June 24-30, 2004

art

Culture Clash

Questions still surround the city's shutdown of the Office of Arts and Culture.

by Doron Taussig

There was something mysterious about last week's announcement that the city was closing its Office of Arts and Culture. The Street administration declared that the office would have all $400,000 of its funding pulled as part of a larger budget crunch, but told Philadelphia not to worry — none of the office's programs would be discontinued. The mayor's office appeared to be saying that it planned to save $400,000 without losing any tangible services. Hence, the mystery: What exactly does the Office of Arts and Culture do? And can it really be done without any money?

The OAC has two primary responsibilities: First, it coordinates a number of arts-related programs, such as Art in City Hall and the Student Exhibition Program. Very little money goes into these programs aside from the salaries of the people running them, because most of the work involves organizing exhibitions — Art in City Hall, for example, requires someone to coordinate exhibitions in City Hall, but the city doesn't purchase the pieces or the space. Second, according to its mission statement, the OAC "supports the interests and concerns of the city's cultural community and advocates on its behalf."

Tom McNally, city Commerce Department spokesman, explains that the art programs will be "repositioned to other areas of the city government." Art in City Hall, for instance, may be moved to the Department of Public Property, and the Percent for Art program will be taken over by the Capital Program Office. The OAC's seven employees will be laid off, and the other departments "will just assume [the responsibility of running the programs] in addition" to what they already do, says McNally. Since the bulk of the OAC's budget goes toward the employees' salaries, the closing is "going to save money in terms of staffing."

It would appear that this plan boils down to certain departments doing more work without receiving more money. McNally declines to characterize the situation that way: "I don't want to make that statement," he says. Instead, he says, this is an "extremely difficult budget year and there are some difficult decisions" to be made.

Both the Department of Public Property and the Capital Program Office referred questions about their capacity to assume these responsibilities to the mayor's press office. Spokeswoman Barbara Grant acknowledges that the workload will be difficult: "We're all straining to bring this budget in — departments are being asked to do things without corresponding increases in staff or resources." But she emphasizes that the mayor believes he has transferred the OAC's responsibilities to the appropriate departments: Public Property, for instance, already oversees the upkeep of City Hall. "These were the most logical places" to move the OAC's programs, Grant says.

As for the OAC's advocacy role, McNally insists, "The city will still be there for the arts community." For now, some representatives of that community do not seem prepared to take the city at its word. They worry that an important partner is being lost. Terry Nolan, producing artistic director of the Arden Theatre, says the OAC provides his organization with "support and guidance," as well as acting as a contact within the government. "Having that kind of direct contact with the city is invaluable," he says.

Nick Stuccio of the Fringe Festival echoes Nolan's sentiments, but uses more metaphors. Stuccio calls the OAC the "glue" and the "connective tissue" that binds the arts community to the "behemoth" that is the city government. The loss of the arts office will create a "vacuum" or a "void."

"Let me put this delicately," Stuccio says. "[The closing] is not a good thing."

Both men heap praise on Carol Lawrence, the current director of the OAC. They say she knows the arts and the city intimately, and they worry that the people assuming her responsibilities will not share her commitment or her expertise.

So, can the OAC's duties be performed without any funding? That depends partly on whether the city can find competent stewardship for the OAC's programs, and partly on whether the city is serious about maintaining its commitment to culture. Nolan is skeptical. "There's just something about knowing that there are people who work for the city who are trying to advance arts and culture," he says. He also expresses pessimism about the future of the city's relationship with the arts. "It's hard to believe that the office will come back. Once it's closed, it's closed for good."