Santa Rosa Art Foundation Raises Funds With Medical Pot
Read the article here: http://www.ktvu.com/news/25386184/detail.html
"Funding was challenging,” said Kaechele. “The current economic climate has been terrible, so it seemed like a creative way to address funding the arts."What does this fundraising activity have to do with the organization's mission? And please, this is NOT a legalization conversation. Just simply, does this funding strategy match up? And does it have to? Will this turn off potential patrons/donors from the organization?
If part of Life Is Art's mission is to connect art with nature (outdoor installations), then sure, that fits. But I have some concerns aside from legality.
ReplyDeleteFirst, is it more cost effective to run basically what would be a second business to support the first?
Secondly, how smart is it to invite the public to installations, events, etc when your cash crop is somewhat accessible to them? And a crop that is very valuable on the black market at that.
I do like the idea of using nature to fuel art. But the stigma and legal issues would definitely cut your donor base off. Instead, I could see this model working with a winery.
"Creative" is definitely a creative way of putting it.
ReplyDeleteA lot of fundraisers don't match up with their organization. Since when does a parish's bingo/casino night complement its mission? The article also cited black-tie dinner fundraisers; when held by arts organizations that maintain an objective of being open to everyone, the idea of a lavish, posh gala can give the opposite impression. Still, these events strive to make money so that the organization can continue to operate. If every fundraiser is required completely match the organization's mission, it could end up limiting itself to wider donor possibilities.
It is possible that this fundraising technique could make it hard to be taken seriously not just by donors, but by anyone. However, it seems that those who currently take part in Life is Art have no problem with the "crop" initiative. And because legalization of marijuana is a hot topic, especially in California (and is even a proposition on Santa Rosa's November ballot), Kaechele could find some supporters of the issue who then become supporters of her organization. Therefore, I don't think Kaechele is turning off the people she is looking to serve--and she may very well find a wider audience through this. However, one has to be careful when raising money via such a politically charged subject.
It's unconventional for sure, but maybe this will work for Life is Art. Mandee made a good point, though: could this turn into a second business that completely deviates from what Kaechele original set out to accomplish? It would be interesting see the results over time.
Per the "running a second business to support the first," do you think that's a phrase that could also be used to define gift shops in museums?
ReplyDeleteI gotta agree with Rya Kleinpeter.. it's innovative, it's creative, and when it comes down to it, is it really that much better or worse than throwing an over-priced cocktail hour for the nouveau riche? I'd rather depend on medical marijuana and answer to state ag laws than to the whims of rich donors. In a sense a non-profit NOT dependent on the millions/grants of a few sources is much strong, and likely better able to actually comply with and pursue their mission.
ReplyDeleteIf its legal, medicinal, supporting the organization's mission, and strengthening supportive relations, then I could have no qualms with this approach to funding an arts organization. However, my concern lies with the affect that this funding approach could have on audiences' perception of the arts. An art organization associated with any enhancer(or what have you) reinforces ideas the artists are "out there" and "on something" and keeps artists and the organizations supporting them from being taken seriously.
ReplyDeleteAlso,
Pot, alone, is a such a hot commodity; I think selling it does serve as a second business. A gift shop is more like an "extended service" rather than a second business because the shop wouldn't thrive without the organization - selling branded items and souvenirs related to the organization. Pot, however, can survive without the organization.
If the organization had gotten someone to donate it for their fundraiser and then they sold it, I could see that as a feasible fundraiser. (ignoring arguments for legality and etc)
ReplyDeleteIt strikes me as strange that a company would create an entire product using a completely different skill set (or does farming count as an art in California these days?) in order to create funding.
I think it would be just as weird if they were growing cucumbers. It seems like the most extreme bake sale there is. (Ha, no pun intended!)
I do wonder if this means that the artists in residency have made quite a few paintings of the lovely marijuana fields. It must be somewhat awkward to try and have outdoor installations, though. Is it just me, or is everyone else imagining hippies coming for the sculpture, grabbing handfuls of weed, and bolting down the road?
What if there's a drought or some other agricultural blight? Risky.
ReplyDeleteThis idea is an interesting one and I have to say I would have never thought of an arts org. doing this. Even growing and selling vegetables to fund themselves is an interesting idea again, that I would have never thought of.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I do not see anything wrong with this. They are following correct procedures and aren't doing anything illegal. This is one of the benefits of legalizing medicinal marijuana: you can tax the heck out of it (or use it for a multitude of other purposes... like funding arts organizations).
About the notion that this might put off potential donors/patrons: I'm not sure if there is anything to this. I think if an organization tried this here in D.C., or pretty much anywhere else other than California (and maybe Colorado) it might have a negative effect. But the "marijuana culture" is so much differnt in California. I visited Berkely over the summer and was astounded how much it had become a real part of the culture there and seeped in. Conversely, I would think that it might also attract a certain segment of the population(maybe not a segment that they want to attract?).
I would love to see how this group does in the long term, to see if this is a sustainable way of fundreaising.
I'm totally on board with Nick, dude. It's like when people have yard sales or lemonade stands and they don't have family members helping out or they accidentally fall asleep out back...in a hammock...or...um... Whoa...like what was I talking about?
ReplyDeleteBut seriously folks...
I think this kind of fundraising is completely viable given current economic realities. In addition to securing the necessary finances for Life is Art's projects and artists, the organization has also successfully marketed itself (to the tune of national press coverage) to a substantially larger audience. Not only has an increased awareness of the organization been created through this press, but I actually believe that people will support and/or fund LIA based SOLEY on how that have decided to raise funds.
That's totally 2 birds with stone, man.
In response to Anna's question, museum stores not only provide revenue, they also support the missions of the museums (and are required to do so) by providing collection/exhibit-related merchandising. In the foundation's case, the farming venture is another animal all-together and only provides financial support.
ReplyDeleteI think Guy will have to post twice next week.
ReplyDeleteIt's not traditional, and even a little crazy. I thought it's interesting, because this craziness is helpful in rising society's concern toward arts. Look at what artists/arts organizations have been forced to do in order to solve the surviving issue under the funding shrinking situation! In my opinion, what they were doing was able to draw more attention to this organization, outreach to new potential audience and even policy makers. They advocated how hard artists/arts orgs have fought for to make arts and deliver arts to communities.
ReplyDeleteLet me try this again ... I like the idea. It's legal and practical. After all, it's an arts organization, and an installation arts organization at that. They provide a service for a hosp. and income generated goes right into their organization. Simple.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kendra on "If its legal, medicinal, supporting the organization's mission, and strengthening supportive relations, then I could have no qualms with this approach to funding an arts organization." Kendra is right in saying that it has clear benefits for this organization based on their mission and intentions for this side business. Like any controversial issue, there are two sides and I am sure there is a culture that will support/respect this partnership of art and pot for financial sustainability.
ReplyDeleteThis brings up a larger issue of what a partnership/relationship can do/cause for an organization. A side business with disputable products may project connotations about the organization. This is just a risk that the arts organization will just have to take, with this understanding.