Accessibility and Declining Patronage in the Performing Arts

Introduction

This study addresses the recent decline in arts patronage with attention to its underlying factors. While recent research has focused on the economic pressures that have resulted in decreased funding for the arts, it has frequently failed to investigate the attitudes and perceptions that inform these economic decisions. In order to bridge this critical gap, this study examines the different barriers to participation in the arts and determines that the recent decline is the result of practical and perceptual barriers to participation that engage in a vicious cycle: misinformed attitudes towards art precipitate decreased public and private support, which in turn serves to perpetuate those attitudes. Stepping outside this cycle in order to reverse the decline requires an honest assessment of art's benefits and a careful consideration of which benefits should be emphasized when making appeals for greater patronage and support.

In times of economic uncertainty, funding for the arts is almost always the first to be cut from the budget. These cuts affect everything from music programs in schools to major symphony orchestras, but most importantly, they jeopardize the future of the performing arts in the United States. However, the downward trend in patronage that the performing arts have experienced cannot be tied exclusively to the economic downturn, because this trend existed prior to the economic collapse of 2008. Instead, these cuts contribute to a long-running pattern of decreased support for the arts, such that the performing arts now face a dramatic and potentially uncertain future — one in which traditional forms of support have all but dried up and the kind of substantial emergency assistance from governmental organizations that arrived after the last economic catastrophe in the form of the Works Progress Administration is nowhere to be seen. As a result, the performing arts are forced to rely increasingly on patronage, even as patronage rapidly becomes one of the least reliable sources of funding.

Recent research into the decline in patronage and financial support for the arts has often focused on strictly economic variables, such as economic downturns, increased competition between organizations, and decreased public funding, but these examinations can only highlight the extent of the decline, not the reasons for it. Furthermore, these strictly quantitative analyses often run the risk of misidentifying symptoms as causes — attributing, for example, a decrease in public funding for art to the inscrutable movements of government rather than to an intelligible shift in the public's and government officials' perception of art and its utility. Nevertheless, they provide a useful starting point for considering the recent decline in patronage.

The problem facing the world of performing arts, then, is to determine the actual underlying causes of the long-term decline in patronage in order to begin reversing this trend, with the hope that an increase in general patronage can help precipitate a larger cultural shift in which the performing arts have access to some of the same resources as other endeavors. Though the phenomenon of declining patronage in the arts has been identified for some time, only within the last decade have researchers seriously begun to investigate its underlying causes, focusing among other variables on management and prior experience. While these factors all play some part in the decline, it is necessary to acknowledge that they are part of a larger problem regarding accessibility in the performing arts — that is, the degree to which individuals feel comfortable engaging in or supporting the performing arts, and the ease with which they can do so. This investigation therefore focuses on the major barriers to accessibility and on how changes in management and efforts to encourage early exposure can reverse the downward trend in patronage.

In attempting to determine the causes behind this downturn in patronage, the researcher determined that qualitative measurements are the most effective method, because when discussing the performing arts and individuals' engagement with them, experience and impact — both inherently subjective — are paramount. This is not to suggest that quantitative research cannot supply useful information, but rather to point out that quantitative contributions serve primarily to reveal the extent and economic impact of the qualitative factors influencing patronage. After analyzing the extant literature on patronage and funding in the performing arts, the researcher found two key categories of barrier to arts participation, patronage, and funding: practical barriers and perceptual barriers. These interrelated issues require both managerial and attitudinal adjustments, and when considering which variables accurately predict arts patronage even in light of the recent decline, it becomes clear that early exposure and prior experience with the arts is the single most crucial factor determining patronage and participation — a finding that necessarily calls for a renewed consideration of the importance of arts education.

Literature Review

The decline in patronage of the performing arts is dramatic and well documented. In 1982, 40% of U.S. adults "visited at least one art museum or gallery or […] attended a live arts performance in the last twelve months," but by 2008 this number had dropped to 35% (Katz, 2009, p. 4). This decline is even more precipitous in the performing arts specifically — which already represented a smaller portion of overall arts participation — such that in certain categories, such as opera and ballet, participation dropped by almost a third (Katz, 2009, p. 4). Except for slight fluctuations between 1982 and 2008, the decline has been consistent and increasingly rapid (Katz, 2009, p. 4). Furthermore, "performing arts audiences are aging rapidly," and although education and income were once associated with greater participation, the decline now transcends even these categories, such that "even the most educated Americans are participating less than before" (Katz, 2009, pp. 6, 8).

This demonstrates that the decline has occurred across the board and must be attributed to something other than the variables that previously accounted for differences in arts participation, such as education or income. The rapid aging of the performing arts audience further suggests that the underlying cause has something to do with experience or educational priorities, because there must be some identifiable generational change to explain this discrepancy. Before addressing this significant clue, however, it is necessary to discuss the various economic and political explanations already provided in the literature, because, as will be seen, these explanations — though helpful in demonstrating the extent of the decline — also reveal a critical analytical gap that has hindered productive discussion of this issue.

While patronage of the performing arts has been on the decline in the United States for some time, only in the last decade has the issue been examined in depth by researchers. As one might expect, these examinations have frequently focused on the economics of art, and in particular the often-contentious relationship between the arts and the various governmental programs that offer funding. This focus has intensified as schools and universities have been forced to cut budgets, because arts funding is often one of the first things to be trimmed. The reasons for this practice are varied, but an examination of the extant literature regarding arts funding and state sponsorship reveals that it results from two distinct yet related attitudes concerning the "utility" of the arts and the extent of the government's interest — and duty — in supporting them.

First, because the benefits of the arts and arts education are often not as immediately apparent as the benefits of, say, math, science, or physical education, arts funding is frequently viewed as superfluous or even wasteful, even though this attitude lacks a basis in reality. In fact, arts education has been positively correlated with increased science and math scores, and studies into the economic impact of the nonprofit arts industry reveal that by 2003 the nonprofit arts industry in the United States generated roughly "$134 billion in economic activity every year — $53.2 billion in spending by arts organizations and an additional $80.8 billion in event-related spending by arts audiences" (Cohen, Schaffer, & Davidson, 2003, p. 30). This massive industry "has a significant impact on the nation's economy, supporting 4.9 million jobs and generating $24 billion in total government revenue" (Cohen, Schaffer, & Davidson, 2003, p. 30).

These numbers come from the 2003 Arts & Economic Prosperity study, described as "the most comprehensive economic impact study of the nonprofit arts industry ever conducted," which examined the economic impact of the arts in ninety-one communities across the United States (Cohen, Schaffer, & Davidson, 2003, pp. 19, 31). Economic impact was defined according to three criteria: full-time equivalent jobs (the total amount of labor employed, including part-time work, rather than simply the number of individuals), resident household income in each community, and revenue to local and state governments — including taxes as well as "license fees, utility fees, filing fees, and so forth" (Cohen, Schaffer, & Davidson, 2003, p. 18). Assessing the economic impact of the arts on these communities allowed the researchers to produce a national impact estimate, the results of which were stated above.

Ultimately, the researchers found that when communities "support the arts, [they] not only enhance the quality of community life but also invest in their economic well-being" (Cohen, Schaffer, & Davidson, 2003, p. 30). The researchers concluded by noting that while "the very legitimate question remains as to whether economic impact should be the rationale for increasing funding and access opportunities for the arts […] at this time in history, economic development is perhaps the most persuasive message when making the case for arts support to local, state, and national leaders" (Cohen, Schaffer, & Davidson, 2003, p. 31). To understand why the researchers presumed that an economic argument is the most persuasive, one must consider the second attitude regarding public funding of the arts that leads leaders to cut arts funding first when trimming budgets.

As noted above, the arts are often the first things cut during budgetary planning because "they are often perceived to be luxuries, worth supporting in good times but hard to justify when the economy is struggling," regardless of the tangible but under-reported societal and economic benefits they provide (Cohen, Schaffer, & Davidson, 2003, p. 17). However, this attitude represents only one side of the issue, because even when those benefits are acknowledged, there remains unease "about having the government decide which works and kinds of works of art merit support, given the role that art can play in the formation and sustenance of moral conceptions" (Brighouse, 1995, p. 36). Anyone attempting to understand the budgetary issues faced by the arts must therefore recognize that there is always a sizable constituency that believes the government should have no role in the creation and dissemination of artistic works, regardless of the potential benefits.

For reasons stemming from the increased political polarization of the last thirty years, "it is even harder than has usually been thought for liberals to legitimately advocate state funding of the arts" in the face of "conservative attacks on the functions of the democratic state in America" regarding arts funding (Brighouse, 1995, p. 35). This is not to suggest that support or opposition necessarily aligns with party affiliation, but rather to recognize that public funding for the arts has been a traditionally liberal policy goal — as seen in the case of the Works Progress Administration — and that the ascendancy of American conservatism over the last thirty years has brought with it an attendant focus on constraining public support of the arts. One of the motivating factors behind Brighouse's analysis was the 1989 passage of the so-called Helms amendment to the National Endowment for the Arts budget, which stated that:

None of the funds authorized to be appropriated pursuant to this act may be used to promote, disseminate, or produce (1) obscene or indecent materials, including but not limited to depictions of sadomasochism, homoeroticism, the exploitation of children, or individuals engaged in sex acts; or (2) materials which denigrate the objects or beliefs of the adherents of a particular religion or non-religion; or (3) material which denigrates, debases, or reviles a person, group, or class of citizens on the basis of race, creed, sex, handicap, age, or national origin. (1989 NEA Appropriations Bill, in Brighouse, 1995, p. 59)

As Brighouse rightly points out, the problem with the amendment is not that it constitutes censorship — denying funds for expression is not the same as actively limiting expression — but rather that the language of the amendment singles out one group for undue implicit criticism (homosexuals) while effectively neutering any funded art by prohibiting work on the grounds that it might offend people of "a particular religion or non-religion," which is to say, virtually anyone (Brighouse, 1995, p. 60). This reveals that the point of the Helms amendment is not so much to censor publicly funded art as to end the practice of funding the arts altogether through incremental legislative action. It is also worth noting that in addition to these content restrictions, the 1989 NEA appropriations bill reduced the endowment's overall funding by 40% (Brighouse, 1995, p. 59). This gradual de-funding of the arts at the national level has reverberated throughout the states as well: while State Arts Agencies once represented "the largest single source of public arts funding in the United States," peaking at "approximately $447 million in fiscal year 2001," in the last ten years they have faced budget reductions ranging from 25 to 100% (Urice & Eyyuboglu, 2005, pp. 206, 208).

The relatively recent reductions in public funding for the arts starkly demonstrate the crisis the arts face in the United States, but these budget cuts must be considered a symptom of a larger problem rather than its cause. While public funding for the arts has decreased dramatically since 1989, this only exacerbated a decline that was already evident following a period of substantial growth during the 1960s and 1970s (Scheff & Kotler, 1996, p. 28). Various researchers have attempted to explain this decline as the result of "the economic recession, changing philanthropic priorities among foundations and corporations, […] and increased competition for contributions due to the significant growth of the sheer number of nonprofit organizations competing for funds," but these explanations merely shift the question; one must still ask why arts funding decreases disproportionately following a recession, or why foundations and corporations shifted their values (Scheff & Kotler, 1996, p. 29).

As discussed above, the decrease in funding following economic depression is due to the ultimately unfounded perception of the arts as a luxury, and changing philanthropic priorities necessarily insinuate a change in attitude regarding the value of the arts relative to other endeavors. The third explanation — increased nonprofit competition — might be believable if one could identify a period of stabilization following a possible arts-organization bubble, but no such stabilization has occurred; instead, the decline has continued for thirty years, a period actually longer than the expansionary decades of the 1960s and 1970s. Thus, when attempting to uncover the reasons behind the decline in patronage and support for the performing arts, one must go beyond these cursory justifications and attempt to explain the changes in attitude and perception that underlie them.

Fortunately, the last ten years has also produced important research into the variables that influence the reception and perception of the arts. In their analysis A New Framework for Building Participation in the Arts, McCarthy and Jinnett (2001) discuss a number of barriers facing potential participants in the arts, both as performers and patrons, and they note that one of the most commonly cited barriers is intimidation, which, as in many other fields, ultimately stems from a lack of experience (p. 33). This is an example of a perceptual barrier to participation, and it is much harder to overcome than practical barriers such as "high cost, inconvenient location, lack of information, scheduling conflicts, etc." (Zakaras & Lowell, 2008, p. 13). Taken together, these two categories represent the key factors responsible for the decline in arts patronage over the last three decades, but they do not function in precisely the same way, and it is important to recognize that, while closely related, they are responsible for different elements of the larger problem.

Methodology

Practical barriers to participation can be overcome relatively easily because their solutions are equally practical in nature, but perceptual barriers are especially pernicious because they are rooted in the individual's perception of the arts rather than in any tangible aspect of a particular arts program. Thus, even when all practical barriers are overcome, perceptual barriers may still remain that "inhibit interest and create resistance to participation" (Zakaras & Lowell, 2008, p. 13). Recognizing these barriers to participation is the first step toward confronting the reasons for the decline in arts patronage and formulating methods of combating it. This is why research into these barriers represents a far more important contribution to the field than the previously discussed economic studies, which, while helpful in determining the extent of the problem, are definitionally incapable of addressing the underlying causes.

While quantitative methods have proven extremely useful in determining the extent of the decline in patronage and financial backing for the performing arts, they can only carry the discussion so far, and as shown above, can actually lead researchers to misidentify symptoms as causes. For example, while a decrease in public funding for the arts has contributed to the decline, there are underlying social and attitudinal reasons for this that are not apparent when the issue is considered in solely quantitative terms. Qualitative variables must therefore be identified in order to effectively parse the underlying causes of this decline, since the experience and perception of art is often highly subjective, and one of the primary goals of this study is to determine how an individual's subjective experience of art affects the degree of arts accessibility they enjoy.

The central question motivating this study concerns the underlying factors that restrict or influence the experience and perception of the arts, and the variables that can overcome these restrictions to produce a more positive, engaged relationship with the arts. Rather than cataloging the various quantitative, economic factors that constitute the decline in patronage, this study seeks to address the underlying barriers to patronage that produce these economic effects and the means by which those barriers can be overcome. This means assessing both practical and perceptual barriers and the means by which they can be overcome in order to precipitate a shift in the way the arts are considered, both individually and on a societal scale. It is worth noting, however, that a complete account of the ideological factors influencing perceptual barriers to participation is well beyond the scope of this study and should be considered an important goal of further research. By definition, assessing these barriers demands a qualitative approach: although data exist on the relative number of people citing various barriers as reasons for inaccessibility, this data alone cannot reveal the complex interplay between these barriers, because understanding that interplay requires understanding how ideology and attitudes affect actions.

Furthermore, because there is a relative dearth of qualitative, longitudinal studies concerning the perception and experience of art, this study's primary qualitative approach focused on examining those studies that did at least attempt to measure experience, albeit indirectly or with minimal descriptive detail — as is typical in quantitative research, where questions must be formulated to provide information about the entire sample rather than detailed information about any specific participant. When considering studies of declining participation and patronage rates, the researcher therefore focused on investigating those variables that contributed to greater participation and patronage but had not previously been considered in the literature as predictors of arts participation.

After identifying these variables, it was possible to make qualitative judgments regarding their influence on arts participation and the likelihood of their being the cause behind the larger overall decline in patronage. By identifying the relatively small number of variables that have an outsized influence on arts participation, one can then use this knowledge to chart the complex relationships between these variables and the arts industry as a whole. Thus, the connections and correlations arising from quantitative data are used to make qualitative judgments about the socio-historical reasons for the recent decline in arts patronage.