|
 You Just Don't Understand Panelists: Terrance Dwyer, Eric Gibson and Christopher Knight Moderated by Morley Safer The following white paper is drawn from the remarks of the panelists and moderator for this session, along with the questions and responses from members of the audience. This document is intended to reflect the variety of viewpoints offered during the discussion, and to frame broadly the issues discussed; it should not be taken as a formal statement of opinion by the panelists. The American world of arts and culture is getting bigger, objectively speaking: there are more organizations, more new or expanded buildings, and a seemingly endless number of high-profile philanthropic contributions to help sustain this growth. Despite this expansion in our cultural sector, however, it is not clear that the journalists who write about the American arts scene understand the growth, or the motivations behind an institution's programming and activities. For journalists, the need to question motivations on the part of the organizations seems to come before any assumption of good will. Of course, one could also say those same arts organizations are their own worst enemy when it comes to handling journalistic inquiries. Principle, Practice, and... In the business world, a major investment in corporate expansion is usually tied to factors other than the public good: the need to launch a new product or service, or to battle with a competing company. So when such business-driven announcements are made, journalists rightly report not only on the facts behind the expansion, they also try to assess the underlying motivations. News in the art world, however, rarely has such clear-cut goals, since the launch of a new program may be driven by a single artist's vision, or in response to community demand, or the desire to present a diverse range of artistic ideas, or all of the above, as an expression of institutional philosophy. There is, it is believed, a greater degree of nuance in the art world. This emphasis on nuance makes the process of explaining the actions of a cultural organization more complicated and creates a complex pressure on being responsive to journalists. Many institutions may be their own worst enemy because they misread the kind of response needed. If an institution feels put on the defensive about a program, it may fail to make public, principled statements about its actions, which means that a newspaper's readers lose out because those principles won't appear in any news coverage. Conversely, institutions often think that they can hide behind principle in defense of poor judgment, a situation sure to provoke the ire of almost any journalist. Responses to questions that retreat into art world jargon reinforce stereotypes for the journalists and their audiences. If cultural institutions want the media, and in turn the public, to appreciate the nuances underlying their decisions, then they must place an equal emphasis on transparency. This is more than just a corporate buzzword in an era of greater accounting scrutiny. By achieving transparency, and seeking to collaborate with journalists rather than over-manage them, institutions can shift the focus—they can let the "gotcha" experience be one that engages the reader in a good story about the benefits of the arts, rather than about perceived malfeasance in the art world. ...the Public Interest Alright, so maybe it is true that many reporters have a narrow focus on a particular issue and lack a broader understanding of how arts institutions function. Maybe journalists also bring to their work a desire for purity that encourages them to reject as questionable some actions that might appear reasonable to the average reader. But those same reporters would also argue that this lack of knowledge only increases the value of their role—because it mirrors the low level of understanding of most Americans. As the culturally literate know well, the degree to which Americans are taught about the arts is shockingly low, and that definitely includes any awareness of the role, nature, or value of the non-profit organizations that present the arts. So in covering art news, journalists are helping all sides, even if the story is "negative," by providing the public with important information. It might even be said this journalistic approach is in the public interest. Indeed, this is a fundamental commonality between non-profit arts institutions and the news media: they are both meant to be working in ways that benefit their communities. Moreover, both groups receive special privileges as a result: non-profits receive an exemption from paying tax, and journalists receive strong free speech protections. But if the operational nature of cultural institutions is confusing to Americans, the role and responsibilities of journalists may not be much clearer. Is the news media there as an advocate for the public, or for the organizations, projects, and artists on which they are reporting? To a great degree, the public is strongly influenced by what it reads or sees on television, so whether news stories are positive or negative, a repetition of certain themes can have a strong impact on how audiences respond to an institution and its programs. To arts institutions, the answer about the journalistic focus is self-evident: the media should, to a large degree, be advocating for and on behalf of them, in a symbiotic relationship that benefits the communities both sides serve. Isn't that the definition of "public interest"? Everyone's a Critic Maybe, maybe not: journalists may agree that there are, or should be, some mutual benefits; the media definitely understands the impact it can have on public perceptions, and this is no less true for coverage of the arts and culture. But criticism, as a practice, is a community good in its own right. Not every artwork or program is well constructed, brilliantly thought out, or deserves to be seen, and it is the role of cultural critics to make these assessments and present them to the public. They may be one person's opinion, but they serve as a kind of barometer for the community. Whether audiences pay attention is a different matter, as there are as many instances revealing the success of programs panned by critics as there are critically acclaimed projects that have flopped with the public. The perception that there has been a sea change in the art world over the last century is probably true, and the institutions that have spawned that change—or survived it, or grown out of it—want to be recognized for their contributions. The newspapers and other media seem like the best and most logical place for such attention. Any discussion about news coverage of the arts, however, must also take into consideration the change that has affected the media during this same period: the development of radio, then television, and now the internet, have forced an evolution in the operations and role of journalism. These two fields, journalism and the arts, are both important to American audiences and communities, so to the extent that each can cooperate on educating the other about themselves—and agree, at times, to respect differences of opinion—the better both can thrive for the benefit of the public. For citation, please reference: http://www.berkshireconference.org/content/2006-understand.cfm
|
