Lo and behold. TPT has been quiet while she was thinking and watching and learning (and being schooled) this year. It's très trite, but she's thinking about Art and it's relationship with the institution. Heaven knows, this is a subject that is well documented by those who are more qualified to do so than TPT. And as some might have guessed, TestPerformanceTest was started in reaction to an institution but who wants to come off as reactionary? So overdone in these times c'est vrai? Yet at the end of the year of thinking- TPT's chin is dragging on the ground. And no amount of juvaderm/restalyn/botox cocktail has dragged it up yet- so i'm wondering if I should do a cleanse instead. non? hmm. or just a colonic. get it out in one fell swoop. So with sincere apologies to all the PhD's I've loved before….

What the fuck up with cultural institution building at the expense of Art? One can't go about making that the title of their Ford Foundation papers… so what the hey here's another- and TPT knows this is dirty territory- what is the relationship of patron- no, philanthropist is the word I want- what is the relationship of the philanthropist to Art?

swing and a miss. Did you think that TPT should have said relationship to the institution? There are tomes written on the non profit board member's appropriate relationship with it's non profit. We know all the rules ad nauseum and here's where it's a little dicey- we make the choice how to follow them. I mean hell, it's a non profit- it's not an actual business. And we are giving our time. And our funds. This makes the non profit a wee bit leery of us and doesn't that make the philanthropist a tad more comfortable? Gives us a nice sense of superiority that we don't get at home? I mean, the board is set up to be in loco parentis for the institution correct? That's the structure of a non profit. The Executive Director runs the institution and the board's most crucial role is to act as a periscope for a director that what? doesn't have the intelligence to see financial and social trends? doesn't have the experience to make a budget? can't read an audit? The board is there to make sure the crazy art people don't go belly up.

So this relationship- is it symbiotic or parasitic? And if parasitic who is doing the sucking? If one chooses to follow the rules, the relationship between the philanthropist and the institution is the mediator between the patron and the art. The philanthropist who engages with an institution gets all sorts of goody perks for joining with the institution which in some part make up for this mediation. We get to "meet the artists". We get to "explore the process". We get to "fund new works". But where we can really "get" something good is to be able to put our names on stone. In stone? In arts giving, the type of giving that Warren Buffet's older sister Doris calls "S.O.B. gifts" the orgasmic moments are those in which your name is put on the wall. The closer to the outside the better.

And what does the institution get? Primarily cash up front. Secondly, cash meted out over multi year gifts and then hopefully a big bonus gift when you kick over of either more cash or choice pieces of your collection. This is how it works in the US. In western culture, some THING has to be there to receive or make the art. And good heavens yes yes yes, the institution that receives is crucially important because art, of course, is a heavily valued output of culture. That's art with an a, the physical output of artists, the representation of our culture.

But what about Art with an A? The continuation of quality work in an art form. Or hell- make a new art form. Or at least institutionalize a newish one- thank you Performa. As it rolls, the philanthropist/institution relationship puts the full responsibility of the art form in the hands of the institution. Cultural institutions - be they fine art or performance based- can act as a museum that works to preserve existing art. Or institutions can act as facilitators of new art. Or, and this does NOT contribute to the art form but is a relevant activity for an organization, institutions can act as educators that try and keep up an evolving audience for their product.

As one groans through pages and pages of "strategic plans" belched forth from various non profits- one can see arts organizations struggle with their proper place in this strata.

But let's call it a spade- is a somewhat engaged group of people who are working for free and who have wildly different levels of knowledge about the ART WORLD and the HISTORY that is germane to their specific institution really who western civilization wants deciding these questions? TPT posits yes to the decision as to whether to be an educational facility. TPT posits NO to the other two.

Now what this non profit board is pretty good at doing is knowing how to make decisions to run a more sound business model. It's what the board is selected for n'est pas? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look over the numbers and see what brings in the cabbage and it's not challenging art. And the board's main responsibility is to be financially prudent. so. So long art. Hello Dr. Suess.

The gold standard is an institution that is so huge that it can absorb this risk- an institution that can says hello art and hello Tim Burton simultaneously. And we know a small institution can also be a gem. It can tolerate risk because it doesn't have to please a large donor base. That entire sentence pains me to write.

But let's wade into it. We know there are institutions- and these are generally medium sized institutions- that very much consider their art product as a way to attract a donor base- be it foundation support, individual gifts and of course ticket revenue. And please don't get me started on organizations in which the programs that are in support of audience building and education take more of the budget than the act of the art making or presentation itself. It's a pathetic catch 22 - to receive funds they must make art accessible. In these organizations a paradox is glaringly evident yet never truly acknowledged with in the boards. Prodding an art form forward requires unacceptable levels of risk. I accede the premiss. But if the board has as well, it cannot be acceptable to have the word "excellence" in one's mission as it pertains to the art form if the board has disallowed the ability to meaningfully strive for this quality.

So really- what is the raison d'être for an arts institution in this position? If it's not the art- it must be the existence of the institution itself.

And even more disconcerting is where does this leave the patron? Best I can tell after 15 years in the business, it leaves us supporting institutions rather than Art. And what the fuck up with that?