Since June, a large handful of cultural professionals have been locked in a series of paint-splattered rooms around town with Dizzy Gillespie blasting from tinny speakers mounted on the walls. Directors of area museums and other cultural influencers have been marched into the room, one by one, to be grilled about the state of the arts in the Richmond region. Each has been required to create a Change for a Ten submission and perform an original piece of choreography.
Sort of.
The quiet surrounding the development of a regional Cultural Action Plan hasn't been intentional -- it's what happens when people plan -- but it sure has been noticeable. Apparently, a Downtown Master Plan process that boasted a solid week of public discussion and more than 30 public hearings makes it hard to just hang out and develop a plan at your desk.
Richmond.com and Save Richmond both emerged with snapshots of the Cultural Action Plan this week; Buttermilk & Molasses has been covering it sporadically since earlier this year.
The Richmond.com piece by Stephanie Brummell provides a good summary of what's been happening in the cultural planning process while the rest of Richmond went to the beach this summer:
Step one of this four part cultural action plan was to establish a partnership between the aforementioned task force and national consulting and research firm, WolfBrown. They have a successful track record helping other cities develop similar plans, such as those in Abilene, TX, Scottsdale, AZ and Cary, NC, among others...
...Part two of this hope-filled story involved talking to stakeholders in the plan, and engaging the ideas of those who work, plan and invest in the city's arts and cultural communities. This included "exhaustive interviews" with leaders and directors of many local museums and galleries, and others involved in Richmond's arts community.
But an equally important chapter (and part three of the action plan) is a project to figure out the interests, wants and needs of the people these communities serve.
The result: Richmond's very own Cultural Census Survey. The survey is open to every resident of Richmond City, Henrico, Hanover and Chesterfield County and takes only ten minutes to complete.
"[Using] an internet survey, we're using [what] we provide as a museum [to ask] questions that are relevant to what you like to do, things you're interested in," Martin said.
"We're hoping this will be a clear way for people to actually help Richmond's arts and cultural organizations plan their future by using what people's current interests are to decide what their future interests might be."
Knowing that not everyone has access to the Web, the task force is also sending people "to the streets," delivering surveys to senior centers, churches, libraries and other community centers to ensure they collect a broad range of data.
"Our questions are: how do we effectively communicate to the public the excitement of these places; but also, how do we fund and sustain the great things happening here?" Martin said.
"It's about nurturing the organizations that are already here, the rich cultural community we have. Not about finding and funding something new, necessarily, but creating a better understanding of what we already have."
Which is where Don Harrison at Save Richmond weighs in:
But I read this loaded poll, generated by the consultant retained by the companies, and I think that they may need to try again.
The problem isn’t inclusion, it’s the lack of specificity. You’re supposed to agree or disagree with the following:
“Spending tax dollars on arts and cultural programs and facilities is a good investment.”
[Programs AND facilities are the same thing?]
“Cultural opportunities are equally available and accessible to Richmond area residents regardless of cultural background.”
[Kneejerk answer is no. For instance, if you believe all the rhetoric, you’d think that children have NO access to the arts around here. But see the city’s acclaimed Parks and Recreations Department and all that they do on a shoestring here and here and here and especially here.]
“Arts education should be a part of every child’s education.”
[Who’s going to disagree with that? See above.]
Go ahead and take the poll and let your voice be heard, but a warning: if you love the blues and hate jazz, you are in a pickle.
And it may be the only chance you (the public) get to weigh in on area funding for the arts. But I would argue that the results will mean little. This generic survey lumps pop culture AND high culture, visual and performing arts and museums into one designation called “arts and culture” and then asks readers to give a series of opinions based on this very broad lump of entertainment, making the whole thing so open-ended that the findings will no doubt conclude almost anything one wishes. Could be that’s the point.
Harrison goes on to suggest some other questions that could be asked, and then wonders what would happen in the candidates for mayor actually talked about the arts, Richmond's culture, and the appropriate use of Richmond's money.
I'm a bit more optimistic about the Cultural Action Plan. I usually am optimistic when groups of people who don't tend to get together throw a public conversation. Even if the conversation is imperfect, or the questions feel clunky, change usually starts when people begin talking about change.
Of course, taking action is also important.
