Moore College in Phila. - Group Three

The Big Canvas - Oct. 5, 2008

There were eight participants. One from South Jersey, one from Germantown, and six from Center City. Two men and six women, six older than 30 years of age and two younger than 30. Seventy-five percent were Caucasian, and 25 percent African American.

There was a high level of participation in the group, and members shared their views openly. Most everyone in the group felt that they did not like the framework the way it was written and that none of these approaches are exclusive of the other. There are certain actions from each that should go forward. 

In Approach #1, they really liked access/transportation, culture passport, professional development for artists (find a way which is equitable), and an information clearing house or marketing of all arts and culture. They felt that Approach #1 focused too much on the individual artists. They also felt that #1 was abstract and the group questioned how you would measure results.

In Approach #2, the group liked the idea of a children’s passport, bringing arts to the kids (Arts Mobile), and they felt that art should be included in day time curriculum as well as after school programs. They felt that getting support from sports teams and casinos to help fund #2 would be a good idea. What they didn’t like was the idea of matching funds, and just focusing on youth. They felt it was important to get other’s involved e.g. people who educate children, parents, and those who touch the lives of kids.

In Approach #3, the group liked seeing art as a springboard for the economy. They liked the idea that this approach validated art. They also supported actions that would make an investment in getting college grads to stay in Philadelphia.  Most of the group supported the idea of a Regional Festival like Spoleto. In addition, they liked the idea to challenge corporations to enter into partnerships with cultural organizations. What concerned them about this approach was the name of it “Creative Economy.”  It sounded elitist to them.

In Approach #4, they liked the idea that art doesn’t exist in a vacuum and that art is built into the community. Art colonies should include support for the hearing and visually impaired. They felt Approach #4 should be tied into the schools (#2) and emphasize parent involvement. They also felt this approach could be linked to the Creative Economy (#3) but as a “grassroots approach.” An example of this would be to approach a community development organization, or block captains and find out what their priorities are in economic development. (How can we beautify our community or community gardens?) They questioned the funding for this approach. 

Common ground:

• Support art as a core curriculum in schools.

• Tax casinos for funding.

• Include entire community (kids, parents, community, high school students, college grads, etc.).

• Provide for hearing impaired and vision impaired at all arts and culture events.

• Accessible – parking, transportation, affordability.

• Culture pass.

• Marketing of all cultural events; a central repository plus local.

• Local marketing.

• No one approach – need a combination.

• Provide professional development for artists.

• Spend money on the arts as a spring board for economic development.

Action steps/New ideas:

• Provide a METRO SCREEN that advertises all arts and culture events. This would be not only in Center City but also in other parts of the city and suburbs.

• A discussion took place regarding the need to provide for the hearing and vision impaired at all events.

• This group thought the idea of using SQUARES all over the region and around the city. (Ex: Events that occur in Rittenhouse Square.)

Moderators: Susanne Iannece and Loretta Raider