The American Rescue Plan Act: All policy is cultural policy

The full transcript of this podcast is published below.
Explore the full GIA podcast.

Sherylynn Sealy:
Welcome to a podcast by Grantmakers In the Arts, a national membership association of public and private arts and culture funders. I am Sherylynn Sealy, GIA's program manager. On our May 2021 podcast, we discussed the Biden administration's American Rescue Plan Act, or ARP, and its purpose of helping districts gain equitable access to the arts and strengthen enriching arts education experiences for students. Then in June, AmeriCorps announced how it will use the $1 billion allocated by the ARP funds, which includes both expanding the number of fellowship opportunities, and increasing the amounts of stipends.

The pandemic made clear that artists and culture bearers are vulnerable workers and community members, with a particular perspective on what their communities need. In this podcast, we would like to elevate the voices of funders who've been leading in this area and those who've been pushing for more progressive creative worker policy. So today, we are so glad to have Deborah Cullinan, CEO of Yerba Buena Center for the Arts, Gonzalo Casals, commissioner of the New York City Department of Cultural Affairs, Emil Kang, program director for arts and culture at the Andrew Mellon Foundation, and one of our board members, Randy Engstrom, who will be facilitating the conversation today, so I will kick it over to you, Randy.

Randy Engstrom:
Thank you so much Sherylynn. It is such a privilege to be here, to be with you today. My name is Randy Engstrom, I use he/him pronouns. I hail from the anarchist jurisdiction of Seattle, Washington, the traditional territories of the Coast Salish people, the Duwamish and the Muckleshoot. And I am a recovering policymaker, I am an aspiring social practice artist, I am an adjunct faculty of arts leadership and public policy, and most importantly today, I'm a proud board member of Grantmakers In the Arts, an organization which I love very dearly.

So last March, this thing happened, the coronavirus took over the country and the world, and artists were some of the first and hardest hit. Many of them were immediately put out of work. The economic devastation was real and visceral, and at the same time, we saw from coast to coast, artists stepping in and lifting up their communities, establishing mutual aid networks, really being the social bond of their communities. They were how we healed and endured in many ways throughout the lockdowns and beyond. And then these ideas began to emerge around the role artists could play in how we recover, in how we heal, in how we reopen. And we live in a field and in a country and in a sector where individual artists have largely been under-supported going back to the 1990s, publicly and philanthropically. There hasn't been a lot of support for individual artists, the work of individual creative workers has been a bit outside the norms of how we do workforce development and employment safety nets.

So these three human beings that are joining us today have been taking on different parts of that challenge. How do we support creative workers? How do we center artists in our communities and in our recovery? The first question that I have for our esteemed guests is tell me about the landscape of creative worker policies, of individual artist support, as a matter of cultural policy, from your vantage point? And Deborah, I'd like to start with you.

Deborah Cullinan:
Thank you Randy, I had a feeling you might. I'm so glad to be here. I am here in San Francisco, the land of the Ohlone and Ramaytush people. And my response to the question, what's the landscape is, that we are in what I think many of us would call a moment. There is significant and increasing understanding of the role that artists can play in not only driving recovery but in helping us to achieve a much more equitable and healthy society. And there are so many examples of how this is coming together not only in terms of legislative policy and bills that are moving forward, whether it's at a state level, local level or the federal level, but also through privately funded efforts and very local and hyper-local efforts. So for me, the exciting thing is that there's a lot happening.

Randy, you can probably speak to the Creative Economy Revitalization Act that is authored by Representatives Fernandez and Olbernote and this is really a federal example of seeking to authorize hundreds of millions of dollars in recovery investment. And it really is about creative workers and it's about the role that creative workers can play in jump-starting economies, in driving health and well-being, and rebuilding trust, social cohesion.

Here in California just a couple of examples. We in San Francisco are very fortunate to have piloted the San Francisco Creative Corps with Mayor Breed in our city, and this was really about in the early days of the pandemic employing artists in order to spread health messages in context, in community, and to bring some joy and inspiration to that work is incredibly effective. We've also piloted a guaranteed income program also with our mayor here in San Francisco, where artists are getting $1,000 no strings attached funding and we're linking into efforts in New York, thank you to the Mellon Foundation, in St. Paul and elsewhere to really understand what the impact of this work can be.

One more really exciting piece of this is a bold bill that ties into the California Creative Corps, which our governor, Governor Newsom, put forward $60 million for the next three years for a creative workforce program across the state. And Californians for the Arts along with Arts for L.A. have been pushing valiantly a bill called the California Creative Workforce Act. It is now on the governor's desk, we are hoping he will sign it and it seeks to establish an arts' workforce program across the state, a kind of earn and learn approach that would lead to countless jobs. So I have lots more but I'll stop there.

Randy Engstrom:
Thank you so much Deborah. Gonzalo, I know you're working on a pretty significant initiative there in New York City. Can I invite you to speak on that?

Gonzalo Casals:
Yes. And thank you. And it's really significant but at the same time, if you compare it with the need, it's a drop in the bucket. That's why I'm excited Emil and his team are just doing similar work. But to think that $25 million is the largest support that the city of New York has given in over four decades, it's crazy what we have been thinking about it. And as Deborah was talking, it made me realize that finally, we're all talking about artists and not arts and culture, because that forced us to put the people at the center, the human at the center. And we started doing a way with a lot of the commodification of the art and the object through the for-profit just leaves the artists completely out that are successful.

And then but it's problematic. And I raise the hand and say that I've been doing this for my whole career, is that we give artists as cultural organizations gigs. You're going to be a teaching artist for a few hours every week, you're going to be an art handler whenever we change an installation. The artists accept that, because then they give them freedom to do their work whenever they are not working. But when the pandemic comes in, they're the first people to be left out because they have no protections, and that's when we start to look at the system in a different way. And really is it because it's artist, or is it because we're not treating them with the dignity that they need as members of our society.

Randy Engstrom:
That's really powerful. Thank you, Gonzalo. Emil, as a nice little shout out from Gonzalo there, and certainly the Mellon foundation is quite deserving of it. And you the private funder on this panel have launched quite a significant endeavor towards this effort and would love to hear more about that.

Emil Kang:
Thank you, Randy. I just want to say how grateful I am to join you all today as well, and to my distinguished colleagues, thanks for all their visionary work. I'm calling in from the [Lanaikia-hoking 00:08:24] land. And I would have to say that being relatively new to philanthropy myself, jumping in to the foundation at this time it's been humbling and really frightening to understand both the responsibility, burden and opportunity we have as funders in particular. Not just to respond to the urgent needs, which are critical, the urgent needs of our field and to artists, but also as a way to signal major transformational shifts in philanthropy, in particular. And for us to be able to utilize the opportunity of these tragedies and these challenges to learn from it, and actually start to shift our own grant making policies and processes and strategies.

And so I say all of that in the context that we are thinking about all those things at once, because I think that is our responsibility as a funder. And I'm so excited to be able to work with a visionary leader, like our president at the Mellon foundation, Elizabeth Alexander, who really did think about that as she was involved in the former governors re-imagine New York commission. Which led for us in many ways to think about how we were as funders, but responding to the crisis of the pandemic in a way that also could set us up for thinking differently about our support for the arts in the future. And I think I'll also just echo what Gonzalo said about differentiating between artists and arts and culture. I do think that we struggle and our society struggles with that inability to distinguish the two.

It also glosses over the real limitations of the existing nonprofit, industrial complex and how we actually need to think much more broadly about our sector, and we as funders need to think about who we support within that sector a bit more differently. And so in many ways, our responses to the pandemic, including our support for artists relief, the artist's relief fund, for an initiative called Artists At Work. And then this initiative that we launched recently for New York state called Creative Rebuild New York, are all centering the work of artists and valuing artists as workers, and also offer new models of support that both get funds directly to artists, but also acknowledges that artists work across labor markets and that they work across industries. And that in many ways, the focus of our funders has really been on the institutional side of things, as well as the audience side.

So we were really thrilled to be able to launch $125 million initiative called, Creatives Rebuild New York, which puts together a two-pronged initiative, both in terms of artists employment and in terms of guaranteed income. And through this initiative, we're hoping to be able to actually provide no-strings attached funding to 2,400 artists in New York state over the next few years. To both acknowledge their work on an ongoing basis, but also just to start to re-imagine how we start to count artists and their work without thinking about the work that they make, and on top of that, to understand their role in pushing forward the creative economy.

And the second part of our work through artist's employment is really about connecting the work of artists with the work of important arts organizations that are community driven across the state of New York, and allows them to be able to both shore up their employment of artists and the work of these organizations, but also to be able to give them time to pursue their creative practices. So we are taking multiple approaches to this work, at the same time we are trying to come up with new definitions of how we think about artists and the art sector. And at the same time also understand that we need to do a better job of valuing artists as workers across the country.

Randy Engstrom:
Thank you so much Emil. It sounds like what we're talking about is systems change, which is both about how we value artists… And I think Gonzalo, you made a really good point about the commodification of artists in the art sector, and we've gone so far into the instrumental argument for the value of arts and culture, that arts and culture create jobs and grow economies. I think what the last year has shown us is there's also a very instrumental value to arts and culture. The arts have been, and the work of artists has been in many ways, what has held communities together when they've been forced apart. So as we think about a systems change agenda, and we think about how we support individual artists in that context, what are some of the opportunities and challenges that you've each seen from your vantage point? And maybe I'll go in reverse order. Emil, can I throw that at you first?

Emil Kang:
One of the things I think we've seen is the real limitations of existing structures of supporting artists. And we have some wonderful organizations that exist already, like Creative Capital, Fractured Atlas, MAP fund, the United States Artists, these are all incredible places that support artists. But we know that they're under-capitalized, they're under-resourced, and the opportunities we have really are to both provide the resources to elevate their work, but also perhaps even to think about what are models that both can combine the impact of their work? Is there an opportunity for us to think about a new national organization to scale this more sufficiently?

I think of organizations that have really done a good job of both delivering service and advocating, and also even for those who don't participate to be able to have a broader understanding across the public like ACLU, Planned Parenthood. How do we in the arts actually establish a real national scale organization that actually can do all of those things at the same time, that can actually bring forth both the direct service nature of this need for artists and at the same time, help us beat the drum both in Washington and beyond?

Randy Engstrom:
That's great Emil. The need for that infrastructure is very real. Gonzalo, how do you see it from New York city?

Gonzalo Casals:
So I just want to add to what Emil said. When you look in general on how much money is spent in arts and culture, at least in New York city, which is what I know, a huge percentage of over the 90% of that is spent on presenting work. Which adds to the idea of commodification, is about the object on the wall and it's not about supporting artists to produce the work or to have the resources, to be able to even think about the work. So we are very much… and this is something that we funders are guilty of this. Emil and I, we can claim that we weren't around back then, but there was a moment in which we moved from charity, which was a problem, into philanthropy. Which was basically, use the rules of capitalism to apply to a philanthropy.

Each grant was an investment, you had to figure out, what's going to be the impact? Which there are a lot of things that are great about that, but we're forgetting what you were saying, which is there are other ways to measure the impact of arts and culture. And I do want to make a shout out for my predecessor and friend, Tom Finkelpearl, who was the one that brought the social impact of the arts project from Philadelphia to New York. And coming out of way too many years of the Bloomberg administration and looking at arts and culture as a tool for economic development. We were able to prove in DCLA that you could count and measure the social impact of the arts and in those communities, that there's presence of art and you don't need a museum in every town. Social cohesion and public safety, there are a lot of markers that go up just because of that presence. So again, as Emil said, understand what's not working already, which is what we should be doing about everything around the pandemic, and then figured out how we can build something better.

Randy Engstrom:
I love that Gonzalo. Shout out to also in addition to Mr. Finkelpearl who deserves his roses, for sure. Also, the Solidarity not Charity report that GIA commissioned in partnership our.co op, if you haven't been there. Again, as Gonzalo was saying, really challenging the systems and the quantification of value that exists in our field and in every field. And really how can we build more equitable, more just, more sustainable systems for artists and for everyone. Deborah, from the YBCA vantage, what are some of the challenges and opportunities that you're seeing?

Deborah Cullinan:
Yeah, to build on the powerful things that have been said when I think about the notion of systems change and the reality that at least in my belief, we're not here to return, we're here to push through and towards something much better. And for YBCA, we've developed a framework that really challenges the policies and the systems inside of multi-disciplinary performing arts, visual arts, organization. And we have three different ways of thinking about this, which are all about ecosystem development, all about thinking of the whole, of the artist as a human being not as a commission who produces a product or an object. And the three different ways we're thinking about this is YBCA create, which is really about moving from transactional relationships with artists to transformational relationships. Creating the conditions as an organization for artists to pursue the game changing ideas, getting out of the way, moving aside the top-down curatorial structure and centering the artists and creating those conditions, for the kind of creativity that we all know as possible, and the breakthrough ideas.

The second is YBCA champion, which really encompasses all the work that we do around advocacy, at the local state and federal level. But it's more than that. It's about really gathering the evidence of impact and sharing that evidence, raising awareness across sector, for the role that artists can play in advancing the outcomes that we all want to see. And so this is work around social impact investment, it's work in the public health field, it's work in education. And then the third piece is YBCA invest. And this is about what both Emil and Gonzalez where talking about, which is really about the idea that we have to think differently about how we invest in creativity in this country. And if you look at the system and the arts, and you add up all the dollars that might be exchanged between arts organizations and artists, and then you think about the fact that that system, even though it probably has significant… well, the resource is de-stabilizing the core community. That the artists that we work with do not have stable incomes.

How can we reimagine the way in which we think about investing in creativity, investing in artists. And so I imagine a few examples with guaranteed income and others, but it's really for me about thinking on that whole. The second piece that I would say, and it builds on what Emil was talking about, which is also this idea of hyper-local organizing. We have so many powerful organizers in communities across this country, and if we could find a way to create and organize a distributed system of advocacy, where we're sharing the stories, we are gathering the evidence of impact. We're using that evidence to advance policy, whether it's policy in a neighborhood or a classroom, or policy at the federal level. But we're doing it through a distributed system that really honors the people that have been on the ground doing this work for decades without the funding. Yeah, so those are some of the things that came to mind as I listened to the conversation.

Randy Engstrom:
That's great Deborah, thank you so much. And I really hear your point about the need for different kinds of investment strategies and different kinds of approaches. Gonzalo, in hearing Deborah talk about that, we know we need to think differently. Why do you think that's an important conversation for the field to be having now? And what would you tell GIA members, local arts agencies, Grantmakers, private family foundations, what would you tell them about why this is important, and what are some ways that folks can act?

Gonzalo Casals:
I've been saying this for a long time, and he's very silly. But in the many cultural organizations that are work for, which are all great, I have done great staff. I always tell them, "Look around the table, who is getting paid what, in this meeting about this project and who's not getting paid." So the marketing person is getting paid a full salary, benefits, every employee of the museum. The only person that is sitting in that meeting, spending hours, talking about a project is the artist. That may get paid honorarium, which is usually minimum, with no benefits anything like that. And I think that's the best way to show again, these sort of two tier or second class citizenship that we have in our cultural sector. And that's the first thing that we need to change.

Randy Engstrom:
I love that.

Gonzalo Casals:
And I was listening to Deborah. It's not only that the wealth goes to the object and then the object goes to somebody else not to the artist, is that they already kicked in with huge debts for going to school. Which these days, if you want to make it as a contemporary artist, you need to have the pedigree of one of the schools, if not curators won't pay attention to you.

Randy Engstrom:
It's almost like the system is flawed. That's a really important point. Thank you for that Gonzalo. Emil, what would you say to your fellow Grantmakers in the GIA universe about why this is important, and what they might be able to do? And in many ways, Mellon's lead by example, but what would you tell your peers?

Emil Kang:
Well, I do think that my colleagues have said why it's important. I guess I would just reiterate the distinction between supporting artists versus the art sector. I think that we don't acknowledge this enough and the real embedded-ness of artists feeling like they have to choose either between their art or their livelihoods, or choosing between their activism or their art, or that they have to choose between raising money through a non-profit structure or making money, like somehow that's a bad thing. How do we actually allow artists to be who they are, to be the… It sounds really silly, but I think we don't even realize as funders that we actually are furthering this divide and carving up what's convenient to us as funders, as opposed to actually acknowledging how artists work, how they've always worked to be perfectly frank. And how the system right now continues to encourage them to actually have to create infrastructures that they don't want or need, that also perpetuate white centered philanthropy.

So it continues and goes on and so forth. So as funders, what are we doing? There's the whole cliche of being a gate opener versus a gatekeeper. What are we doing to actually make the shift? And for us at Mellon, it is both. Obviously thinking about systems change work, although I think we are hesitant to even name that because that's a long ways away. I think what we can do is really just show through our actions just one thing at a time. And for us, it is about shouldering risks, number one. I think that we've been so guilty of watching the laboring artist on the side of the road, struggling to make their efforts and judging them for struggling and feeling, sorry, to be perfectly frank for struggling.

And instead of doing that, what we should be doing is actually shouldering the risk, lightening their loads and then getting out of their way. It's very simple. So what that means for us is, is include and think about our Grantmaking at Mellon far beyond the 501-C3. What does it mean for artists who are actually working in collectives, in mutual aid societies, in L3Cs, in BCorps, SCorps, LLCs, how are we actually doing this? How are we using the legal structures not as an obstacle, but as guidelines? What are we doing to actually extend our risk, to re-imagine what due diligence means? To look at them as…

I also think about this as how many cases we think of the idea of the control, but we don't call it that because that sounds so punitive and so paternalistic, but we use the term risk mitigation. And I think the whole notion of risk mitigation is actually trying to make the funder happy, as opposed to actually acknowledge the impact that our work might have. So really making that kind of switch to think about, the way that we work to actually address what artists are, as opposed to try and to continue to get artists to fit the buckets that we think of so nicely.

Gonzalo Casals:
[crosstalk 00:25:38]. And Randy I want to add one tiny little thing too, and while we get Emil a glass of water probably, is what we did with that… and it was intentionally for a few reasons, and then others, [inaudible 00:25:54] then the outcomes are showing up. We wanted to make sure that this was a grant that was going directly to the artists. And while there was a component in which the artists had to present a community related or public event, they had the power to decide with which organization they were going to work and what that project is going to be. And we're not going to have the numbers probably until late October, because some of the projects are happening, but it's interesting how many non-traditional arts and culture venues have been used by artists to engage community once they're given the opportunity to make the decision.

Randy Engstrom:
That's great. Thank you Gonzalo for adding that. And Emil, thank you for challenging all of the different ways that we could be working in thinking about supporting the creative sector, and not being trapped in the binary non-profit versus for-profit argument, that circular argument. Deborah I'd like to turn to you because YBCA has really done a lot of work in this space. What would be your advice to your peers? To your peers as presenters and producers and to your peers in the Grantmakers in the Arts universe?

Deborah Cullinan:
I feel like Emil and Gonzalo said so much that I would just want to echo. But for me, I think we need to believe in what is possible, we need to believe that we can change the way we operate as a sector. And I feel just understanding that together and with culture and creativity, we can imagine and realize a future that is very different than what we have today. And YBCA is one small example and its contacts in San Francisco, but it is proof that we can try things. And we sometimes fail and we pick ourselves up and we keep trying. And so I feel it's really important to create an environment where we can all take some risks, where we can all take some steps. Where we can move some things over here, and if it doesn't work, move them back.

Where we can prototype and experiment towards something that's much better. And that's really what we're doing at YBCA, which is just trying. And it will not always work, but we will learn from it. So that feels really important too, as we think about how we consider funding and investing in the artists and in the field as we move forward. The other thing too is, it's like we get caught up in what the structures that funding or policy support and not the people, and that the impact that people can have in their communities and their own lives. And I feel when you think about it, if you invest in an artist, she will invest tenfold in her community. It's one of the best ripples of return that you could possibly imagine.

And I feel for us, we need to be singing that story loudly. Even in the instance of these extraordinary gifts from people like MacKenzie Scott and others, we're learning that arts organizations return that money into community. And then it returns and it ripples and it returns, and we're not good at telling that story, it's probably the best investment you can make.

Randy Engstrom:
Shout out to MacKenzie Scott. And thank you for naming experimentation. Because experimentation it's come up a couple of times in this conversation. We have as a field, lived in a pretty risk averse place. We don't want to get sued, policy and systems change moves slowly generally. But when we allow room to experiment, we allow different outcomes to emerge. We allow different futures and different possibilities to emerge. And a central value of Grantmakers In the Arts is our commitment to racial equity. As you think about these new futures that are possible, as we think, not just about, as Alicia Garza said, "Not just building back better, but building back bolder." Understanding that what we had before was insufficient, under-capitalized, racially inequitable. How do we build towards cultural, economic and racial justice? What does that future look like? And how can we get more folks to that table? And Deborah, I'm going to start with you.

Deborah Cullinan:
I think we need to acknowledge and act upon the truth that communities are the best builders of their own futures. And that the more that we can shift power and resource to the people who are on the ground in the context, the more that we can make the change that we want to make. And I think it's also understanding that it is not a zero sum game here, we have abundant resources and what is valuable is not only money. And if we can come to understand that a healthy and more equitable future, values, communities and all of the assets that community members bring to the table, I think we can evolve forward in really powerful ways.

Randy Engstrom:
I love that. Gonzalo, what do you think that future could look like and how do we get more folks to join that movement?

Gonzalo Casals:
I think it's important again, to go back to the root of the problem, which is the stories that we're telling ourselves. Which in this case, the same way that we approach what we call marginal communities, communities of color, we approach artists very similarly. They don't know how to do their accounting, they don't know how to manage a project, and that's not true. And when I first started DCLA a year and a half ago, around June, when once again, America had to reckon with the social injustices of our country, I was sitting like probably… and Deborah and Emil, writing a statement, I was like, "What else do I have to say that my colleagues are not going to say?"

And I realized that I had spent 20 years talking about black and brown folks, and I have not spend any time talking about white folks. And I think we need to start talking about whiteness, and we need to start talking about what are the problems with whiteness? Reverse all these needs, all these stereotypes and put the problem where it is. It's not that because the marginal communities are suffering the symptoms, they are the ones that are creating the problem.

Randy Engstrom:
Say that, that is a very important point. I want to name my friend and mentor Roberto Bedoya, who often speaks of de-centering whiteness. How do we de-center whiteness so that we can see the full spectrum of our humanity? And if we can't talk about whiteness, then we can't de-center it. Emil, how do you see us building towards this more just future and how do you think we can get more folks at the table?

Emil Kang:
Well, I don't know if I have the answer to that beyond what my colleagues have already said. I guess I would just add that we at Mellon do it one investment, one project at a time. And that in many ways we need to see our work in partnership always with others, and come to these challenges with humility and vulnerability and transparency. And I think I say that because I know that Mellon, as a fairly large foundation, hasn't always practiced that. But especially since the arrival of Elizabeth Alexander, as our president, we're really modeling that behavior, trying to understand how we can best learn and how we can best incorporate and actually be led by others. And even in our own initiative, Creatives Rebuild New York that we have seated, we have actually handed over the reins to a new institution, and it's now being run by Sarah Calderon, formerly of Art Place America.

And it is now an initiative out of tides, the social impact accelerator. And where the team now there is running this initiative, we as a funder, have to remain as sort of a student of the work there. And I think the lesson there for us and I hope for all funders, is that we can come together and learn and work in partnership together. And I'm really happy to say that we have such great colleagues in our field among philanthropy and I've been learning so much from them. And I think that opportunity to do that work also means we have to make these investments. So we're never going to be able to know all if the risk taking we do works, in the short term, but we have to try and we have to take the risk and we have to shoulder the risk. So I think that adopting that attitude has to come first.

Randy Engstrom:
That's great Emil. And in just a moment, I'm going to invite some closing thoughts from our esteemed panel. First I just wanted to offer some things that I heard very clearly, that I want to lift up from the three of you. Gonzalo, I'm really going to take away from this, the power of storytelling and not just the stories that we tell, but the stories that we don't tell, and who is visible and who is not visible in that work. And I think that gets to something Deborah that you spoke to really, really well, which is around one of the myths of scarcity and white supremacy culture is that, "If other people have self-determination and agency, I will somehow lose." Self-determination and agency are not pie there, not a finite amount of human confidence or human creativity in the world, but we buy into that myth because of the stories that Gonzalo was just talking about, because we all believe there's only $10 and I'm going to try to get five of that.

And Emil, I think as a practitioner, this idea of humility and risk tolerance is really important too, to not assume we know the answers, Deborah said that too. We got to understand the communities and know what they need, probably better than anybody. So we have to enter with humility and then we have to be willing to take a risk. We have to be willing to roll the dice and we have to be willing to fail, and to allow others to fail as well. So really you're all brilliant, it's such a privilege to share a space with you. If each of you wanted to share final thoughts, and then we'll hand it back to our friend and colleague Sherylynn to bring us home.

Deborah Cullinan:
I'll jump in. Just first of all, I have so much gratitude for this conversation today, and to be with all of you. I feel like we came in and we were talking about policy and workforce policy. And the one thing I think that we all need to really try to understand and maybe make better is that, all policy is cultural policy. And we isolate ourselves around what we consider to be cultural policy. And we don't consider the ways in which we are part of a whole big wide world. And policies, healthcare, education policies, financial policies, these policies had not been supportive of artists and of people. As we talked about along the way, there's not equity, the systems are broken, but it's all cultural policy. And we as a field need to be integrated into the overall national conversation.

Randy Engstrom:
I promise to give you credit every time I say all policy is cultural policy from now and for the next five years, so thanks for that.

Deborah Cullinan:
To be fair, you should credit my colleague Lauren Ruffin.

Randy Engstrom:
Oh, the Ruffin [crosstalk 00:37:38] deserves all the credit for all the things.

Deborah Cullinan:
Pretty much everything smart that I say is probably coming from someone else on my team.

Randy Engstrom:
Also, congratulations to Yerba Buena and by extension to the entire sector for having the [inaudible 00:37:50] join the YBCA family, that's a pretty exciting moment. And they are truly a brilliant voice in our field.

Gonzalo Casals:
And Randy, if you're going to quote what Deborah just said, I'm going to add one more thing, that policy's not only the product, but the process, and who is involved in the process is what really makes the policy work or not. But what I wanted to say as a final thought, and I'm being a little pessimistic these days is, I was talking to a group of young museum workers, they wanted to create change. And I had to point out to them that the change they wanted to create wasn't necessarily specific to museums, but to society. And how, when we want to create change in our sector is good to go and look at what's happening in society, and the other way around.

Like I said before, a lot of these problems that we have is because capitalism continues to survive. And I was reading this book that starts likes saying, "It's so much easier for us these days to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism." Speaking of stories that we believe and we don't believe. And we need to start thinking about that. How if we're going to change systems, that there are other systems that could be created.

Randy Engstrom:
That's amazing. Thank you, Gonzalo. That is the second time I've heard that. "I can imagine the end of the world before I could imagine an end to capitalism." And that is a powerful, powerful idea. Emil, you want to bring us home?

Emil Kang:
What I'm going to say is not necessarily trying to bring us home, but what I will say though simply is that, as we think about policy change and I'm all for that, we can remember the incredible ability each of us has to act and to make change, and that we shouldn't be waiting for others to make that change, whether it's policymakers or anyone else. And that we actually need to continue to figure out ways to quantify the work that we know that our individual artists workers contribute to our society, and that we actually are and still continue to be in need of that data, of that knowledge, of the research that actually quantifies artists and their work, as opposed to quantifies the value of the institutions to artists. And so I guess end with this by saying that, I hope we can actually still do more to not only think about how others will help us, but how we can actually help ourselves.

Randy Engstrom:
I love that. In the words of Claudia Jones, "May the revolution be irresistible." Sherylynn Sealy, thank you for having us today. Would you like to close us out?

Sherylynn Sealy:
I would. Thank you so much, Randy, for facilitating this conversation. And thank you, Deborah, Emil and Gonzalo for sharing such powerful ideas, and for joining us today. It was so great to hear from all of you and I am completely inspired by this conversation. And to our listeners, we look forward to continuing these conversations, so be sure to tune into other episodes of the GIA podcast series. Be sure to follow us on Facebook at GIArts, Twitter at GIArts and Instagram at Grantmakers In the Arts. If you have any questions, feel free to reach out to me Sherylynn Sealy at sherylynn@giarts.org. And thank you so much for listening.