Culture Wars Hit Barnsdall, San Pedro

After costly forays abroad, can L.A.'s Department of Cultural Affairs save itself at home?

A A A Comments (7) By Joseph Mailander Thursday, Feb 18 2010

Ozomatli got about $30,000. Los Lobos got about $65,000. John Friedman Alice Kimm Architects initially got $370,000, but that was increased to $449,200 — so they could create a temporary pavilion that stood for nine days. And still the city of Los Angeles' Department of Cultural Affairs couldn't spend all of the money it was awarded by the National Endowment for the Arts to participate in the Guadalajara International Book Fair, held in Mexico in late 2009.

"I took two trips to Guadalajara before the fair. Even so, we found that we were not made fully aware of all the costs we had to [assume for] the L.A. Pavilion," Olga Garay, general manager of the Department of Cultural Affairs, tells L.A. Weekly. "So some costs went up."

All in all, the Department of Cultural Affairs, on behalf of the NEA, awarded more than $2 million to various artists and groups to participate in last year's Guadalajara book fair — one of the world's most prestigious book events — for nine lavish days that afforded a few hundred fortunate Angelenos fun in the Mexican sun during a cold and dreary autumn in L.A.

Then–NEA Chairman Dana Gioia "approached us" about the book fair, Garay explains.

"He had been to it in 2006 and was very impressed by its breadth. He suggested to me that the NEA was willing to fund our city's participation in it."

Now, L.A.'s Department of Cultural Affairs is using the leftover NEA money from Guadalajara to bring the work of more than 50 Los Angeles artists to this week's international art exhibition ARCOMadrid — in Spain.

Yet simultaneously, the department is facing an immediate 10 percent grant reduction at home, where City Hall is in fiscal free fall and some city officials are openly using the B-word — bankruptcy — in their debates. Amid the severe budget crunch, Cultural Affairs may have to surrender two of its top facilities — the Warner Grand Theatre in San Pedro and the Barnsdall Gallery Theatre in East Hollywood.

In early February, Miguel Santana, the mayor's chief administrative officer, called on the Department of Cultural Affairs to cut its budget and lay off 16 employees. But in addition, Santana is pushing the idea of awarding operating leases for these two top cultural venues, possibly to private nonprofit groups.

"It will likely happen," Garay says. "In other cities, it is not common for city departments to operate arts centers, like we do in L.A." She adds, "When I took this job, I knew about the [two venues], and agreed to operate them in good faith, but they are resource-intensive to operate."

When the news hit the arts community, the Department of Cultural Affairs' friends were mobilized by proxy.

Arts-advocacy organization Arts for L.A. pulsed its artist and organization lists and brought more than 100 noisy artists and arts administrators to City Hall on February 3, to testify about the importance of arts funding to the city's cultural and economic life.

Last year, Arts for L.A. received a $5,000 grant from Cultural Affairs, consistent with previous awards of public funds it has received from the city agency in recent years. Though not registered as a city lobbyist, Arts for L.A. is nonetheless the region's leading de facto arts-advocacy group. In fact, Executive Director Danielle Brazell acknowledges that she met with three officials from the city's Chief Administrative Office, which oversees the city's budgeting process, shortly after the CAO released this month's list of 16 prospective Cultural Affairs employees to be laid off.

The fiscal reality now sinking in at City Hall is a far cry from the heady, spendthrift days that accompanied the NEA award last fall, when Garay and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa posed for photos in balmy Guadalajara to kick off nine indulgent days of pleasure. The trip south — both praised and criticized — attracted an array of Los Angeles cultural figures and groups, from Gregory Rodriguez (Los Angeles Times op-ed columnist and founder of the lecture series Zocalo Public Square) to Wayne Shorter's latest band.

The Department of Cultural Affairs even arranged for NEA money to be used to ship lowrider cars to Guadalajara to celebrate L.A.'s street culture at the book fair.

"The NEA selected the writers via conference calls," Garay says. "We selected the performers and other artists through panels."

While the CAO's proposal to cut administrators and surrender city theaters to arts organizations disturbs Garay, her criticism remains muted; she is a general manager, subject to the mayor's hiring and firing decisions. But Cultural Affairs Commission President York Chang, a political appointee of the mayor's, expresses outrage at the proposal.

"I think [the mayor and CAO] don't recognize the value of arts and culture for the economy of Los Angeles," Chang says. "The CAO's office has a very simplistic idea about what arts and culture do and how it functions in the city. I think they have a very simple-minded idea about how arts and culture function without civic support."

In fact, he asks, "How can you ask private entities to invest in the arts when they've never been invited, except by ordinance?" Chang refers to a mandated fee collected from developers of commercial properties that is funneled into the arts, as well as the city's tax on hotel visitors, which provides Cultural Affairs with most of its funds.

Check out this week's featured ad for News

L.A. Film School

View Ad View Website

More Ads >>

Email
to Friend

Write to
Editor

Print
Article

J Michael 02/23/2010 5:12:00 AM

Wow, what a classic hit job this “article” is! Run as a supposed news piece, its editorial stance and distaste could hardly be more pronounced - almost like Fox News took over here…. Four times the author tells us that folks around these here parts are pissed over DCA’s actions – the trip to Guadalajara was “both praised and criticized”; “Some local observers thought” something underhanded happened with LATC; “Many downtown residents, business leaders and activists were outraged”; and finally, “critics have begun asking.” Anyone notice no names get mentioned in any of this? No one could be quoted saying anything critical? Surely the author could have found ONE brave arts person out there willing to criticize DCA and we “noisy” artists and arts advocates…. If he/she exists. Frankly, I was one of those “few hundred fortunate Angelenos” (most of us pretty much unknown, or at least far less so than Gregory Rodriguez and Wayne Shorter) sent to Guadalajara (I went as an author, ‘though I’m also an artist) to represent LA. But I can tell you that every author I spoke to was impressed and moved by our time there: For most of us this was no simple vacation, but a true artistic experience, and one that, as they say, broadened our horizons, and will likely impact the work we create HERE now that we have returned. It also enhanced LA’s standing internationally, which can’t hurt. As for that “leftover NEA money” being (you imply) wasted on ARCOMadrid, I presume – but do not know – there are earmark rules the NEA set in place for those dollars. If there is a Culture War going on, it seems the author fired the first volley.
J Michael 02/23/2010 5:12:00 AM

Wow, what a classic hit job this “article” is! Run as a supposed news piece, its editorial stance and distaste could hardly be more pronounced - almost like Fox News took over here…. Four times the author tells us that folks around these here parts are pissed over DCA’s actions – the trip to Guadalajara was “both praised and criticized”; “Some local observers thought” something underhanded happened with LATC; “Many downtown residents, business leaders and activists were outraged”; and finally, “critics have begun asking.” Anyone notice no names get mentioned in any of this? No one could be quoted saying anything critical? Surely the author could have found ONE brave arts person out there willing to criticize DCA and we “noisy” artists and arts advocates…. If he/she exists. Frankly, I was one of those “few hundred fortunate Angelenos” (most of us pretty much unknown, or at least far less so than Gregory Rodriguez and Wayne Shorter) sent to Guadalajara (I went as an author, ‘though I’m also an artist) to represent LA. But I can tell you that every author I spoke to was impressed and moved by our time there: For most of us this was no simple vacation, but a true artistic experience, and one that, as they say, broadened our horizons, and will likely impact the work we create HERE now that we have returned. It also enhanced LA’s standing internationally, which can’t hurt. As for that “leftover NEA money” being (you imply) wasted on ARCOMadrid, I presume – but do not know – there are earmark rules the NEA set in place for those dollars. If there is a Culture War going on, it seems the author fired the first volley.
Roella Hsieh Louie 02/23/2010 12:30:00 AM

Indeed, it is a travesty to see a "vision" to inspire, develop and sustain Los Angeles's cultural vibrancy vanish in what can now be characterized as "Art in the Time of Plague"...reacting to a systemic disease by vanquishing the soul. But there is a "light" of hope. When the Cultural Affairs Dept. embraced a new infusion of funding from the Transient Occupancy Tax, there came a new hope for continuity in funding the City's amazing creative capital. The nationally recognized Cultural Grants Program did just that--each year growing new categories of support until it was a program that supported mid-career, home grown established artists. I know, because I personally created, designed and developed this fantastic program, every word of the guidelines I wrote, making sure they met the scrutiny of the Mayor, Council, City Attorney, Administrative oversights to align the "arts with municipal" needs. However, the funding streams Public and Private Percent for Art were NEVER clearly delineated or understood. The Grants Program is funded by 1% fo the TOT, yes, but what is NOT understood, the amount is based on an "estimate" of the following year's budget. This has proven to be a very unsound way to fund this program as the TOT went up and down with uncertainty! The 1% for the Public Arts has two means of fund streams, 1) for public construction, but the funds, often tied to actual building costs, were mandated to be used and itnegrated into the construction and 2) for private development, over $500000 non-residential, the art % used in the context of a nexus to the development, but could be physical art or programmed art so long as the NEXUS (a self limiting criteria that needed negotiation between City, developer and the public arts division of Cultural Affairs) was established. There has always been CONFUSION as to how the money is collected, monitored and utilized. To this end, in this time of austerity the City has an opportunity to revisit, reorganize and thoughtfully apply the funding streams for the arts. First, since it has been decided that the Grants Program will honor the current grants, why not "bank" next year's Fund 480 % for Arts for the Grants Program to craft the grant adm. and allocations accordingly from a "real" amount instead of an "estimated" mount. I this way, the fluctuations and adjustment would be realistically captured in each year. As for the Fund 560% for Art, perhaps this "function" could be moved to the Planning Department. This would facilitate a more integrated and streamlined process for the "developer" as the City moves into its next phase of increased efficiencies. In the past, the actual planning for the public art requirement was often captured at the eleventh hour, making the developer very upset and the fulfillment of the obligation more like "plop art" than a thoughtful mitigation of the NEXUS as it was meant to be. In terms of "facilities" that over the years has been given to CAD to manage, this has been a hardship. Often "new facilities" were pushed up CAD without any planning for future facilities maintenance, a budget sucker for any department. There little planning for "infrastructure", only "exterior dressing", absolute formula for future failure, particularly in a time of diminished resources. The City cannot be all things to all people. But it can provide a context to nurture and spotlight this City's creative capitol. As demonstrated by the years of Grant Recipients, for me 11 years of personal interaction, the artists of our City are not only "creative" with a big C, "diverse" with a big D, they have honored the City by being a group of "contractors" who deliver the goods on time and on budget...no cost overruns, no time delays, and in most part, no excuses...the biggest public relations model for which this City could ever issue a more democratic, vibrant and fair "REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL". And let's find a person to lead CAD who understands the City processes whle supporting the the City's creative capital in partnership with the Mayor and City Council who do understand that the creativity of our City is like no other--a priceless asset to be sustained.
jason 02/20/2010 11:56:00 AM

Armando, you say "Generally the critics who wonder whether there is a biase in favor of L.A.'s Latino culutre are the ones who are used to getting their West of La Brea/MOCA/DISNEY events funded." Well, that's a big first step: you acknowledge there were critics. So did the article, and it gave the people at Cultural Affairs a chance to respond. Are you for Cultural Affairs handing over more of the city's venues to arts organizations--perchance even the one you're affiliated with? Are you already getting in line for your hopeful handout? You're hardly an unbiased observer yourself.
Maria 02/20/2010 10:42:00 AM

My goodness, Mr. Duron, who's promoting the racial divide? Accusing Will & Company of fraud in presentation of their proposal to the City, and suggesting that any art not Latino is "Disney?" Do you really believe that no tax dollars should provide arts services to the people of Los Angeles? For this seemed to me and everyone in my office the meaning of the title, the war between the Mayor, wanting to eliminate such services, and the communities that want them. Or perhaps you just mean that no tax dollars should be spent on anyone other than you. And check your demographics: 60% of Los Angeles' population is non-Latino. We are African-American, Asian-American, Pacific Islander, Native American, Middle Eastern, South Asian, as well as of European descent, and Los Angeles' incredible diversity is a strength. But perhaps you just can't see that. I've never heard a Chumash or Tongva descendant behave in a threatening manner or demand that the rest of us all go away. And they're the only ones who'd have the right.
Armando Duron 02/20/2010 12:15:00 AM

The unprovoked atttack on the Latino Theatre Company and the equally unsubstantiated hit on the Department of Cultural Affairs is a futher confirmation of why the Weekly is half the size it used to be. Your article only promoted a racial divide while ignoring a whole series of facts: 1. DCA participated in the FIL in Guadaljara and ARCOmadrid because the City of Los Angeles was invited to each of these venues and outside funding was secured for the vast majority of the expenses incurred by DCA. 2. Los Angeles is the first city to be invited as opposed to an entire country as the special guest at ARCOmadrid. 3. What mess are you referring to? LTC took over a venue that was hemorrhaging $80,000 per year in maintenance expenses while it remained closed. 4. Can you cite the last article in the Weekly that reviewed the "presigious Will & Company"? 5. The truth is that Will & Company was front for a private developer who wanted to control the venue. 6. Generally the critics who wonder whether there is a biase in favor of L.A.'s Latino culutre are the ones who are used to getting their West of La Brea/MOCA/DISNEY events funded. 7. The Maria Elena Durazo event was not an LTC-sponsored event. 8. In case the Weekly still hasn't noticed, Latinos are the majority in this City of Los Angeles. It is our culture that has been long-ignored, and when it is reported on in these pages it is usually through the incompetent eyes of your demographically challenged staff. 9. If it's a culture war you're looking to promote, be on notice, it is a war you can no longer win.
Kathleen 02/19/2010 9:05:00 AM

A nice job of reporting. And thank you for laying bare those at the helm of Cultural Affairs with their preposterous characterization of the Department as "dynamic," or in any way competent. For Garay to brag about the money she brings in when Angelenos see nothing for it is appropriate self-damnation from an incompetent fool. Blaming the Department's obscene expenditures for foreign cultural events on a "suggestion" by the NEA is another expression of her gross incompetence -- were she in charge of protecting the environment, she'd accept money from an oil company to set up a refinery on our beaches. Long gone are the glory days of Cultural Affairs when the Los Angeles Festival gave us something for our tax dollars, when Dance Kaleidoscope was giving us free world class dance by local and internationally-renowned companies, when we were called the "city of festivals." Shame on the mayors who thought that no one in this second great cultural capital could provide for its citizens and instead brought in Adolfo Nodal of Miami and Washington D.C., Margie Johnson Reese of Dallas and Olga Garay of Miami who have overseen the dismantling of a Department that in previous incarnations provided this city with phenomenal performing and fine arts education and presentation, nurturing generations of young painters, sculptors, dancers, actors, opera singers and instrumentalists, while providing exhibition opportunities for professional artists and support for professional performance venues and companies. Cultural Affairs is in worse shape than our streets, and that Garay would go along with a gutting of its last vestige of relevance or service, the Barnsdall Art Center and the Warner Grand, providing a limp excuse that nowhere else are there art centers (how untrue!), should put her at the top of CAO's hit list.