Peter Dobrin's 2013 series in the Philadelphia Inquirer about the city's culture sector paints a picture of a once booming industry. But now, as Dobrin wrote, "The Philadelphia cultural community's increasing financial challenges are to some extent a result of its success and growth over the last two decades." In other words, Philadelphia's arts and culture sector grew too much, too quickly.
All of the "cultural resources" in Philadelphia according to the Social Impact of the Arts Project (SIAP) as mapped by Culture Blocks. Is the large amount a good thing?
When initially considering what our class should fund with our Steem raised in @phillyhistory's #explore1918 project, I wanted to prioritize digital training. I still believe that a huge problem in the cultural sector is the inability of historical institutions to keep up with technology. Lack of training in this area prevents institutions from successfully reaching greater audiences, or forces them to contract out expensive tech workers who, at the end of their contract, leave the institution with a tool that no one on the permanent staff understands how to maintain.
After reading Dobrin's pieces, however, I now have a different idea for our funding: helping struggling institutions gracefully shrink or merge.
When institutions are struggling to make building payments, they are less able to produce innovative, exciting work. Yet, while growing or simply maintaining current size is expensive, so is downsizing.
In the case of the struggling Philadelphia History Museum, there has been talk about a potential merge with Temple University. Yet, it is unclear how much of this transition Temple would actually fund. Besides moving fees, such a merger will require money to protect some of the Museum's collection and potentially restructure the Museum's mission to fit the University setting.
The Philadelphia History Museum at its current location, the Atwater Kent building. The 75 year-old institution is now facing the risk of closure. Image retrieved here
We could help fund this change.
Instead of acting as an old-school repository for Philadelphia's historical artifacts, at Temple, the Museum could redefine itself as an education hub for both the public and University students. The move could represent an opportunity for the Museum to reframe its structure and mission in a way that better fits current demand.
Dobrin references mergers as a feasible, if not inevitable, step for some of Philadelphia's cultural institutions. He observed, "After two decades of supporting expansion, foundations are now supporting contraction." We should join this effort.
The model of equating success with growth is not sustainable.
Before an organization can innovate, it needs to be on a steady financial footing. If an institution is able to receive the financial support necessary to downsize, in addition to helping long-term financial stability, perhaps the change can also invite a more innovative structure and mission statement.
Do you think that downsizing can help innovation? How can we convince funders that growth shouldn't always be the priority?
Source:
Dobrin, Peter. “Philadelphia's culture boom strains under the costs of upkeep; For Phila. arts, a shifting donor base; A new field of donors; The Philanthropic Firmament.” Philadelphia Inquirer. 22 Sept. 2013 – 3 Nov. 2013.
100% of the SBD rewards from this #explore1918 post will support the Philadelphia History Initiative @phillyhistory. This crypto-experiment conducted by graduate courses at Temple University's Center for Public History and MLA Program, is exploring history and empowering education. Click here to learn more.