How to allocate resources to the Detroit Art Ecosystem in a way that is equitable and produces the most social value should be a central question for anyone tasked with managing their distribution. However, despite its importance, the topic has received little research attention, and consequently, art and culture funding in Detroit has been distributed with little objective basis.

This multi-part study addresses this research gap by combining a broad range of data sources to address fundamental questions such as: What is the Detroit art ecosystem? How are resources currently allocated to this ecosystem, and what determines this allocation? How might resources be better allocated in the future?

The premise of this study is that establishing an evidence-based model of the “as-is” Detroit art ecosystem can achieve a more equitable and productive allocation of resources through education, collaboration, research, design, and continuous improvement, as shown in the following image.

Since the not-for-profit art and culture ecosystem alone is $330M/year, even a conservative 15% gain in impact due to evidence-based funding decisions would correspond to an additional $50M/year dedicated purely to art and culture. Since the entire State of Michigan budget for art and culture (through the MACC program) is approximately $10M/year, this figure is significant and worthy of investigation.   

What is the Detroit Art Ecosystem?

The Detroit Art Ecosystem has many layers, but first and foremost, it is a complex Social Network of funders, institutions, galleries, grassroots and other organizations, decision-makers, artists, writers, curators, and other actors. To explain the structure and character of this social network, it is helpful first to review some already known aspects of the ecosystem’s Economic, Spatial, and Experiential dimensions.

Economic Layer

Drawing from earlier studies, we can construct the following overview of the Detroit art and culture economy:

The Detroit art and culture not-for-profit economy is approximately $330M/year, making it a substantial (arguably the largest) part of the city’s art and culture ecosystem.

Over 93% of ongoing, publicly reported philanthropic funding goes to large (>$1M/year revenue) institutions. In comparison, only 2% goes to grassroots organizations and cultural producers, a situation that is neither equitable nor likely to lead to a healthy art ecosystem.

The prevailing investment strategy in Detroit arts and culture philanthropy is to provide unconditional operating support for large (>$1M/year revenue) institutions, a laissez-faire approach that has its basis in the National Capitalization Project. Our research showed that the funding strategy is only effective in specific situations. When applied inappropriately, we found that it resulted in tens of millions of dollars being spent in inherently unproductive ways.

The most significant short-term opportunity for a more productive art and culture ecosystem in Detroit is not new funding but better usage of current resources. For example, a modest 5-10% improvement in grantmaking effectiveness and a 5-10% improvement in program effectiveness (for a conservative total of 15% improvement) would be equivalent to $50M/year or a new dedicated investment fund of $1.25B for art and culture in Metropolitan Detroit (assuming 4% return on investment). This figure would dwarf the current funding streams, as shown in the following image.

Spatial Layer

As the following image indicates, the spatial distribution of art and culture resources is uneven. Central Detroit (the Woodward corridor from the river to Grand Boulevard) receives over 50% of the funding, while, at the other extreme, the entire Macomb County gets only 0.5%.

Similar trends exist in new and planned art and culture infrastructure. Projects in Central Detroit include The Cultural Centre Initiative, Detroit Public Theater, the planned $122M Music Hall expansion, and, on the fringes of the Woodward Corridor, the $75M Motown Museum expansion. A significant project that counters this trend is the cultural campus developing around the former Good Shepherd Catholic Church on Detroit’s East Side.

This uneven spatial distribution of art and culture resources mirrors broader concerns about the concentration of development resources into Detroit’s downtown area, which, in turn, corresponds to concerns about wealth transfer from the Detroit neighborhoods to support private development capital in the city center.

Experiential Layer

The audience experiences art and culture at many sites, including galleries, museums, public events, festivals, online, etc. The experiential layer is the record of where most people interact with the Detroit Art Ecosystem, but it is the one on which the least data is available.

This lack of information is due to several reasons. With grassroots activity, the total audience is fragmented across many sites and the impact is often very long-term, making it challenging to collect data. With larger institutions, the audience is more centralized and hence measurable, but institutions are typically reluctant to publish specific audience figures, preferring instead to focus on narrative. For example, as the DIA has received more public funding (through the DIA millage) it has reduced the information it provides about audience numbers.

One way of directly comparing audience engagement is through its online trace. Here, it is clear that grassroots activity has a far larger audience than that of the larger institutions. For example, the “Top 15” arts & culture nonprofits have a combined annual revenue of ~$270M and show a combined Instagram following of ~350,000. A survey of 15 high-profile artists and artist-led organizations (with minimal resources) shows a combined Instagram following of ~420,000.

It is easy to dismiss platforms like Instagram because the digital assets they convey don’t have the auratic qualities of a painting or an orchestral performance. Still, it should be recognized that most people experience art online. Also, much of art’s social value is because it is a relational activity, and online conversations can potentially offer a richer experience on this level than the atomic relationship of an individual standing before an art piece. Furthermore, many of the cultural producers with large Instagram followings are producing murals or other public art, so, likely, people engaged in online discussion have also engaged with the physical work.

There is still much to learn about how the audience experiences art and culture in Detroit, but at the moment it can be said that the narrative that art and culture funding should be disproportionately allocated to large institutions because that is where people engage with it is not supported by any empirical data.

The Detroit Art Ecosystem as a Social Network

The Detroit Art Ecosystem is, first and foremost, a complex social network of funders, institutions, galleries, grassroots and other organizations, decision-makers, artists, writers, curators, and other actors. To understand this network, Essay’d created a model of the Detroit art ecosystem (and the interlinked development and placemaking ecosystem) using a network analysis software. This model forms a framework to analyze the art ecosystem from many perspectives and at many scales, from the “10000ft level” to the most granular.

The network can be partitioned into three regions, as shown in the following image. From this, we can see that the network of funders and decision-makers is densely linked to large cultural organizations and the development and placemaking ecosystem but has minimal connection to the grassroots “creative network.” This “network bias” is consistent with the concerns raised above about the inequitable economic, spatial, and experiential distribution of resources.

The next sections of this study will investigate this further by asking questions such as who the most influential decision-makers in this network are (individually and collectively) and what cultural institutions are most central to this network. It will also test for systematic biases regarding class, race, and gender.

Copyright Essay’d 2024/2025