurture the excellent art that otherwise might not happen?
How can we use technology effectively to expand grant panels to fairly evaluate the work of a growing number of artists?
What kinds of expertise are most important on grant panels? Should a jazz pianist's proposal be evaluated only by other jazz pianists?
At what stage and by whom should different criteria (artistic excellence, project potential, financial sustainability, etc.) be evaluated?
How can we balance the advantages of a model that requires consensus among judges (e.g., fairness, direct comparison of applicants) with the advantages of a model that gives weight to the passionate advocacy judges may feel for an especially strong applicant?
What should be the role of deliberation, face-to-face or otherwise, in selecting grantees?
From a technical perspective, should we account for "easy" and "hard" graders among panelists?
Who wins and who loses when we adopt new techniques like dispersed panels or applications that emphasize public presentation through a website?
What promising innovations is no one trying yet?
We plan to continue the conversation about these and other questions; leave a comment if you'd like to be a part of it.
We actually know surprisingly little about how private arts funders give to individual artists. Grantmakers in the Arts publishes an annual report on the state of giving to arts organizations that, despite the imperfections of the data, is an excellent guide to the field. GIA is now a year into a similar project covering giving to individuals, which was the subject of a breakout session at the conference and a plenary discussion at the "Support for Individual Artists" preconference. GIA's Tommer Peterson (the quiet heart of the conference) is leading work with Alan Brown and Claudia Bach to catalogue the various ways funders can support individual artists, from outright cash grants made directly to artists to the provision of a variety of in-kind services through a financial intermediary. Once a taxonomy is established by March 2014, the real work will begin, as data is collected from pilot sites to test the system before GIA establishes a national database. Within a few years, we may learn much more about the tools available to us as funders and how those tools are currently being used. In the meantime, GIA has collected articles on the topic and provides updates on what they've learned so far on their website.
Who Will Support the Sensitive Child?
For those of us with our heads fully in the technical construction of grant panels by that final breakfast, Finney was, as she said artists must, "saying the hard thing beautifully." This was a plea to consider the stage when an intervention – philanthropic or otherwise – can make the most difference in fostering excellent art: the stage when a child is learning how to confront and express the creative impulse within her, is accumulating unbeknownst to her the resources and materials that will fuel her art for years, and is making the choices that will one day turn her into a professional poet.
There is a clear message here for those who grant in arts education, but there is also an important lesson for those of us who support adult artists. It matters that we give; it matters to whom we give; and it also matters when in their development as artists we give. There is something special about support that comes early enough to turn the sensitive child into an artist – or that, later, comes at a moment when the artist must choose between art and another of life's demands. As we strive to improve our grantmaking, how can we more effectively intervene with the right person at the right moment to make possible the commitment to a potential masterpiece – or to a lifetime of creating excellent art?
For the first time in a long time I was at an arts conference in which artists (rather than organizations) seemed to have primacy. Where are the new ideas going to come from? Artists. Where does the energy to create community organically originate? Artists. Who are the entrepreneurs in the arts and culture sector? Artists.
As I begun mulling over the last two sessions I attended two other manifestations of the conference theme began to emerge—What communities do arts funders exist to serve? and How do those communities participate in the decision-making process?
As the session began I took note of an argument that seemed to be advance through the presentations: (1) Corporations are often, by necessity, quite explicit about the constituents they exist to serve (which can include, for instance employees and their families or customers). (2) There is frequently a quite conscious effort to align philanthropic contributions with the values and priorities of these constituents with the hope that this will encourage their loyalty to the company or brand. (3) Philanthropic investments by corporations are frequently tied to a theory of change to reach business objectives (e.g., "Strong businesses thrive in strong communities; and nonprofits create strong, vibrant communities"). (4) Are there lessons in this approach for government agencies and private foundations?
This session allowed ample time for discussion, which Laura Zucker opened by asking What are we trying to change? Who are we responding to? Probing the contours of strategic investment, in particular, she wondered aloud When does positive investment turn into manipulation? What's the line between reactive philanthropy and responsive philanthropy? The discussion was wide-ranging but a good bit of time was spent reflecting upon the Irvine Foundation's recent shift in focus away from a more traditional form of arts philanthropy to one in which the focus is on hands-on participation. Irvine is a great case through which to examine the questions Zucker was asking. (For those reading this that may not be familiar with this shift, here are two Jumper posts, here and here, that delve into the shift and also point to other bloggers reflecting upon it.) Clay Lord (New Beans) who was in the audience (and who has also written at length about Irvine's new approach on his blog), kicked off the discussion by making the observation that we should not assume that private foundations are not aware of their constituents and that one could argue that Irvine, in particular, is almost "hyper-aware" of its constituency. Laura Zucker agreed and remarked that Irvine's constituency seemed to have shifted from arts organizations to people in the community not being served by arts organizations. Jeanne Sakamoto from Irvine, also in attendance, spoke up to modestly reframe the point; she remarked that Irvine sees its constituency as all citizens in the regions it serves and that their new approach was intended to help them serve everyone, rather than the minority of citizens that traditionally participate in the professional nonprofit arts.
Are we aligning our practices with what we say we want to do?
If people give to people, who are the people in this relationship?
What processes will allow funders to shift from engaging in a funding transaction (which too many are doing at the moment) to engaging in a relationship?
As it turned out I walked from this session into one led by Ian David Moss, Ed Harsh and Daniel Reid on the limitations of the traditional grant panel and whether that process may need to change. This session was asking, in essence, If arts grantmaking has traditionally existed to channel funds to worthy people and project not adequately valued in the commercial marketplace, do current panel processes allow funders to find and fund voices not already being recognized by the commercial marketplace? Moss discussed ideas theorized in a 2012 piece he wrote for the GIA Reader called Audiences at the Gate and argued for a grantmaking model he calls "guided crowdsourcing". In contrast to a more traditional model in which the distribution of funds is filtered either through a program officer or grants panel, guided crowdsourcing employs an army of what Moss calls "citizen curators," who are brought into the process to ensure that a large and diverse pool of potential grant recipients is able to be recognized and reviewed.
Ed Harsh was on hand to discuss the shift that New Music USA has made in its grant panel process. (New Music USA is the new organization that was formed out of the merger of Meet the Composer and the American Music Center.) Harsh explained that there were two fundamental ideas motivating the recent shift in its grantmaking philosophy: (1) It's better to ask artists what they need than to tell them what they should want; and (2) the application needs to be rethought as a way to engage the public. With regard to the panel process itself the new system needed to enable the fair evaluation of projects with little in common and needed to scalable. New Music USA's new process engages a large, virtual panel (all paid for their efforts) to review an estimated 600 applications. Each application is reviewed by four panelists, specifically matched to the application based on the particular expertise needed. One of the key benefits of the large number of panelists is that it allows for individuals with diverse skills to be selected at this initial stage. The 600 applications is whittled down to the top 20% (using an algorithm) and then another virtual panel is engaged to go through the same process with that group. The process allows for virtual deliberation if necessary to discuss applications but does not require discussion of applications for which there seems to be strong consensus.
Following the excellent presentations by Moss and Harsh, others in the room raised their hands to mention large shifts and small tweaks that they had made or were planning to make to their grant panel process—some in response to having a glut of applications and some in response to recognizing that the old process was not yielding high quality decisions. It was exciting to see that so many funders are rethinking some of their longstanding, fundamental practices and processes.
Is there a change happening in civics and grantmaking – a new paradigm about how change happens in the world?
How do the arts help us embrace cultural diversity locally and globally?
How do we find and support the innovators who are rethinking the paradigm?
Like the other two keynotes given by Quiara Alegria Hudes and Nikky Finney (whose acceptance speech for Poetry at the National Book Awards has gone viral, read it here, or watch it here) Zuckerman's keynote was inspiring, intelligent, and provocative. I have given scant attention to these keynotes in my posts (in large part because I was so captivated by them it was difficult to take notes). I hope and trust that GIA will post them.
Finally, on the last night of the conference participants were invited to view the collection at the new Barnes Foundation. I never visited the old Barnes and I know the move was controversial, so I really approached the experience as a newcomer. I was moved almost to the point of tears by this collection (by both its content and its presentation) and highly recommend a visit to this museum on your next trip to Philly.
My sincere thanks to GIA for the opportunity to blog. It was a great conference and I am pleased to have been given a chance to give those not in attendance a glimpse into the ideas that were in play.
I. Who Are Our Constituents? This session was based on the proposition that clarifying one's constituency can change the approach to grant making.
I think the reality is not so much in clarifying the constituency, as identifying which constituency the focus needs to be on to advance whatever strategies have currently been adopted to meet a goal or the mission.
Though some see the public and private sectors as having different ultimate constituencies, I don't think that is necessarily the case. Corporations, nonprofits, government entities all ultimately serve a public interest. In the end, a public good is the ultimate constituency.
The traditional corporate model suggests the purpose of the corporation is to "enhance shareholder value" (and arguably, that is a private, not public interest). For the most part, that may well be an increase in bottom line profits. But it may also be accomplished through a myriad of other activities. Thus, for a company like Boeing – where their workforce is rapidly aging – philanthropic efforts that address that issue (like the promotion of creativity as an educational objective resulting in a more qualified workforce) indirectly relates to the enhanced shareholder value. And in serving that objective, the corporation is (even if indirectly) serving a public interest.
For Boeing, their external stakeholders logically include: the airline customers, their suppliers, government agencies and the local communities in which they operate, the people who fly and the tourism industries. Their internal stakeholders include their employees and their stockholders. Also included in the mix is their role in the overall nonprofit sector in the geographic areas (principally Seattle) where they do business.
So, where they focus their philanthropic strategies, is, to me, the issue. Workforce development is a key upcoming challenge to them, so education that seeks (long term) to support and develop a more creative workforce is a no brainer. Success in that strategy benefits the wider public.
Target Stores, like Boeing has concluded that philanthropy is good for business (and thus the shareholder value). Their constituents likewise include their customers and employees.
In the nonprofit sector, the government accords a special tax status on organizations that are legally defined as "public benefit corporations" (that provide a benefit to to the public) – which is not altogether much different than enhancing shareholder value – with the public itself being the shareholders. Our nonprofit grant making includes a gamut of stakeholders – from the artists and arts organizations, to audience members, to communities. Nonprofits too must determine where their focus will lie as they try to balance their constituent interests. Clarifying which constituencies that focus will be on may help them to clarify their approaches to grant making in pursuit of an objective.
Finally, government agencies (like local arts councils, cities, states) also have as their underpinning, the public as the ultimate constituency. They spend taxpayer money to enhance public value. Where they choose to focus that spending affects how they design and implement programming.
I am not sure where this all leads, but it seems that asking the question "who really are out (current) constituencies" may be helpful in then determining how and to whom to make grants.
In the comments portion of this session, the discussion went far beyond the base question of who are your constituents and into the realm of how you go about vetting new ideas. Mario Garcia Durham, from APAP, had what I think is a very keen observation: he suggested that we ought to embrace some mechanism that would provide strong skepticism to new ideas; that while we didn't want to discourage new thinking, we did need to challenge new ideas on multiple fronts with rigorous due diligence before rushing to embrace them. I think he is right. Too often, our dedication to the very concept of new ideas, leads us too quickly to move from one approach to another and that as a matter of strategy, we need healthy questioning of all the implications and likely impact of changing from one thing to another. I think that is a good idea at both the organization and the sector levels.
II. Capitalization – What are the Next Steps?
There is ample evidence that a huge percentage of arts organizations are in a financial crisis; they simply do not adhere to the principle of spending less money than they take in. The funding community has played a role in allowing a culture of tolerating the conditions of inadequate capitalization to exist. How then do we now help arts organizations to retire their debt, and embrace adequate capitalization, to become the requisite norm of the business model?
In the private sector, the market makes frequent corrections. But in the nonprofit sector, market forces are undependable, unpredictable and chaotic.
First, they continue to seriously underestimate the cost of overhead. Whether intentionally or cavalierly, they submit budgets that suggest the cost of their doing business is far less than the reality.
The second error is the flip side of the coin: they seriously overestimate their projected incomes.
The philanthropic community has moved, in recent years, to address the first error by providing more money for general operating expenses, and more money for the overhead and management of specific projects (moving to a more realistic goal of 30% for overhead). And evidence suggests funders have gone from providing general operating expenses in the 15% range to the 35% range. But they haven't yet found the best way to change that culture of misinformation – with grantees providing unsubstantiated and false figures on expenses and income. Many arts organizations are in denial about both, and many are not being completely honest with themselves, let alone their funders.
The challenge is to change that culture – to where grantees are more honest and realistic – in order to arrive at a better working relationship between grantor and grantee.
Two realities seem apparent to GIA: 1) Bringing organizations to a position of being more comfortable with being honest and realistic with themselves and funders, and moving towards positions of adequate capitalization, are both part of a big conversation involving the whole arts organization's communities, including Boards who are often not thinking about capitalization. And 2) This will be a long, long conversation.
Working through his organization Global Voices, Zuckerman is concerned with helping activists have a social media voice, and in the process is learning about how change happens in the world.
1. The media didn't see the changes wrought by new technology coming, and don't yet know how to recover. That seems to me akin to the music business (post Napster) failing to see a fundamental change in their business model – changes that moved them from selling records as the primary income generator, a model that supported touring of artists as incidental to the selling of recorded music, to the model where recorded music became the tool to promote touring as the primary source of income. Napster enforced a new reality – the non-paying downloading of music – and that new reality has fundamentally changed forever the music business model. I wonder if the rough equivalent of Napster for the nonprofit arts is somewhere out there lurking, and that the proverbial bus for us is leaving the station? And whether or not we are perilously close to missing that bus as our model is morphing into something we don't yet see and from which we may not recover?
2. The new media stars are former bloggers.
3. Twenty year olds (the new generation that Zuckerman calls the "digital natives) have already decided what actions they will and won't take to affect change. For example, this group doesn't look to Congress or government as the place to make change happen. They are suspicious of institutions. They live in a high tech social world and cherish a "participatory world" – and if there is no participation, then they aren't interested. Moreover that world is seen through a "pointilist lens" wherein the impact desired (and having impact is a highly desired outcome) is achieved by small increments, not big movements.
4. There is, in this group, the tendency to gravitate to small, known groups – which inclination is most pronounced online, where the "digital natives" live. Thus creativity is an import / export business – not a solo endeavor. Participation is based on passion for this cohort, and the questions for the arts are: 1) How can the arts be a cultural bridge?, and 2) how can the arts support institutions in a pointilist world?
One of many off-site, afternoon long sessions, this one was held at the URBN Center at Drexel University.
Translation – of the SEAD constituencies' preferred language, objectives, modus operandi, assumptions and more – among academic, commercial and civil societies.
Convening – overcoming trans-disciplinary thresholds.
Enabling – sustaining balanced SEAD relationships, i.e., establishing safe places within academia for hybrid individual practices.
Including – dynamic varied communities. Global communities with local diversity.
Embedding – public engagement and negotiation.
Situating – engaging ecologies of creative and alternate spaces.
Sense making – of the multi ways (modals) of knowing.
Integration of understandings through the varied SEAD perspectives.
Documentary – Capturing, publishing, curating and archiving new forms.
Learning – Tapping into life long learning and creativity and sharing of blended experiences.
Collaborating – methodologies across disciplines and institutions. Partnerships across organizational boundaries.
Thriving – ethical values including well being and joyfulness.
First, there is a lot more (science / art) cross disciplinary conversation and interaction going on (at least at the academic / university level) than we realize. In touring the Drexel schools, there is a wealth of intersections going on crossing the art, design and science departments. The challenge for us is to promote wider understanding that these conversations have already started and are moving forth fairly rapidly, and then to seat ourselves at these tables so that as these dialogues and resultant new thinking continues and emerges, we are part of the decision making process and that we have the opportunity to provide input all along the way so that the relationships that develop include our issues, our perspectives, our needs, our hopes. The nonprofit field sector of the arts seems very likely (to me anyway) already behind in this effort. The academic aspect of these intersections is a train already moving and gaining speed. If we are to catch this particular train, we need to get on board quickly to join the planning process of how this all unfolds.
Second, that movement of citizen scientist and citizen artist is making progress. But again that development is moving without benefit of any consensus, comprehensive policy to guide its formation and output. We need to work with the academic arts and science communities to involve: 1) us as the arts field practitioners; and 2) the private sector business scientists as the science field practitioners. This whole effort has to be more than an academic / University led evolution.
The cross sector challenges for us to promote those intersections and the potential to bridge silo thinking are: first to gain more widespread awareness of these efforts. Professional organizations of scientists and artists need to meet regularly, and the conceptual framework of STEM to STEAM may be a good place to start. And second, to identify the ways each sector can be supportive of the other. Both sectors suffer from cultures of territoriality.
Finally, I also think there has been little movement yet in building the leveraging of public opinion bridge – little progress in creating mechanism whereby arts and science can support each other's value and validity via leveraged advocacy and educational efforts.
For me one of the great benefits of going to different kinds of arts conferences across the country over the last decade plus has been the pleasure of seeing cultural facilities and art in a score of cities as a VIP guest, and that has been a unique and joyous opportunity. The reception at the Barnes Foundation in Philadelphia added to that long list. The collection (the subject of much controversy in moving it from it's original distant site to this new site) is stunning – Van Gogh, Matisse and other impressionist masters – but the real stars are the Cezannes and Renoirs. I have never seen so many Cezannes and Renoirs in one place. An extraordinary collection, now housed in a beautiful building – the clean lines of the modern architecture complementing the collection and how it is housed and displayed.
Rather than posting a daily roundup of sessions that I've attended at GIA I decided to see all my sessions and then reflect upon them thematically.
CHANGED FORMATS. This year GIA introduced a session at the 8am breakfast session, called IDEA LAB, that featured a handful of artists doing eight-minute talks (a la TED), interspersed with videos of artists (captured from various sites), introduced and summed up by the always inspiring and thoughtful Ben Cameron at Doris Duke Charitable Trusts.
NEW PEOPLE AND LOTS OF THEM. I have been away from GIA for a few years and I can tell you that there are many new voices at GIA. This has led to new topics and a richer discussion in the sessions. Evidently, this is the largest GIA conference to date.
PATIENCE TO TACKLE LONGER TERM ISSUES INCREMENTALLY OVER TIME. Finally, there was a palpable sense of needles moving at many of the sessions I attended. While (as at all conferences) there was encouragement for new ideas to be introduced, I was compelled by GIA's commitment to stick with some of the more intractable issues that face grantmakers and those they fund and to design sessions to keep members focused on doing the slow, steady, incremental work that will lead to broadening, deepening and diversifying audiences (to use Wallace's language), addressing issues of race and class in the sector, and strengthening the finances of organizations so they can fulfill their missions (the capitalization initiative). Rather than feeling tedious it felt as though great attention is now being paid to learning from the work already done, building upon it, and continuing to move forward.
Though we are still stuck with the panel format (which almost all arts conferences still rely upon) I also noted that in every session I attended the panelists stuck to time limits and left ample time for those in the audience to make points and ask questions.
The theme of this year's conference is "The New Creative Community" and it seems to have been infused throughout the three-day gathering by the presence of artists and thinkers from other fields, who gave talks aimed at illuminating new practices, conceptual frameworks, and metaphors. From these contributors I heard art being conceptualized as a tool that enables us to be in charge of our own narrative (Favianna Rodriguez); as a mechanism for pushing out new values (Trey McIntryre); as a tool for connection (Ethan Zuckerman); and as that which enables us to think about time in new ways (Carin Kuoni). I heard that artists shape and transform by holding spaces, telling stories from deep within, and building bridges (Marshall Davis Jones). I heard that learning an art form is only one benefit (and perhaps a side benefit) of an artistic practice (Quiara Alegria Hudes). And I heard artists articulate about embracing diverse rather than absolute aesthetics (Byron Au Yong).
The dominant metaphor is clear. Art is a counterforce in a world in which we are surrounded by destruction, division, and decay. It engages, activates, pulls, pushes, and creates pathways between people, places, and times that would otherwise be disconnected.
And what do artists need to do their work? Grants of sufficient size and duration that they can find the time to think, experiment, and do their best work. A rather beautiful and uncomplicated idea offered up over and over again to a field that (in my humble opinion) can have a tendency to ignore mundane issues and simple solutions and instead create much more complicated problems that require complex interventions. For the first time, in a long time, I was at an arts conference in which artists (rather than organizations) seemed to have primacy. Where are the new ideas going to come from? Artists. Where does the energy to create community organically originate? Artists. Who are the entrepreneurs in the arts and culture sector? Artists.
Indeed, I attended a terrific session called Artists ARE Entrepreneurs led by Heather Pontonio (Emily Hall Tremaine Foundation), Cinda Holt (Montana Arts Council), and Bill Cleveland (Center for the Study of Art & Community) whose very point seemed to be that rather than thinking of artists as dependents to be supported it's time to see them for what they really are: self-employed small business owners whose work has significant elements of risk, control, and reward. What are the implications of thinking of artists as entrepreneurs? Well, for one it would suggest that we may need to provide them with professional development aimed at strengthening their entrepreneurial skills. But another implication would seem to be that funders need to be recognize the potential for programs or practices to diminish (rather than enhance) the artist's sense of agency by putting them in a subordinate or supplicant position in relationship to the institutions that (ostensibly) exist to help advance their work.
In this session Bill Cleveland reported on a couple of terrific studies that he did, including one called Artists Count in which he surveyed more than 3,000 artists in St. Louis. This is a rich study and I would encourage you to go online and read the summary. Here were some of the top-level findings that I picked up from the session that may be particularly relevant for funders. What do artists need to thrive? Well, there are some small things that mean a lot): Feedback (!!!), Friends and Family, and Helping Hands. No surprise, Work, Space, Audiences, and Funding top the list. But so do Respect, Predictability, and Time (unencumbered for reflection). Cleveland's recommendations, arising from the findings of his two studies, are that funders should be focused on Fellowships, Micro-Funding, Growing Art & the Community, Career Development, and Strengthening the Arts Ecosystem (while being very careful not to harm it).
In the session we also heard about artists in Montana that have been participating in an Artrepreneur program and how they have been able to expand their networks and advance their work using skills and contacts made in that program. Organizers also passed out a survey aimed at helping participants reflect on what types of data they are collecting and why. The point was made that while artists and their artistic process and product are often the intended beneficiaries of funding programs (many of which channel funds through organizations) quite often funders do not solicit the perspectives of artists in their evaluations of programs and organizations.
Finally, I was taken by a comment made by Heather in her opening remarks. She said, "No one has laid out a path or framework for artists to think in terms of being entrepreneurs or startups." While I see entrepreneurship programs cropping up now in conservatories, I do think that Heather's point is well taken–that there is a tendency in the arts and culture sector to see entrepreneurism as being at odds with artmaking. However, I mentioned to the organizers after the session was over that there is a framework that posits the artist as being akin to the entrepreneur. I learned about this framework thanks to an oral defense by a masters student at Erasmus University. This framework, which comes from the great early 20th century economist and political scientist, Joseph Schumpeter, would seem to suggest not that artists are entrepreneurs but that the essence of entrepreneurship is artistic (as the focus of his inquiry was the nature of the entrepreneur) and that the artist and entrepreneur have similar characteristics and behaviors.
Source: Swedberg, R. (2006). The cultural entrepreneur and the creative industries: Beginning in Vienna. Journal of Cultural Economics, 30(4), 243-261 as cited in the thesis of K. Pille (2013).
Funders have been spending a lot of time the past several years trying to encourage entrepreneurial behavior or innovation in risk-averse and static organizations (run by "arts managers" rather than entrepreneurs, for the most part). I am pleased to see that there seem to be several efforts now underfoot to bring artists into institutions so that bridges can be crossed, the status quo can be disrupted, and fresh thinking and approaches can emerge.
This idea is exemplified brilliantly in a new program of the Doris Duke Charitable Trust, Building Demand for the Arts, which is about bringing artists into arts organizations to work collaboratively with arts managers to think about and experiment with new approaches to building demand. Barry Hessenius was also at this session, which was presented by Ben Cameron and Alan Brown of WolfBrown, and has given a great summary of it in his GIA Day 2 Breakout Sessions Report, so I will only briefly summarize some key takeaways from the session.
This is a long-term program but the researchers (WolfBrown and Associates) and Duke have promised an annual report reflecting on the new knowledge being created in these learning communities (which is how they are conceptualizing the participants in the program). Alan Brown began this session with a brief reflection on the shifting discourse around building audiences, much of it led by funders who continually reframe old problems using new language. Is building demand different from developing audiences? I don't know and I'm not sure that this is the conversation that Duke is wanting to engage. The core ideas seems to be this: audience have been declining, we want to reverse the trend, we believe that traction could be made if artists and organizations could come together to consider the problem. Why? Because audience decline is not primarily a marketing problem, it is a problem that relates to content, but also to such things as setting, format, and process (i.e., the degree of orientation towards, or involvement of, the community).
There also seems to be a strong desire embedded in this initiative to look backwards at years of efforts (by Duke and other foundations) to address the "audience problem" and see if something can be learned and brought forward. A theoretical framework, if you will, that might help us understand the path of from DISINTEREST/AVERSION to the arts experience to LIKING to LOVING and finally to SHARING and bringing along others. I, for one, will be looking forward to the first annual report.
I decided to attend another session on audience engagement, this one led by Teresa Eyring, who reported on a multi-year program of Theatre Communications Group (also funded by Duke). The program goals are to study, promote and support successful audience engagement models in theater and the session reported on some findings to date, including a number of strategies or paths for audience engagement and community development currently being employed by theaters. The research has also brought forward four recommendations for organizations seeking to engage audiences: (1) Get out of season-to-season mentality; (2) connect audience and community development strategies to process and programming; (3) connect to your constituents outside of buying a ticket and attending a show; and (4) form community partnerships.
Though this was not articulated at the session, it seems to me that there are some clear implications of these recommendations for funders. Arguably, lack of adequate capitalization, single year grants, and the overemphasis on short-term evaluation has contributed to a season-to-season mentality. Funding tends to be directed at strategy implementation and product creation and distribution, rather than to strategy development and process (the time to think and plan). And evaluations tend to be focused on metrics that can be counted (butts in seats) rather than assessing the quality of relationships between organizations and those they serve. If grantmakers want to see organizations improve in their ability to engage audiences, it would seem they may need to recognize their role in some of the current challenges the arts sector is facing.
Following Teresa's presentation leaders of two organizations funded by the program (Robert Hupp of Arkansas Reperotry Theatre and Trina Jackson of The Theater Offensive program: OUT in Your Neighborhood) reported on their work. I will only repeat that it is incredibly valuable to have artists at this conference discussing their work. It was a rich discussion and I jotted down several concepts in my notebook that resonate for me, including: "engagement over time" "risk taking is a relative term" and "the tyranny of project support." Emilya Cachapero of TCG was also in attendance and spoke up to talk about the evidence that they are seeing (now a few years into the program) of structural change; organization buy-in; and growing loyalty of patrons. I applaud TCG's efforts to track these more subtle and perhaps more meaningful measures that new practices are beginning to take hold and, more importantly, have impact.
I was truly pleased to have the opportunity to sit in on these sessions, all three of which left me feeling quite hopeful and inspired.
When I left the Mellon Foundation in 2010 to move to the Netherlands I thought I had attended my last Grantmakers in the Arts conference, but I am quite happy to have been invited to take part in the 2013 GIA conference as one of several conference bloggers. For my first day, I was assigned to cover the Support for Individual Artists Pre-Conference. This is a longstanding event that, as one of the conference hosts admitted, can feel a little clubby to newcomers. I can't speak for other newcomers but I thought the vibe from the get-go was incredibly relaxed and inclusive—in no small part because the day began with a participatory music experience led by musician Dan Blacksberg called Spontaneous Ensemble Music for Scratch Orchestra.
Part 1: On the origins of our structures and whether they may need to be disassembled to reflect the way artists make work today.
Holly Sidford, Ted Berger, Frances Phillips and Cindy Gehrig led the first session of the day, which was aimed at reviewing the history of support for artists in the US. Panelists reflected upon the significant impacts on artists of public programs, including the WPA (a program designed for all citizens but which benefited artists, as well); the Social Security Act (which enabled artists to collect unemployment between jobs); the establishment of the NEA and NYSCA, which led to the state arts agency movement; artist in schools programs, which spread across the US; and the Comprehensive Employment Training Act, a much revered program that ran from 1974 to 1981, and which had an annual impact of $300 million ($800 million in today's dollars).
A conceptual framework (credited to Nello McDaniel) that puts the artist at the center, as the hub, with spokes leading to various source of support (e.g., Family, Work in the Field, Work in Other Fields, Artist-in-Schools Programs, Residencies, Grants, Unemployment). The image was meant to convey two ideas: (1) Artists have agency and a way of making life through multiple support systems; and (2) the whole system needs to be managed every day.
Lack of adequate compensation for artists, stemming in large part from the fact that support for artists is generally channeled through organizations but also from the idea that too much support will have a corrupting influence on the artist.
As a newcomer I found it helpful to hear others take stock of this history as well as to point out that much of the vocabulary, frames, and beliefs underpinning individual support for artists today, to a large degree, hearken back to early rationales for support. The group also reflected on some trends in philanthropy that have emerged since the culture wars, including: seeing the artist as a contributor not only to artistic life but to economic and social life; the decline in international work and exchange; a pulling back in the sense of collective research and action; and the emergence of many permutations on the support for individual artist "model" including the growth in artist support organizations (like Creative Capital) and intermediaries (though it was also noted that the intermediaries may be increasingly vulnerable).
Ted: We should be talking about what's happening to independent workers in general. Artists are like the factory workers in Detroit.
Holly: Inequality, climate and metrics.
As the session wound down, artist Magda Martinez attempted to synthesize what she had been listening to and said she wondered if there was a thread of equality (dividing up the pie in equal slices) versus equity (investing more in some so that they can achieve equality). She ended with a question that would echo throughout the day: How far are funders willing to go to disassemble structures to reflect how people make work today?
Part II: What is an "individual artist" and what do we mean by "support"?
What criteria should be used to categorize a person or entity as an individual artist? Do artists working in collectives count? Do choreographers that had to incorporate as 501c3s to be eligible for grants count? Do commissions count as a form of support? Grants to artists that come from sources outside of Arts & Culture programs? Grants channeled through crowdfunding sites?
And as critical as these definitional and taxonomical concerns appeared to become as the conversation grew, they began to recede in the face a more systemic and perhaps fundamental issue raised: How much will funders really understand about support for artists if they are looking only at philanthropic support? As one funder put it, referencing the hub and spoke model mentioned earlier: We're trying to create the wheel that will support the artists … but we're only measuring one spoke of the wheel.
In introducing the session Alan Brown noted that although he and others working on the project thought that "counting money was the center of this research" what they found was that in order to do that work they first needed to understand the motivations, methods, and tools that funders were using. He also reported that there was a lot of energy around intermediaries (and some debate among funders around their value or role). My sense is that if Alan and other working on this project can begin to illuminate these methods, motivations, and tools (including the use and impact of intermediaries) that this would be quite valuable to the field.
The second panel was on my mind as I made my way to lunch, which was provided by Jon Rubin of Conflict Kitchen. Jon Rubin is an art professor from Carnegie Mellon University and Conflict Kitchen is a restaurant in Pittsburgh that serves only ethnic foods from nations with which US is in conflict. Participants were fortunate to be given a taste of what this catalytic public art project is about and the opportunity to hear the principals talk about their work.
Ironically, Jon Rubin is an artist entrepreneur that does not need much philanthropic support. He mentioned that 80 percent of his support comes from those that buy the food that is served at Conflict Kitchen. He mentioned a couple grants, including one from the Heinz Foundation; however, I found out later that the grant from Heinz didn't come from the Arts & Culture program. After experiencing this nontraditional (but highly impactful) art project I wondered how many arts funders in the room (a) would consider Jon Rubin to be an individual artists; or (2) would have a mechanism for supporting Conflict Kitchen.
I thought again of the spoke and wheel metaphor that had been used throughout the day and how much it relied on the idea of the artist at the center as "something to be supported" by the monies running from the periphery to the center through the spokes. As I listened to Jon Rubin a very different conceptual framework was coming to mind: the artist as a node on a network, whose value comes from being able to connect people across divides, who is by nature an entrepreneur, and who has found a way to earn money not only to support his own artistic practice but to employ and support others as well.
I expected that there would perhaps be some discussion of this project and how it illuminates exactly the points that many artists were making in the earlier sessions about how artists now have a very different relationship to making and financing their work, and even how we define such things as "artist" or "public art." But the experience was not raised for discussion. Perhaps I was alone in feeling a bit of cognitive dissonance between the day's discussion and the artistic experience of lunch?
Part 3: On having faith.
The rest of the day turned to looking to the future. We first heard from three funders with innovative programs aimed, it seemed to me, at supporting the whole artist. The first was Tony Grant who, with his wife started the Sustainable Arts Foundation to help artists and writers with families pursue creative careers. As Tony put it, "It's one thing to be a starving artist; it's not really acceptable to raise starving children. When creative people decide to settle down and raise a family, we want them to not give up their creativity." The second was Carolyn Somers of the Joan Mitchell Foundation, an artist-endowed foundation, who discussed its very successful "Creating a Living Legacy" program (now being replicated in cities around the US) designed to help older artists organize and document their work. And the third was Ben Cameron who discussed the Doris Duke Charitable Trust's Performing Artist Initiative aimed at providing support that will help artists get off the creation treadmill and buy themselves time to think. In addition to large cash grants the program (offered in partnership with Creative Capital) provides technical assistance and guidance to artists on the tax and financial implications of their awards and guides them through a process designed to help them make choices about such things as when to take their disbursements and how to prioritize their financial needs. This was an inspiring session in large part because all three programs appeared to be (1) designed in direct response to the needs of artists; and (2) exceedingly flexible in their implementation.
Finally, the day ended with four artists (Byron Au Yong, Ann Carlson, Andrew MacLean, and Ain Gordon) discussing support that was meaningful to them but also considering the future of support for individual artists. Panelists reflected on moments in their lives when sometimes rather small grants had made a difference in their career trajectories; however, they, and other artists in the audience, also described the ways that frames, eligibility requirements, formats, and questions posed in the grant seeking process frequently make it difficult for artists to present themselves authentically. This was a key topic that floated to the surface throughout the day.
Ain: Is it possible to promote a culture in the application process of complicated truth telling in which artists could say, "I don't have any idea how much it costs so why don't you tell me how much you can give me." Or "I can't raise any money so why don't you give me all of it." How can we talk about un-viability as viable?
Ann: […] There is a fiction between how a project is imagined and written about. I'd be curious to hear everyone talk about that acknowledged disparity between the real and imagined project. And there's no way to get away from that because we're always imagining into the future.
Ain: Unless we weren't asked to describe the project.
We can learn a lot from talking directly to artists, watching them work, and allowing ourselves to see that they are more than the sum of their work, and that they are no longer living and making work as they did even ten years ago.
Those that care about supporting individual artists may need to radically change their structures, processes, and the types of support if they want to continue to be beneficial.
In this time of shifting sands, rather than trying to anticipate or steer, funders may do better to grant more faith to artists and follow them, rather than seeking to lead them, into the future.


text:
Robotics and machine vision sales reaching new heights in North America in 2017
In the first half of 2017, many growth records were set in the areas of robotics, machine vision, and motion control and motor technology, according to the Association for Advancing Automation (A3).
First, the North American robots market had its best opening half ever to being 2017, setting new records in order units, order revenue, shipment units, and shipment revenue. In total, 19,331 robots valued at approximately $1.031 billion were sold in North America during this timeframe, which is the highest level ever recorded to begin a year. This represents 33% growth in units and 26% growth in dollars over 2016. Orders in the automotive industry grew substantially in the first half of the year, increasing 39% in units and 37% in dollars, while non-automotive orders also grew 21% in units and 10% in dollars.
The machine vision market also had its best first-half performance to date, as a total of $1.241 billion was sold in the first six months of the year, with an increase of 11% over the same period in 2016. Machine vision component markets were up 11% in total to $177 million, while systems increased 10% to $1.058 billion. Notable growth rates included lighting (20% to $35 million), smart cameras (16% to $183 million), and optics (16% to $20 million).
Additionally, orders in the motion control and motor products amounted to $1.622 billion, up 14% over the first six months of 2016, while shipments totaled $1.757 billion, up 10% over the first half of 2016. In total, the A3, which is comprised of the Robotic Industries Association (RIA); the Advancing Vision + Imaging Association (AIA); and the Motion Control & Motor Association (MCMA), is at a record combined membership of 1,064 as of July 31, 2017.
"Year over year, our membership has been on a steady growth trajectory, the result of more companies understanding, and embracing, the direct impact automation can have on their bottom line," said Jeff Burnstein, president of A3. "We look forward to the continued advancement of our industry and helping companies of all sizes access the connections, information, and training they need to succeed with automation."
A3 will host the following events this fall:
The National Robot Safety Conference, October 10-12, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
The MCMA Technical Conference, October 16-18, Minneapolis, MN, USA
The Collaborative Robots & Advanced Vision Conference, November 15-16, San Jose, CA, USA
View more information on A3.
Share your vision-related news by contacting James Carroll, Senior Web Editor, Vision Systems Design

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
← Return of A Ledge Meanwhile, In Sligo →
Seems Reasonable
Admin at 5:26 pm November 17, 2014
Paul Murphy TD (sitting second right) during protests in Jobstown on Saturday
The Tallaght protests.
Joan Burton was not 'Trapped', 'Under Siege', 'Held Against Her Will' or 'Kidnapped'. This was an old fashioned, down and dirty, power struggle between politicians fighting over the same territory. The true factual position is that one elected TD blocked a road on another elected TD.
This is no slide into fascism, no rise of a sinister fringe. This is cynical main stream politics hijacking a largely non political, classless popular people's movement against the daylight robbery of their water.
If Joan wanted out of the situation she put herself in, Gardai would have obliged as they have done on numerous other occasions to enforce the instillation of water meters. The only thing 'holding' Joan Burton was her own fear of bad press if the Gardai beat a path through peaceful protesters to facilitate her exit. It is ridiculous to seriously claim that Gardai are incapable of breaking up 100 protesters.
"But Joan was hit by a water balloon, maybe even an egg, that's violent protest" we are lectured. Food as protest tool has a long history, the first recorded food protest took place in 63 A.D. 18th-century texts recorded an act of egg-throwing to persecute Methodists on the Isle of Man.On the campaign trail for governor of California, in 2003, Arnold Schwarzenegger was hit with an egg. (He brushed it off like a boss.) In 2011, Afghan demonstrators threw eggs at the Iranian consulate to protest a blockade of fuel tanks that caused prices to skyrocket. Dutch King Willem-Alexander was on the receiving end of some very angry tomatoes in Moscow. A New York Times article from 1883 discusses John Ritchie, an actor who was "demoralized by tomatoes" after an underwhelming performance.
In August 2013 French farmers took to the streets, breaking 100,000 oeufs a day to protest low prices set in place by the European Union. The throwing of food (even water balloons) is a time honoured act of non-violent protest. It's objective is the same as circus performers throwing custard pies, to make one look foolish like a clown.
Indiscriminate use of pepper spray against women and children is not an act on non-violence. It is an act of aggression. It's Labour's way or pepper spray enforced on a community where Labour's way means children going to school hungry, jobsbridge slavery and rising poverty for the working poor who see their standard of living reducing month on month despite their hardworking efforts. Working families in Jobstown face the same struggle as working families in areas perceived to be more affluent. They are all running flat out and still going backwards.
If you find yourself thinking "Your protest offends me more than your children going to school hungry does" or if you're more outraged at a protest than structural violence inflicted by austerity, maybe you should lay down the MSM newspaper that's flogging these lies to you.
Judging Jobstown (RamsHornRepublic.com)
During the riots here in Stockholm last year, more people were injured in the rush to condemn the violence than were ever in danger from the riots themselves.
Such condemnation serves nothing but the ego of the politician or journalist already well-served by the democracy they claim to be upholding – the one that depends on the votes and the purchases of working-class people, and then abandons them as soon as power is secured.
The kind of people who live in places like Jobstown, Neilstown, Coolock, Ballymun and Darndale. The kind of people who voted for Joan Burton – who sat in that car – and then saw her completely betray the mandate they had given her.
If you want a real story about the collapse of democracy, it was sitting in the car, not rocking it or shouting at it.
That story is how an unelected four-person "economic management council" has, with the support and full active participation of Labour, set aside Ireland's parliamentary democracy until further notice.
No, the only thing that ran riot in Dublin yesterday was the middle-class sensibilities of journalists and politicians confronted by the dawning realisation that it is too late, and the proles have had enough.
For the hacks, there is no point back-pedalling now.
So do not start with your own answers and then tailor the facts to fit, as currently seems to be best practice at the Irish Water Meter and on Water Meter FM.
Instead, put aside your pointless pontificating, go back to your basic journalistic training and ask the five Ws and one H that we all learned on our first day in class.
And of all those questions you should be asking, right now "why?" is the most important.
And from what I've seen in this morning's papers and online, not one of you has asked it yet.
For your betters, brow-beating beats being there (Philip O'Connor, OurManInStockholm)
'Enough To Fill Five Swimming Pools' Let The Man Sing Meanwhile, In Flushing Irish Watercolour
Posted in Misc and tagged Irish Water at 5:26 pm on November 17, 2014 by Admin.
92 thoughts on "Seems Reasonable"
EBS November 17, 2014 at 5:29 pm
Suggest broadsheet.ie rename themselves irishwaterprotests.ie until this washes over
People having been settling political disputes for centuries by going to war.
Therefore, war is a time honoured act of non-violent protest.
Just sayin' November 17, 2014 at 5:31 pm
My, Broadsheet.ie has taken a major lurch further to the left of late. They already have the comments section the The Journal and Politics.ie. And now here.
Medium Sized C November 17, 2014 at 5:35 pm
You can go to more or less every other media outlet and get a heavily conflicting account of what happened in Jobstown.
And to my mind, broadsheet have always been a bit lefty.
I'm not sure it is a problem.
jungleman November 17, 2014 at 10:01 pm
The trick is just to avoid the IW posts and pray that there is no contagion into the cat and stolen bike posts.
odin November 17, 2014 at 10:14 pm
Was it for this water-metre that looks like Ireland?
Fergus the magic postman November 17, 2014 at 5:38 pm
Certain governments (depending on how corruptly they represent the people who elected them) often have that effect.
Don Pidgeoni November 17, 2014 at 5:58 pm
Thats like complaining the Guardian are too lefty. Broadsheet have always been this way.
bisted November 17, 2014 at 6:40 pm
…@Just sayin…I'm guessing you haven't read todays Limerick.
Mayor Quimby November 17, 2014 at 7:16 pm
The Sindo is self-critical by comparison!
Jackdaw November 17, 2014 at 8:42 pm
I didn't think it was possible but the electorate found the perfect replacement for Brian Hayes. They have replaced one smug little pr1ck with another one in Paul Murphy.
cluster November 17, 2014 at 9:23 pm
It's arguable whether water charges are a left wing issue or not.
On one hand, they are consumption-based so could be thought of as regressive. Also, there is clearly a danger that IW could be privatised.
On the other hand, the left is often associated with positive environmental measures, which this clearly is – measuring flows, putting a financial value on it (one if the few things many people seem to care about) and incentivising conservation. It will also help provide a more regular source of income, helping to minimise the sort of rapid & painful cuts to public services caused by FF's reliance on construction receipts.
Anyway, BS has always had a sort if middle-class, mildly lefty take on many (though not all) issues.
Also, Irish Water would be a lit cheaper if they fired all the surplus employees they have and kept only those necessary. (No simple way to evaluate this but it's a standard challenge of every sort of business or institution).
The same is true for most public bodies/institutions.
Not exactly a standard Irish left-wing position.
Louis Lefronde November 17, 2014 at 5:32 pm
Of course throwing eggs, water balloons or indeed bricks at someone comes within the meaning of Assault under Section 2 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997….but then those who engage in peaceful protests wouldn't do such a thing.
2.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—
(a) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or
(b) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,
without the consent of the other.
(2) In subsection (1) (a), "force" includes—
(a) application of heat, light, electric current, noise or any other form of energy, and
(b) application of matter in solid liquid or gaseous form.
Clampers Outside! November 17, 2014 at 9:10 pm
It includes 'spitting' and rightly so, just if anyone wondered.
Banotti November 17, 2014 at 5:33 pm
The broadsheet editorial narrative here is embarrassing.
The Irish Left-Wing (and Sinn Fein especially) set out to control the discussion boards back in 2009… It was only a matter of time before they tried to hijack Broadsheet…
Walter-Ego November 17, 2014 at 5:54 pm
Because Right Wing Politics of FF and FG have led us to precisely here. The Irish People were robbed and stunned and have now awoken and are very Angry. So i think a shift to the left should be expected and one i welcome.
Johnny B November 18, 2014 at 12:10 pm
FF Right wing? A party who trained hard so that it wouldn't disappoint unions when they said to jump higher. A party that flooded the state with welfare payments and benefits that crippled the working man in taxes. A party that introduced wave after wave of social housing schemes that destroyed many parts of perfectly peaceful counties. A party that introduced equality legislation to ensure the rights of people with no ethnic variation from ourselves are protected above all else for the sake of the left wing marches? C'mon, seriously? FG aren't much better. The PDs were about the closest thing we ever had to a right wing in this country.
fmong November 17, 2014 at 6:02 pm
That's funny I think Broadsheet comment sections are subject to flooding by FG, right wing, comedy right wing comments. The editorial bias is certainly left-centre.. but the reaction is often rabidly right. Maybe we see what we want to see Louis?
I'm curious if Broadsheet feel they get flooded by Trolls, or at least a concentrated campaign, from the left or right, is there a system to posting on the Irish Water threads? You can have 3 posts with 10-20 comments, then an Irish water post with 100+ in an hour… Anyone from BS care to comment?
Their audience is or probably was a slightly more enlightened bunch. Cultured types in decent Dublin office jobs. Normal people like us probably appear right wing to the welfare class.
Prejudice much?
ThePeoplesHero November 17, 2014 at 7:15 pm
Mooch much?
Us "reasonable" people in the "centre"? : )
I'd be considered 'middle class' I'm in an office, I used to vote labour… but I think Irish Water is *gasp* double taxation, and would have more empathy with the protestors then Bruton.. shock horror!
Anyway, bias apart, it's probably equal at the end of the day, the sheer amount of posting per thread is suspicious though no?
There are reasonable arguments on both sides but the only stupid line which is trotted out again and again is the 'paying twice'/'double taxation' canard.
We have a current account deficit.
We have not spent appropriately on water infrastructure maintenance, yet alone investing for the future.
In short, we haven't even paid once.
You can have 3 posts with 10-20 comments, then an Irish water post with 100+ in an hour… Anyone from BS care to comment? Anyone from BS care to comment?
Fixed now. Apologies all.
Administrators.
*I am not an administrator.
There are definitely more new commenters from the anti-water charges rather than the pro-water charges wing the last few weeks.
That doesn't bother me one way or the other. The constant accusations of 'shill' or 'troll' are pretty boring and useless.
Allen November 17, 2014 at 6:05 pm
Fine Gael youth, the worst kind of youth
Very , Very True Allen.
Zynks November 17, 2014 at 6:38 pm
I find the left/right argument too basic. If you consider that Ghandi was in the left and Pinochet in the right, it is almost scary to group SF with Ghandi.
Here is a better way (IMO), used to map the political dispositions in the UK. I agree with the position for SF and would suggest that BS' position in general would be closer to the Green party than to SF http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/uk2010.php
Stewart Curry November 18, 2014 at 9:23 am
Closer to the green party? So we should expect a shitty album out for Christmas?
stev November 17, 2014 at 8:14 pm
You are fast becoming my least favourite cretinous poster on this site. What's the real agenda you're trying to peddle here? Nearly all your posts refer to Sinn Fein.
My tuppence worth on this: this site is generally left in terms of liberal issues such as marriage equality but often it's quite conservative in terms of economics which probably is a fairer reflection of the readership.
Eliot Rosewater November 17, 2014 at 8:40 pm
Yep. Pretty much identical to the Guardian (except a more flippant, humorous tone). People always see things in terms of black & white, but there's usually a fairly healthy dose of grey in there.
The idea that there are SF trolls 'flooding' the comments section of Broadsheet is hilarious, though. Surely there would be far, far more comments supporting SF ideology than what we are currently seeing. I would think it (broadly) reflects the 25% that they are supposed to be getting in the latest polls.
Fupp the bleedin' Shinners… I'd be long gone if this place was an all out Shinner enclave of the internets. And I don't believe it is by any stretch :)
Mé Féin November 18, 2014 at 8:30 am
And that's why there are never any right-wing comments to be seen on discussion boards? Silly comment.
cccc November 17, 2014 at 5:34 pm
Mr. Murphy is a disgraceful, bandwagon jumping, self serving wnkbag
Yes, that man Murphy who has built his short political career to date out of fighting austerity is jumping on the austerity bandwagon.
More Kool Aid for CCCC, he's on a roll.
Any rant that has as its underlying tenet that working class=good, middle class=bad just sends me into a snooze.
Agree. Works the other way around, though. Lazy thinking.
edalicious November 18, 2014 at 10:15 am
"What the rich elite bourgeoise want to do is divide the country and have it fight against each other but the proud ordinary working class people of Ireland will stand up to them!!"
and vice versa.
jeremy kyle November 17, 2014 at 5:45 pm
Almost every comment here is complaining that the comment section is dominated by lefties.
ABM's Bloodied Underwear November 17, 2014 at 5:48 pm
http://studentlife.ryerson.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/leftorium.jpg
Sam November 17, 2014 at 5:57 pm
Those comments were left by self-loathing lefties.
It's the Godwin's Law for 21st century digital Ireland. Or something.
Frilly Keane November 17, 2014 at 5:49 pm
Ah give over
This government is out of control
The Health Service is out of control
The Guards are out of control
The teachers are again going on strike
Irish Rail need a 100m subvention a year
Lads. The games up
There are no sides anymore.
Its just them
And us. Working Class Middle Class First Class. They're riding us all.
Praetorian November 17, 2014 at 7:29 pm
As always Frilly…the only one who calls it as it is.Fair play lad.
Go on the Frilly, Spot on!
TheDude November 17, 2014 at 8:28 pm
Spot on Frilly but just as an FYI we prefer the usage of the nomenclature upper class
Frilly Anne Keane Water Molester November 17, 2014 at 8:49 pm
I'd never get that spelling right
Pablo November 17, 2014 at 9:18 pm
Nah, that's total bollocks Frilly. The permanently unemploed underclass (which makes up the majority of these protestors) and people like you want two very different things. You want the government to stop taxing you for everything. Whereas the underclass want everything paid for by people like you.
ljr November 17, 2014 at 5:50 pm
yer man in Stockholm is not reading or listening to the same things as the rest of us and I can't be alone in resenting his supercilious and patronising tone. The who has been clearly written about with the different groups involved (mostly) named. The what has obviously been written about, the where is obvious in all the reports, the when is known and the why has been debated endlessly on every news programme and media. If he wants to take it back to the bond holders then he needs to go back to the bailout and then back to the lads that signed us up for the Euro which led to low interest rates, which led to ridiculously cheap money, which, allied with non-existent regulation led to a property bubble and so on. there are lots of whos, whats, whens, whys etc. there too.
I wonder how the other lad would feel if it was his mammy or his granda or his mot in the car for two hours being pelted with eggs.
"for two hours being pelted with eggs"
Right so.
ljr November 17, 2014 at 11:41 pm
you're right, shocking lack of punctuation in that last sentence…
Soundings November 17, 2014 at 5:55 pm
"It's Labour's way or pepper spray"
Love that, was that what Eamon Gilmore meant to say during the 2011 General Election.
Separately, I see the meeja is saying Joan was hit with a water BOMB.
Why don't you just shout it was a HYDROGEN (2 parts, one part oxygen) BOMB.
Drogg November 17, 2014 at 5:56 pm
All I see Is a bunch of keyboard warriors here ready to bend over and take another tax and say thank you for it. I am glad you are all in a position that you can afford to pay another tax bill but I work 5-7 days a week and I can barely make it month to month.
You are as much of a keyboard warrior as anybody else here.
I come out from behind my computer to protest as well and least I am not a lap dog for austerity like yourself.
They need to balance the books so congrats on having pressurised them into moving some water revenue onto PAYE workers like yourself.
I got no benefit from the tax cuts in the budget. None so you can stick that right up yer hoop.
Nigel November 17, 2014 at 6:44 pm
They need to go about it competently fairly and transparently.
Karl Monaghan November 17, 2014 at 9:06 pm
So you earn less than €10,000 and work 5 to 7 days a week Drogg? You're being screwed.
Otherwise you have gotten a (albeit small) tax cut due to the USC changes. (I'm presuming you earn less than €33,200)
Anne November 18, 2014 at 12:40 am
To be precise, it's €12,012 and €33,800 there Karl.
You're a moaning freeloader who only gets off their arse when someone asks them to pay their way and thinks going to a protest puts you on a par with ghandi.
Is that you Baldy?
Kieran NYC November 17, 2014 at 8:44 pm
Heh. Nailed it.
Paul Murphy is starting to remind me of the Unionist politicians up north who whip people into a frenzy and then say "Wasn't me" when it all goes horribly wrong.
If that's the same Baldy you were referring to earlier, that's Mr XXXXL Sized 'C' you're lookin for
Yours is a problem we have with democracy in Ireland.
We want public services but we don't want to pay for them. In general, we have an extremely progressive tax system (see OECD reports on income equality after taxation) and out tax burden, although it has increased since the onset of the recession, is still a bit below most of the European countries we (allegedly) aspire to match.
Much of our public services and the method of their delivery is ripe for reform. 'Starving the beast' isn't going to achieve that.
It's a bit disingenuous to pretend throwing eggs and water balloons is not violent.
Sure it's not the same scaled as the state's ability to have the Garda whallop people, and have people fecked into prison cells, but let's not pretend that there were not a few incidents of violence in that protest.
I've no sympathy for Joan Burton. She's chosen to help screw us over, and shouldn't be surprised that people are belatedly losing patience with the politicians.
but let's not pretend that getting a water balloon thrown at you is not a minor assault, (outside of the context of a kids party.)
Likewise, all the rightwingers who post that there's nothing wrong with the cops firing people onto the ground are just as biased – violence isn't violence when used against people we don't like…
The cops can caution people about blocking the road, direct them to mover under the Public Order Act, and arrest those who don't comply.
The law doesn't entitle them to practise their favourite WWF moves on people and then not arrest them.
It's the job of the courts to mete out punishment, not the Gardai, who are neither judges nor bouncers.
The whole idea of democracy is to have a system of government that doesn't depend on having running battles.
When the govt can do as it likes for long periods without accountability people will only take so much, and not many people will give much of a hoot about the primary school civics lectures about 'waiting for the next election'.
Who waits years to stop daylight robbery?
CousinJack November 17, 2014 at 6:37 pm
So what do you make of the lad standing in front of the tanks in Tiananmen Square, if the same thing happen in Ireland?
Civil disobedience, such as sitting on the road and blocking vehicles, is a well established form of peaceful protest – otherwise there would still be segregation in the southern US states
Bobby November 17, 2014 at 7:59 pm
You do realise that's not what he's talking about at all, right?
Hi CousinJack,
I'm a big fan of directed and disciplined civil disobedience.
I'm just commenting on the futility of pretending that aiming stuff at people and throwing it isn't an act of violence at all, not even a minor one. – calling it some form of 'tradition' is just blowing smoke.
From what I've read and seen, a few people threw some things , an egg, a water balloon and a brick.
The smart and honest thing to do is admit that a tiny number of people did somethings they shouldn't have, and think about how to deal with that in the next protest.
Denying that throwing stuff at people is dishonest, and it gives the opponents a bigger stick to beat you with, and scaremonger to discourage people joining the next protest and an excuse for the cops and courts to be more heavy-handed. That's not smart.
Also, the govt are less afraid of people who will just do knee-jerk reactions. Someone who will smash a window, burn a car and get done for it is less of a problem than people who might (for example) calmly plan sit-ins, meter removals, and other ways of disrupting 'business as normal'.
Funny thing is the woman in that incident wasn't doing the disobedience protest you speak of in your comments…. she jumped out in front and tried to get onto a moving vehicle which had a clear path and she did so in front of Gardaí who reacted quickly.
She was doing no such 'disobedience' or disruption protest. She was just being stupid…. which as you say is counter productive for the entire protest and will drive others away. She did more damage than good IMO.
JunkFace November 17, 2014 at 6:28 pm
People ruin the comments section.
I want to hear from the dogs and cats. And maybe the parrots. What say you?
martco November 17, 2014 at 6:54 pm
the famous brick pic has been scrubbed from the Indos facebuke page, anyone?
Hashtag Diversity November 17, 2014 at 6:57 pm
Philip O'Connor hasn't a clue about the reporting in Ireland. He might want to read more.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/if-it-s-not-about-the-water-what-is-it-about-1.2004000
He's the same guy who contacted BS about the Jane Ruffino 'censorship' in favor for #websummit coverage. So there you have it "yer man in Stockholm" and "yer woman in Stockholm" who haven't a clue about what's going in in Ireland. Awesome diversity. But not in a useful way.
That…was quite eloquent. Well done that man
Custo November 17, 2014 at 7:16 pm
You could combine the eggs and pepper spray to make some delicious Huevos Rancheros. #lifehacks
Alfred E. Neumann November 17, 2014 at 7:30 pm
"Mainstream media", like "keyboard warrior" and "shill", has the useful function of identifying the person who uses it as a tedious clown. It is a bare quantum of nonsense away from sheeple and contrail fluoridation.
+ "ordinary (decent) people"
+1st world problems
Alfred E. Neumann November 17, 2014 at 10:55 pm
+ Rant over. Just sayin'.
Nellypop November 17, 2014 at 8:12 pm
Left, right, center left with a fulcrum originating in the right. It's pointless categorising of politics like this that side steps us from actually talking about the issue. Broadsheet has always been user reported journalism and the user base don't seem to like these water charges.
Geoff November 17, 2014 at 8:46 pm
The issue is not water charges – all views are valid in a fair debate. The issue is whether or not the actions on Saturday were legitimate protest or inappropriate menace. To me the test is simple – would you be comfortable to see your own mother in that car?
Is that sarcasm or are you really suggesting that legitimate protest should feel comfortable for those on the receiving end of said protest…..
AG November 17, 2014 at 10:51 pm
Jesus, Broadsheet has gone to the absolute dogs.
Since when is being opposed to taxes left wing? The last time I checked, it was the left that was in favour of more taxes. We have to be the only country in the world where a party that calls themselves a socialist party oppose a property tax. It's not left wing or right wing – it's pure populism. I consider myself left wing and I'm in favour of water charges. They're necessary for conservation and to actually get some proper money spent on water infrastructure. Would I prefer an increase in progressive taxation instead? Of course, but the Irish people voted in the last election for FG who promised no increases in income tax. Imagine the outcry of broken promises if that happened.
As for the argument that you already pay for water: (1) if you earn 36k, a grand total of €5.65 of this goes on water: http://publicpolicy.ie/where-does-your-tax-go/#middle-link (2) Arguments saying it comes out of motor tax are wrong as motor tax was over-hauled in Budget 2008 to be calculated on CO2 emissions and also, what kind of F**Ked up taxation system thinks that car tax should be used for water? Finally, it's not double taxation as when water charges are introduced, the other money will be diverted elsewhere. That's like saying that if you get a tax decrease, the state should also decrease the amount of services you get from the state. Saying tax is only paid in exchange for services is grossly over-simplistic.
Now as for the privatisation of Irish Water – that's a genuine worry which is why I signed the Green Party petition for a referendum. But you can't say that you're against the privatisation of Irish Water while at the same time calling it a tax and re-naming your party 'Stop the Water TAX: Socialist Party'. That's talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Anyway, rant over. I think I'm done with Broadsheet for a while. Posting unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, ridiculous pictures equating a navy t-shirt to a stab vest, no real balanced critique about what constitutes a peaceful protest. it's actually a joke at this stage.
cluster November 18, 2014 at 12:02 am
Nice rant, AG.
cluster November 18, 2014 at 8:04 am
Try argue the points instead of making some tiresome as hom.
Alfred E. Neumann November 18, 2014 at 8:12 am
Well said. I don't think Broadsheet's posting of that stuff indicates approval, though. It's the deadening stupidity of the comments that it attracts. People are very bad at arguing.
kiora November 18, 2014 at 6:41 am
Too many god damn Hipsters standing around posing, spouting crap these days, far better if spend their time protesting in the rain with the rest and give themselves a break from staring at their reflections in shop windows
… you know who you are…
bisted on *Benny Hill music*
GiggidyGoo on Sunday's Papers
GiggidyGoo on *Benny Hill music*
Someone at Google Viewed Your Profile on *Benny Hill music*
Someone at Google Viewed Your Profile on Saturday's Papers
Someone at Google Viewed Your Profile on Sunday's Papers
Charger Salmons on Sunday's Papers
f_lawless on Sunday's Papers
Fearganainm on *Benny Hill music*
Otis Blue on *Benny Hill music*
At Leeson Street Bridge [Updated] - 152 comments
You Had Nine Years - 76 comments
Wednesday's Papers - 73 comments
Win Nick's Voucher - 62 comments
Sunday's Papers
*Benny Hill music*
Saturday's Papers
A Lost Decade?
About The Height Of It
Sure Where Would You Get It?
At Leeson Street Bridge [Updated]
"Beyond Offensive" [Updated]
No Notorious
Capistan
Donnchadh O Conaill
Fluffybiscuits
John Donlon
Kieran O Hara
The Masked Contributor


Worship Saints will again be recording a LIVE DVD worship Album.
This follows the first instalment released in 2017 titled, Glory Revealed.
With GREAT anticipation we are trusting God for a great encounter as we pour out worship to Him.