Art should not be viewed merely as means to an economic or even cultural development plan, but more as the true reflection of who we are, what visions we hold and how we struggle to bring these to life. Perhaps it's an alternative to what could be described as a choking, degenerative mass culture that is mostly imported and spoon-fed, yet, its antithesis is poor in content and context.
The truth is that the down-town cultural development lobby didn't really plan wisely for open participation in the Arts & Culture Hypothesis because it would have certainly attracted more than the 50 or 60 (at one time) entourage of "arts advocates" attending the various meetings. One look at other relative precedents and their participation statistics for public meetings (such as the Lakewood school debate - as recently noted in the Free Times.) would prove this. A few years back the whole basement of the Ohio City YMCA had more people attending a presentation on the progress of the Franklin Castle renovation than most of these so called public forums for the arts. What has happened since? Has Cleveland become a city of migrant barbarians? Of course not!
The Cultural Taskforce was put together as a sort of semi-private incubator/ personal advising board for a couple well-intended people. Then somehow (all points to the unexpected), the ideals of democracy and public participation emerged and so a simple list of bureaucratic meetings went on to become just a little more known than it was initially intended. Perhaps even it was all the brouhaha with Cool Cleveland, C3 and then some more mentions on media that got the series of events further out in the open.
The process of engaging the public in a debate that would stir up ideas and strategies for consideration by the local leaders regarding Arts & Culture in Cleveland is indeed one that is very appealing. The reality though points to the fact that the meetings took place at times when the general public could not easily attend and there were hardly any invites or any substantial publicity. Seems little peculiar strategy when in retrospect the arts would be charged with leading and stimulating economic and cultural development of an entire city. The public will be needed to rally but real involvement in terms of an ongoing, critical discourse - a sign of a healthy and open society- seems now a half painted illusion, perhaps even a swinging carrot.
Where were all the individual artists, the gallery owners, the performers, the art-collectors and friends of the arts, the writers, the poets, etc during these unprecedented crucial moments of public contemplation? At best you could count them on one hand per group. Contrary to that though there was an overwhelming attendance by political advisors, marketing experts, media people, representatives from all the major institutions and all sorts of other public and private groups. Even C3: a grass-roots artsy get-together had at one point an abundance of such members in its Yahoo! e-group!
Despite all that, the meetings did start out with a good dynamic and at one - ever so brief stage - had a growing participation. That of course dwindled as soon as it became increasingly apparent that the procedure was not really set up to fully engage with the public in a more vigorous approach. A process that would thoroughly examine the local needs and wants and would be more focused on what to offer rather than how! Instead the nature of the public forums seemed all the more contrived and eager to utilize any public participation as means to sanctify its self proclaimed open nature and all subsequent deliberations. In reality public participation more or less resembled that of an audience in a TV talk show.
Is it a surprise really to find out (in a recent Plain Dealer article by Carolyn Jack) that after all Cleveland may not have an independent arts levy because of some bureaucratic limitation pointing to insufficient population numbers? If any surprise exists it can only turn to astonishment when one hears the calls for artists to rally behind a levy that seems will not provide solutions or even any clear-cut resolutions pertaining directly to the actual subject of the entire debate: Arts & Culture in Cleveland.
Perhaps then it can be a very valid lesson, (and this ties back to the people who once showed up out of concern and sincere interest for their neighborhood), that its neither too good nor too wise of any political or civic strategy to underestimate the perception of the public or fervently insist in patronizing it in all the decision making when sooner or later it will be time for last calls.
by Niko Angelis, C3: Cleveland Creative Coalition, Founding Member and Cool Cleveland contributor
(:divend:)