A New University of Chicago Study on How Over-Expansion by Arts Institutions Contributed to Their Collective Financial Crisis

Comments

4 million dollars over a 14 year period? For 800 projects?

Even if they took the dollar bills and plastered them on the streets of Manhattan as a performance piece, it's not very much.

Supreme Ruler Of The Universe on June 28, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Good thing so many are non-profit, that makes all the difference in the public/private partnerships to Richard Conlin.

MrBaker on June 28, 2012 at 8:45 PM

Did you really look at this report before posting it here? This is the sloppiest pieces of research on this topic I have ever seen; either that, or it is deliberately misleading. I fear it is the latter. Even the summary document has bogus, non-existant "graphs" that don't relate to the actual data. This is really lazy fiction. Where's the comparison to Stadia investments??? That would be interesting (and its out there...)

on June 29, 2012 at 1:03 AM

Harrummph.

No joy in saying, "I told you so." Trustees still prattle on about how so-and-so will save such-and-such--always referring to the institution, not the artists who give it purpose and meaning.

Intiman is a very good example. "Intiman is saved!" But which Intiman Theatre? Sure, the name remains the same, but the institution transforms and changes. (New brooms sweeping cleanly, and all that.) We're currently into Intiman 6.0; it's Andrew Russell's charge now. It's present profile is very different from the original mission statement and purpose. Mr. Russell wasn't even born when Ms. Booker began it all. Why should Andrew be burdened with a Board stuck in the past and an institution whose name nobody ever properly pronounced? (it's "in-TEA-mon")

It's rather like a sixth marriage, where the newly proclaimed insist on keeping the name from the first nuptials: everything about preserving the institution and precious little about the relationship's realities.

Laurence Ballard on June 29, 2012 at 6:56 AM