To market, to market

Two weeks ago, our city’s Cultural Development Commission, the volunteer group responsible for charting the course of this city’s cultural policy, awarded nearly $300,000 to 16 applicants in order to support what the CDC called “innovation and collaboration” in Indianapolis’ cultural community. Unfortunately, it’s hard to see what, in the way of real value, will be added to our cultural scene through these grants.

 

The grants were awarded based on their ability to meet four goals set by the city’s Cultural Tourism Initiative, which is not just another way of saying “Cultural Development Commission” because the Cultural Tourism Initiative and the CDC are supposedly different. And both of them are distinct from the Arts Council of Indianapolis, which manages the Cultural Tourism Funding Program and sits on the Board of the CDC. Confused yet?

 

Anyway, the CDC awarded grants that the Arts Council, in its grant-giving wisdom, decided met the goals of the Cultural Tourism Initiative. Those goals, according to a press release, were “to increase local cultural participation, maximize the cultural experience for visitors, strengthen the city as a unique cultural destination to attract new visitors and build a sustainable infrastructure to support cultural development.” To put these grants in some perspective, let’s recall that it wasn’t so long ago that this city was awarding less than a million dollars a year in arts funding. So the good news today is that, at long last, Indianapolis is putting some real money toward its cultural life. The bad news, though, is that we’re not likely to see much from it.

 

First, let’s look at where the money went.

 

The predominant theme driving this funding appears to be marketing. The American Pianists Association got $41,000 to help them market Indy Jazz Fest. Dance Kaleidoscope received $10,000 for targeted postcard mailings and special ticket offers. Indiana Repertory Theatre was awarded $37,500 to partner with downtown hotels and restaurants to promote and sell overnight packages connected with the IRT’s 2003 holiday productions. The Children’s Museum, the zoo, Conner Prairie and the symphony picked up $47,500 for a similar hotel package deal. IndyGo got $17,780 to market their Blue Line electric buses serving downtown and White River Park. The Harrison Center copped $5,000 to develop a Web site. The Eiteljorg scored $10,000 to better market their Native American Fine Art Fellowship program. And the new Indianapolis Downtown Artists and Art Dealers Association received $30,000 to create and implement an advertising campaign for its membership.

 

To be fair, not all the grants were about promotion. The Phoenix Theatre wanted help with a mini festival for two new plays ($5,000). The Urban Arts Consortium needed help with five days of cultural events centered on Indiana Avenue ($20,000). The United States Grand Prix Hospitality Committee wants to present street performers along Meridian Street and on Monument Circle during the race ($20,000).

 

No one will dispute the importance of marketing to an overall cultural development effort. But it seems the people making cultural policy in Indianapolis have got it in their heads that the arts scene here is great — it’s the public that’s the problem. They have convinced themselves that if we only market ourselves better, audiences that have yet to show up at performances and exhibits will suddenly materialize.

 

The idea that local work itself may somehow be insufficient appears to be politically incorrect. This is not to say that local artists aren’t talented or deserving of more attention. Indianapolis, in fact, is blessed with a remarkably able, fiercely independent creative community. It is one of this city’s great assets. But talent and independence do not necessarily translate into the kind of buzz that can put a city on the map — or, for that matter, draw an audience eager for new sensations and experience.

 

The fact is that when work is exciting it creates demand. Late last year, when the Phoenix presented Hedwig and the Angry Inch, people were actually talking about local art for a change, telling each other to go see it. There’s a name for art like this: relevant. The contemporary arts scene is international in scope. Today’s cutting-edge artists are practically defined by the boundaries they routinely cross. If Indianapolis wants to be relevant, it is going to have to learn to make connections that link its creative community with this larger world.

 

Had, for example, the Cultural Development Commission used funding to encourage arts organizations to collaborate with artists from other parts of the U.S. — or other countries — in the form of extended residencies, it would have added value to the arts offerings in our town. It would have also introduced local artists to artists from other places and turned those artists into ambassadors who could go forth and spread the word that Indianapolis is a great place to make art. Butler University did this on its own last year when it brought the ELAN group from Wales here for a collaborative performance in the Catacombs below City Market.

 

Downtown hoteliers shouldn’t need to be convinced that the arts can be good for business. But young adults who would like to try and create an arts economy in Indianapolis need help.

 

Why doesn’t the CDC use its money to purchase a disused downtown building, have the Arts Council administer it and make it available at little or no cost to upstart groups in need of rehearsal and performance space? This way we might get more Hedwigs in Indianapolis to tell people about, and fewer bulk mailings to throw away.