Boston University

College of Fine Arts

Final Research Project

Community Art Centers, Their Communities, and City Government: A Case study yields best practices guidelines

By

Elizabeth J. Kingsley

Bachelor of Arts, Randolph-Macon Woman’s College, 2005

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the

Requirements for the degree of

MA in Art Education

ii

Acknowledgements

The researcher considers herself very lucky to have had such amazingly supportive

teachers, family, and friends throughout her participation in Boston University’s Masters in Art

Education program. She would like to thank all of those who gave of their time in support of this

research. The attainment higher levels of education is not merely a selfish act—the student

should always have the greater good in mind. To the participants and supporters of this research:

because of your help, the researcher will be able to use this education for improving the lives of

others. Thank you.

iii

Abstract

Operating a community art center, like any non-profit, is a labor of dedication and

principle-centered action over financial lubrication, but it is especially tough in a distressed,

post-industrial city like Bridgeport, Connecticut, where such community building efforts are

needed most. Research has shown that investment in the arts can increase residents’ level of civic

involvement and satisfaction, can help solve social ills, and provide a base for urban

revitalization. In order to provide these benefits, however, such an art center must cultivate a

good working relationship with its community and city governance. Bridgeport, and its longest-

running art center, Neighborhood Studios, provides an interesting, if particularly difficult case

for this study. Through interviews, historical inquiry, and existing reports and research, a set of

guidelines is emerged from which future arts-center planners may be guided in working with

their communities and city governments.

iv

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………ii

Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………….iii

Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………………..iv

List of Tables and Figures……………………………………………………………………..viii

Chapters

1 Overview of the Study………………………………………………………………9

Research Goals………………………………………………………………….……11

Research Question……………………………………………………………….…..11

Conceptual Framework…………………………………………………………..…..12

Theoretical Framework………………………………………………………………14

Significance of the Study…………………………………………………………….16

Limitations of the Study……………………………………………………………..17

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….......17

2 Literature Review…………………………………………………………………..19

Research Question…………………………………………………………………...19

Conceptual Framework………………………………………………………………19

Review of the Literature……………………………………………………………..20

People…………………………………………………………………………….20

Judy Baca………………………………………………………………...20

Tyree Guyton…………………………………………………………….21

Lessons about community art centers’ relationships with community and

city governance from Judy Baca and Tyree Guyton……………………22

v

Places……………………………………………………………………………22

Vilnius, Lithuania……………………………………………………….23

Providence, Rhode Island…………………………………………….…24

Newark, New Jersey…………………………………………………….25

Other Aspects of Community Art Centers………………………………………26

“Children of the Future”…………………………………………………26

Civic Responsibility……………………………………………………..27

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….….27

3 Methodology………………………………………………………………………..30

Design of the Study………………………………………………………………….30

Research Methods……………………………………………………………………31

Interviews Previously Conducted………………………………………………..31

Interviewees……………………………………………………………...31

Data Collection……………………………………………………………………....32

Neighborhood Studios………………………………………………………..….33

Community………………………………………………………………………33

City Governance……………………………………………………………...….33

Memos……………………………………………………………………………34

Videos……………………………………………………………………………35

Newspaper Articles and Blog……………………………………………………35

Data Analysis……………………………………………………………………….35

4 Results of the Study………………………………………………………………36

Introduction………………………………………………………………………..36

vi

Significance of the Study………………………………………………………….36

Bias………………………………………………………………………………..38

Validity……………………………………………………………………………38

Analysis of the Data………………………………………………………………39

Interviews………………………………………………………………………….40

Dr. Donald Rainone……………………………………………………………40

Frank Derico……………………………………………………………………41

Melissa Bernstein………………………………………………………………42

Rick Torres…………………………………………………………………….45

John Slater…………………………………………………………………….46

John Weldon…………………………………………………………………46

Results……………………………………………………………………………47

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………..49

5 Discussion and Conclusion…………………………………………………….50

Introduction………………………………………………………………………50

Discussion………………………………………………………………………..50

Personal Impact of the Study………………………………………………….51

Impact on Practice…………………………………………………………….52

Recommendations……………………………………………………………52

Conclusion to the Research………………………………………………………53

vii

References……………………………………………………………………………………54

Appendix A…………………………………………………………………………………….57

Appendix B…………………………………………………………………………………….66

viii

List of Figures

Fig. 1.1. Images from “Family Guy”……………………………………………………………9

Fig B1. Conceptual Framework……………………………………………………………….B1

List of Tables

Table 4.1. Categories of interviewees…………………………………………………………39

Table 4.2. Interviewees and the themes of their interviews……………………………………40

9

Chapter One: Overview of the Study

Bridgeport is the largest city located in the richest county in the second richest state in the

nation: Fairfield County, Connecticut (Herszenhorn, 2001). Yet underneath this impressive-

sounding distinction lies another, more sinister distinction: a shockingly disproportionate level of

poverty compared to the rest of the state (Herszenhorn, 2001; CCM, 2011). Having fallen, like

many manufacturing-based cities in America, into a predictable death spiral of vanishing jobs,

middle-class exodus, and the crushing costs of social services required for needy populations,

Bridgeport has the further burden of accommodating all the county residents pushed out of

Fairfield’s increasingly super-rich communities (CCM, 2011, pp. 4-5, p. 22). Even pop-culture

TV takes a jab a Bridgeport’s lamentable status. In Fox network’s cartoon sitcom, Family Guy, a

joke comparing a looming, post-apocalyptic illustration of a smoldering smoke stack skyline to

Bridgeport prompts a fictional resident of the city to write the following in a letter to the

show: “I’ll have you know Bridgeport is among the world leaders in abandoned buildings,

shattered glass, boarded-up windows, wild dogs, and gas stations without pumps” (Twentieth

Century Fox Film Corporation, 2010).

Fig. 1.1. Images from “Family Guy”

(Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation,

2010)

10

This is a prime example of the standard posture of fastidious disdain in which Connecticut’s elite

view Bridgeport. The show’s creator, Seth MacFarlane, hails from the small, exclusive town of

Kent, Connecticut, where according to the U.S. Census there are 14 children who qualify for a

free or reduced price lunch; Bridgeport has 5, 765. (Biography for Seth MacFarlane, n.d.; U.S.

Census Bureau, 2009).

It is becoming axiomatic that urban redevelopment often follows investment in the arts—

public or private. Though the recession has delayed and/or cancelled some of the redevelopment

projects that had been promised to parts of the city, speculators are still poised to invest in fire-

sale real estate opportunities. Much of the city’s character bespeaks its turn-of-the-century

heyday of the once grand, thriving East Coast industrial capital nicknamed Park City. A real fire

and passion exists both on the part of many in government who seek to dismantle old-time

political-party-interests plus a small but dedicated corps of wealthier residents who see

Bridgeport’s potential, and work to implement the kind of responsible grass roots cultural change

that fosters livability, education, and investment. Then there are those with equal passion who

seek to earn a fast buck through bars, nightclubs, restaurants, or “health spa/massage parlors”.

It is this landscape of competing interests, which must be navigated for Bridgeport to create the

kind of arts education programs shown to be instrumental in creating deep-rooted change. One

notable example of this drive to change Bridgeport through modest investments in arts education

programs aimed at enriching local communities to improve livability and spark organic change is

the subject of this case study. Neighborhood Studios has succeeded for almost 35 years against

this backdrop of conflicting political and economic interests.

11

Research Goals

The goal of this research is to provide guidelines for creating and sustaining community

art centers in Bridgeport. Steps toward achieving this goal include an analysis of Neighborhood

Studios, how it is successful in providing arts education opportunities to the city’s youth; the

derailing of similar programs; and the potential for future success based on circumventing the

pitfalls that prompted such failed initiatives. The resulting recommendations, strengthened by

hard-won experience, are intended to help clear a path for modest arts investments through a

jungle of needless bureaucratic and special interest stalemate.

Research Questions

In broad terms, the researcher seeks to answer the question: How does a non-profit

community art center develop a good working relationship with both its community and city

governance? Neighborhood Studios, formerly known as Music and Arts Center for Humanity

(MACH) will be examined as an example a successful arts center in a tough city like Bridgeport,

Connecticut. Neighborhood Studios is a past recipient of the Coming Up Taller Award, an award

of national distinction for arts centers. To be eligible for this award, an organization must submit

a rigorous report on every aspect of its program, from proof of financial stability right down to

the resumes of its employees. Additionally, Neighborhood Studios is “an accredited member of

the National Guild for Community Arts Education” (DeGregorio et al., n.d.). These kinds of

achievements and affiliations make Neighborhood Studios a valid subject for a study of what

makes a community art center successful. Tyree Guyton, the controversial artist responsible for

Detroit’s Heidelberg Project says, “My job as an artist is to come up with solutions” (Suede

Productions, 2011). By researching best practices as represented by this organization, and

answering the question of how they have withstood the difficulties of operating in a crushingly

12

poor and historically corrupt city, the author will produce a viable set of recommendations—

solutions—for other arts centers facing similar conditions.

Guyton saw the problems associated with poverty in his community and decided to draw

attention to them through art (Moffat & Nasar, 2004). In a similar spirit, the author sees

problems associated with poverty in her community and has decided to draw attention to them

through art education research: How will Bridgeport leverage its vibrant, eclectic, unique artistic

potential to reinvigorate a still-graceful, but struggling city on Connecticut’s Gold Coast? How

will it avoid falling prey to the conflicting needs of an overburdened tax base and the need to

create publically funded anchor institutions that have proven so successful in revitalizing other

post-industrial cities? An overall question that might be answered by this research was posed by

Richard Rogers, who asked, while speaking about the significance of the Heidelberg Project and

the questions it raised: “How do we strengthen the bonds that hold a city together?” (Suede

Productions, 2011). How can community art centers work with the community and city

government to make this city stronger?

Conceptual Framework

This study will ultimately produce a set of guidelines for community art centers to follow that are

aimed at helping them create and maintain a good relationship with their cities and communities.

This will be achieved through a thorough:

(1) Examination of the literature on community art centers and

(2) Interviews

Data from the literature will be analyzed via connecting strategies to find out how the most

successful art centers relate to their city governments. Data from the interviews and memos will

13

be analyzed through coding to find out how Neighborhood Studios relates to Bridgeport’s city

government.

First, existing literature on the topic of community arts centers and city governance will

be reviewed. Existing literature includes journal articles, dissertations, and publications of the

National Guild for Community Arts Education. Also included will be news reports, blog posts,

online commentary, videos, and the author’s previous research concerning issues surrounding

community art centers in Bridgeport. The second avenue of data collection takes the form

of interviews with Neighborhood Studios (teacher/leaders and students) as well as city officials.

The third source of data will be memos documenting personal observations, knowledge, and

insights gained from the researcher’s past experience with the Bridgeport arts community,

experience as a Bridgeport voter and familiarity with city politics. These streams of data will be

brought together to present the following sections: brief historical background of Bridgeport;

demographics of those served by neighborhood studios; experiences of neighborhood studios,

students, and leaders; experiences of city officials involved in decision making; literature on

similar arts centers; and recommendations. As “the initial step in qualitative analysis is reading”

(Maxwell, 2005, p. 96), the analysis will begin with a close reading of the relevant literature, the

transcripts of interviews, and personal memos. Next, a sorting and coding of the data will isolate

factors that have made Neighborhood Studios successful. Success, as exemplified by

Neighborhood Studios, includes long-term sustainability, growth, and service to the target

population, as well as fulfillment of the organization’s mission statement. For example,

Neighborhood Studios keeps statistics on graduation rates of its students, and these statistics will

speak to how well they have fulfilled their mission of “increasing academic performance and

graduation rates” (DeGregorio et al., n.d.). As for specifically how and which connecting

14

strategies will be used in analyzing the literature, the researcher can only speculate that many of

the same observations about community art centers and their relationships with city governments

will crop up throughout the data. For example, in the article “The Heidelberg Project—Detroit,

Michigan”, a passage describing the destruction of one part of the project bore similarities to

events leading to the derailment of the Black Rock Art Center in Bridgeport. Moffat and Nasar

(2004) report:

Such confrontational work did not make him [Tyree Guyton] popular with certain

community groups and local political leaders. In particular, in the early 1990s it pointed

out the ineffectiveness of then-Mayor Coleman Young in stemming the tide of urban

decay. One day in 1991, Young sent in the bulldozers. By the end of the week the houses

and the installations they supported had been carted off to the dump. (p. 14)

The preliminary research suggests that a strong dedication to educational programs is one key

factor to the long-term success of Neighborhood Studios. However, specific categories for

coding have not been pre-assigned, as the research will not benefit from the influence of

preconceived notions resulting from the initial research. Interview questions will range from

asking specific people about specific events in Neighborhood Studios and Bridgeport history and

more general questions of participants in Neighborhood Studios programs.

Theoretical Framework

Many articles about community art centers are available to support an analysis of

Neighborhood Studios’ success in the midst of the political and economic chaos of Bridgeport.

Most of the literature concerns examples, which closely parallel the demographic, governmental,

and political environment of Bridgeport while also supplying insights into best practices and

aspirational models.

15

An initial assessment of the literature on community art centers indicates that it can be

divided into three categories. First, there are case studies of community art centers headed by

particularly strong and creative leaders. One such personality is Judy Baca, from Los Angeles.

Through her organization, SPARC, “sites of public memory [murals] were created by hundreds

of artists and thousands of community members and youth, and these sites creatively solved

myriad problems in blighted neighborhoods” (Baca, 2009, p. 29). Tyree Guyton, another notable

figure in the world of community art centers, is the subject of several articles and at least one

children’s book (Che, 2007; Moffat & Nasar, 2004; Shapiro, 2011). His organization, the

Heidelberg Project started as a street art project and now, “offers an alternative vision to young

children in one of America's most blighted urban areas” (Moffat & Nasar, 2004, p. 17).

The second thread consists of reports from or on specific places and their community art

centers and/or arts-based urban revitalization projects. These “place-based” (as opposed to

personality-based) examples include articles about Providence, Rhode Island (Hocking, 2011;

Orr & West, 2002) and a news report from Lithuania (Gogarty, 2010, p. 340). The well-known

example of the revitalization Newark, New Jersey (Croghan, 1999; Lampert-Gréaux, 1998) will

also fall under this category.

The third thread consists of articles that examine other aspects of community art centers

than those examined through this research. Titles in this category include “Promoting Artistic

and Cultural Development Through Service Learning and Critical Pedagogy in a Low-Income

Community Art Program” (Adejumo, 2010) and “Learning from Examples of Civic

Responsibility: What Community-Based Art Centers Teach Us About Arts Education” (Davis,

2010). Research in this category provides more information about the benefits of community-

based arts education.

16

Significance of the Study

This study is important to the field of art education for several reasons. First, as noted by

Jessica Hoffman Davis (2010), community art centers “have been of considerable interest to arts

education researchers over the last twenty years” in part because of “the positive impact these

centers have had on students considered at risk across a number of variables” (p. 82). Bridgeport

has by far the highest dropout rate in the state (CCM, 2011, p. 17). Through analyzing what has

worked for a successful art center in Bridgeport, recommendations for how to encourage

cooperation between city governance and non-profit community art centers should in turn benefit

future endeavors to help at-risk children in Bridgeport and similar cities through art education.

Second, the study is significant to art education history because it will include

examinations of the lives of important figures in the history of community art centers such as

Judy Baca and Tyree Guyton. It will also place local community art center leaders within their

art education historical contexts. Building a historical framework will help answer the research

question because the history can be used to help triangulate and substantiate the data in this

study.

Third, this research is significant to the study of urban revitalization because underlying

this thesis is the assumption that cities will respond more favorably to community art centers if

there is a return on investment for them. Based on the preliminary research, many of the

difficulties that art centers have faced in Bridgeport, including Neighborhood Studios, have been

based on city officials and community members resenting the donation of real estate from

Bridgeport’s vast under-or-not utilized inventory to non-profits as a bad investment (Kingsley,

2011, pp.14-15). In examining what type of return on investment art centers may provide, the

recommendations made in this study took into consideration what a city government might look

17

for when dealing with a community art center and how an art center can best work with those

expectations.

Limitations of the Study

The validity of the project could be threatened by the researcher’s passion for and

involvement in the subject. To overcome any potential for bias, all interviews will be recorded.

Furthermore, it will be obvious that individuals involved in community arts programs present a

range of differing opinions as well as distinct direct experience and analysis of the events and

issues. Because there are three streams of data involved in this research, triangulation will be

another safeguard against bias. Additionally, every effort will be made to include examples of

community arts centers across a spectrum of failures and successes. Finding real answers to the

research question and creating a usable set of guidelines based on those answers is the goal of

this study, however it should be noted that there is no expectation that this one study will bring

about the massive changes that are needed in Bridgeport. The expected outcome is for this

research to start a community and civic dialogue, perhaps to lay a foundation for future

community art center projects in Bridgeport.

Conclusion

This research will attempt to clarify solutions to those problems for all involved. Through

analyzing what has worked for a successful art center in Bridgeport, recommendations will be

made for how to encourage cooperation between city governance and non-profit community art

centers. Neighborhood Studios will serve as a best practices scenario, and the recommendations

generated can be used for future community art centers in Bridgeport, as well as cities similarly

challenged. The next chapter will provide an in-depth look at the existing literature on

18

community art centers, urban revitalization, and Bridgeport-specific issues concerning these

topics.

19

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Research Question

In order to begin to answer the question of how a community art center can develop a good

working relationship with both its community and city government, it is necessary to analyze the

existing literature on community art centers. As stated in Chapter One, the literature on this topic

can be divided into three areas: case studies of community art centers that are headed by

particularly strong and creative leaders, reports from or on specific places and their community

art centers and/or arts-based urban revitalization projects, and articles that examine other aspects

of community art centers.

Conceptual Framework

As shown in Figure 2.1 in Appendix B (page 66), in order to understand the connection

between art education in the form of community art centers and urban revitalization, data from

the literature will be analyzed to discover how the most successful art centers relate to their city

governments. This analysis will provide a context for determining why, despite support for art

centers from the community and other branches of government, the city government of

Bridgeport has shown unsteady support for art centers. Part of this issue has been centered how

profitable an art center is to the city. The researcher will therefore look to the literature for ways

that Bridgeport’s community art centers, such as Neighborhood Studios presently as well as any

future community art centers, can garner support from the city government by showing that they

may provide some type of return on investment. The researcher’s personal experience as a

Bridgeport art teacher, resident and voter qualifies her to act as a “guide” through the muddled

politics of the city and through the histories of two of the city’s community art centers: the

successful Neighborhood Studios and the unsuccessful Black Rock Art Center.

20

Review of the Literature

People

The brightest spotlight in the literature on community art centers shines on those

individuals who, through their passion and dedication, have carried fledgling community art

projects through to becoming successful community art centers. Two figures who stand out in

this regard are Judy Baca, founder of Venice, California’s Social and Public Art Resource Center

(SPARC), and Tyree Guyton, creator of Detroit, Michigan’s Heidelberg Project.

Judy Baca.

Baca started SPARC with the idea “that art could indeed change our world” (Baca, 2009,

p. 29), and her devotion to this idea has helped sustain the program for over 30 years (Calo,

2005). This philosophy has helped shape the lives of “high school and college students, rival

gangs, and members of diverse communities” in the area (Calo, 2005, p. 39). Rip Cronk, an artist

who participated in several SPARC mural projects, says of Baca “she helped me recognize the

power of art as an actualizing force

in society” (Calo, 2005, p. 40). Baca describes Los Angeles as

a duplicitous city. On one hand it is the world's commercial factory; on the other it is

promoted as the world's leading creative capital….a city that fails to protect the artistic

access and cultural democracy of its ‘majority-minority’ low-income population.” (Baca,

2009, p. 29)

The word “duplicitous” might also be used (by some people) to describe the city of Bridgeport.

Operating in a similar atmosphere to that of Bridgeport, Baca’s achievement through SPARC

was to set off a “rippling effect” in which her “students and protégés have gone on to transform

their world one vision at a time” (Calo, 2005, p. 41).

21

As a community art center leader, Judy Baca has lessons to teach leaders of community

art centers in Bridgeport, the main lesson being: be dedicated. As mentioned in Chapter One, this

idea had already been uncovered in the preliminary research. A steadfast dedication to the

community art center’s educational programming is vital to the success of the center. Judy Baca

has taught hundreds of people mural painting through SPARC and those people have gone on to

make changes in the community. The presence of murals in the community is not what makes

the change. People make the change.

Tyree Guyton.

Tyree Guyton started the Heidelberg Project in 1985 in order to call attention to

“problems such as blight, abandonment, homelessness, drugs, racism, and child

abuse” in his community (Che, 2007, p. 33). The project is comprised of several open-air art

installations and “aims to revitalize a neighborhood affected by deindustrialization” (Che, 2007,

p. 34). Bridgeport shares with Detroit the problems resulting from deindustrialization, with many

big corporate manufacturing operations, most notably General Electric, moving out of the area.

By using the project to the city’s youth, Guyton “expose[s] the linkages among social, economic,

and political problems through local exploration and problem solving (Breitbart 1981)” (Che,

2007, p. 40). The project has not been without controversy: “Highlighting the failure of city

government to deal with deteriorating neighborhoods and spurring people to question the status

quo led to conflict with city officials” (Che, 2007, p. 41). Instead of backing down under

pressure, these conflicts led to a redoubling of the non-profit’s efforts to revitalize the city (Che,

2007, pp. 41-42). Resistance to the project has not only come from those in city government, but

from the community as well. For example, one community member said “it would be ‘justice for

the community, justice for the neighborhood’ if the Heidelberg Project were torn down (Che,

22

2007, pp. 46-47). Guyton’s response to this was:

“‘There are lots of people like her – who do not go to institutions. One needs to take the art to the

people and make them part of it.’ This neighbor is now part of the Heidelberg Project (Guyton

2005c)” (Che, 2007, p. 47).

Lessons about community art centers’ relationships with community and city

governance from Judy Baca and Tyree Guyton.

One lesson to take away from these stories is that a community art center leader need not

kowtow to city government or to community pressure in order to accomplish its goals and

cultivate a good working relationship with both. By playing by the rules of city government and

actually buying the vacant houses that comprised the outdoor art installations, The Heidelberg

Project was able to continue to call attention to important community issues and educate the

area’s youth (Che, 2007, pp. 41-42). By inviting those community members who had expressed

opposition to the project to participate, Guyton was able to honor the community without

compromising his organization’s mission. Building a good working relationship does not mean

sacrificing the art center’s mission in the name of cooperation.

Places

There are several examples of specific places that are currently undergoing arts-based

revitalization or that have already completed such revitalization and/or are supporting creative

community art education initiatives. These “place-based” examples from the literature provide

valuable insights for Bridgeport’s community art centers. It should be noted that there is some

overlap between the “people” and “places” categories of the literature on community art centers.

Judy Baca and Tyree Guyton were undoubtedly products of their places. Their achievements

cannot be separated from their places, however they themselves cannot be separated from the

23

programs they started; that is why they fall into a separate category. There will be people in this

section who may have gained great notoriety for their achievements in leading community art

centers, but this section’s intended focus is on the effect that community art centers have had on

the place.

Vilnius, Lithuania.

Urban revitalization through the arts is a phenomenon that is happening all around the

world. For example, a recent report from Vilnius, Lithuania documents a revitalization project

based on Fluxus, which the mayor hopes will transform the city in the same way that it did SoHo

in New York (Gogarty, 2010, p. 340). There are many similarities between Vilnius and

Bridgeport. First, the mayor, Arturas Zuokas, is a powerful and polarizing figure who has a

history of corruption (Gogarty, 2010, p. 340). The two mayors of Bridgeport preceding the

current mayor were also powerful, polarizing, arts supporters who were steeped in corruption,

both being forced out of office early for their crimes. Second, like some of those in Bridgeport,

the art initiative being undertaken there is tied to local real estate speculation, or as the author

puts it in Vilnius, a “brazenly open dovetailing of art with property speculation” (Gogarty, 2010,

p. 340). This cocktail of power, corruption, and property speculation is a dangerous mix for art

centers. What is to happen to the art center when Zuokas, who has “no doubt that Vilnius will

succeed in its mission of becoming the global center of Fluxus for the 21st century,” leaves

power? Based on her preliminary research, this researcher can make an educated guess: their art

center will close. When the mayor of a city is also the biggest champion of the art centers there,

the art centers are at risk. Their fate then hangs on the next election, or worse, the moral fiber of

a politician.

This risk, in combination with property speculation, is especially tricky to navigate for an

24

art center. There is an expressed interest in the art center generating a profit for the city: the city

of Vilnius clearly expects a return on investment. However, as the author puts it, the thought that

“with a boost to the economy the whole project will be shipped out is surely troubling” (Gogarty,

2010, p. 340). Conversely, without a boost to the economy, the project will likely be deemed a

failure and shut down. It’s a lose-lose situation.

Providence, Rhode Island.

Closer to Bridgeport, the city of Providence, Rhode Island has undergone a

transformation from “a decaying, old textile city into a city of national prominence” (Orr &

West, 2002, p. 412). Providence is similar to Bridgeport in that it has suffered the ill effects of

deindustrialization and it has had a history of corruption in city hall (Orr & West, 2002, p. 404).

Providence’s mayor, Vincent “Buddy” Cianci, like the previously mentioned mayors of

Bridgeport, was a big supporter of the arts and was also forced out of office early due to illegal

activities (Orr & West, 2002, p. 404).

The creation of an arts and culture district in Providence, through “a cabinet-level

Department of Art, Culture, and Tourism” (Grant, 2006) was part of Mayor Cianci’s overall

urban revitalization agenda (Orr & West, 2002). So was making sure the streets were in good

repair—this is mentioned because in a major study of urban revitalization in Providence “the

quality of the streets was a major contributing factor to how citizens defined their overall quality

of life” (Orr & West, 2002, p. 415). The authors of the study go on to recall Mayor Cianci

boasting that, as part of his urban revitalization campaign, “73 miles of city streets were

resurfaced” (Orr & West, 2002, p. 415). Why speak of roads in research on community art

centers? One student at New Urban Arts, a community art center in Providence, “created a

memorial that recognized the labor of road crew workers” in which the artist “not only

25

recognized labor that is often overlooked and belittled, but also invited the workers…to

understand what she was doing in the studio” (Hocking, 2010, p. 49). Peter Hocking (2010), an

instructor at New Urban Arts, goes on to say of the student’s piece: “While ultimately a small

gesture, it speaks to the ways that New Urban Arts’ practice seeks to connect those

systematically excluded from the city’s arts-driven economic development strategies with the

arts as full participants” (p. 49). While streets are important, research shows that “narrow,

technical approaches to governing that do not also work to improve the ‘spirit’ of a city will not

be as successful as those that function at both levels” (Orr & West, 2002, p. 416). That speaks to

how community art centers can make a difference: “in part because they operate in cultural

margins, [they] can focus on multiple uses of the arts for mediating and intervening in critical

human issues” (Hocking, 2010, p. 47). In other words, art centers help improve the spirit of a

city.

Newark, New Jersey.

Newark, New Jersey, another northeastern city that has suffered economically from

deindustrialization, has also seen a massive turnaround with the help of the arts. The New Jersey

Performing Arts Center, or NJPAC has been “a key driver of Newark’s current revitalization”

(Croghan, 1999). There is very little substantive evidence of this in scholarly literature, as far as

this researcher was able to find. Most of the literature on NJPAC is from architecture journals,

talking about the amazing features the building offers. The other small handful of articles spoke

to the revitalization from a business standpoint. Once the center was built, redevelopment

happened quickly: “Lawrence P. Goldman, executive director of the center, thought it would take

at least two years for redevelopment to spread from the new facility to other parts of Newark. ‘I

was wrong in my prediction,’ he confessed this year” (1998, The Futurist). Just two years after

26

opening, “Manhattan megadeveloper Jerry Speyer…[made] a big bet on the resurgence of the

once-downtrodden city” (Croghan, 1999). The rapid success, the impressive building, and the

exciting programming have obscured one small detail, at least in the literature. According to a

video produced by the Women’s Association of NJPAC:

Even while architectural plans were being drawn and foundations dug, a solid, enduring

commitment to arts education was already in place. During these years of planning and

construction, NJPAC’s fledgling arts education program had already reached 3000

students. (2011)

This program, lacking a central building at first, was offered in schools throughout the city. Arts

education was therefore part of the foundation for this highly successful urban redevelopment

program. Did arts education contribute much to the success of NJPAC? Going back to the

statement from Orr and West’s (2002, p. 416) study on Providence, that improving the spirit of a

city is as important component to urban revitalization as improving the physical environment, the

answer is yes.

Other Aspects of Community Art Centers

There are, of course, many articles pertaining to community art centers that are not

specifically about urban issues or grand personalities. This third category in the literature covers

everything else about community art centers. Two articles in particular have relevance to the

question of how to promote a good working relationship between community art centers, the

community, and city governance.

“Children of the Future”.

“Promoting Artistic and Cultural Development Through Service Learning and Critical

Pedagogy in a Low-Income Community Art Program” (Adejumo, 2010) details some of the

27

many wonderful lessons provided by “the Children of the Future (COTF) art program at Sawyer

Recreation Center, located in a low-income housing project historically known as Poindexter

Village in Columbus, Ohio” (Adejumo, 2010, p. 23). Toward the end of the article, the reader

learns that the COTF program lost its funding and the recreation center out of which it used to

operate also closed and “might reopen with community support” (Adejumo, 2010, p. 32). In this

case, one wonders what kind of community support was in place to begin with, as well as what

kind of relationship the COTF program had with its city governance. Does excellent

programming matter in the face of lack of community support and a good working relationship

with city governance?

Civic Responsibility.

Another lesson comes from “Learning from Examples of Civic Responsibility: What

Community-Based Art Centers Teach Us About Arts Education” (Davis, 2010). In it, Jessica

Davis (2010) observes, “In its struggle for recognition and place in school settings, arts education

has sought justification in terms of its potential to serve the broader educational scene” (p. 83).

One might argue that that is exactly what this research is attempting to do, except on the city,

rather than school, level. It is not the intention of this research to try and provide justification for

art centers to exist in their communities, but rather provide ways for art centers to cultivate good

relationships in their cities, with Bridgeport’s art centers—current and future—being the primary

concern. Davis (2010) goes on to say, “community art centers are not striving to prove the

impact of the arts on SAT or IQ scores. They are demonstrating the power of the arts to make

positive life-altering differences to youth who have been placed at risk” (p. 87). The message to

take away here is that over-justifying the existence of a community art center may be

counterproductive, just as the need to tie school arts programs to test scores obscures their many

28

other benefits.

Conclusion The literature has shown that the effects of a community art center on a city cannot really

be considered quantifiable. Judy Baca and Tyree Guyton did not create massively profitable arts

industries in their communities. Through their dedication they created safe havens for

expression, which led to increased community spirit and activism, which in turn led to

innumerable changes. As a byproduct, in the case of Heidelberg Street, there has been increased

tourism. Mayor Zuokas of Vilnius is putting his political weight behind an art center for his city

in a bid to attract business and raise property values. How can an art center do this? It is the

atmosphere it creates—the spirit it cultivates in the community. The highly successful mayor of

Providence, “Buddy” Cianci recognized this correlation and made the arts central to many of the

revitalization projects in that city. Mayoral support, when coupled with property speculation,

however, may leave the art center vulnerable—the tide may well change. The chief executive

officer of NJPAC, Lawrence P. Goldman, got buy-in from the community for the city’s

powerhouse performing arts center by offering arts education programs before construction even

started. These types of success stories offer many reasons for city governments to want

community art centers around. However, COTF in Columbus lacked community and city

government support, and despite excellent programming, lost its place in the community and

operates in a somewhat reduced capacity. What could it have done differently to keep that

support? Jessica Hoffman Davis (2010) notes that arts programs tend to be forced into justifying

themselves through quantified data such as test scores.

What the literature has shown is that the benefits of having a community art center may

be atmospheric, but the leadership needs to be rock solid—dedicated to the art center and its

29

educational programming for the long-term. Key points so far concerning how art centers might

cultivate a good working relationship with community and city government include: having

dedicated leadership, having a strong commitment to education, managing the expectations of

the community and city government, and involving the community in projects. Managing

expectations is particularly important when dealing with a mayor who may be gambling that his

or her support of a community art center will pay off in increased property values.

30

Chapter 3: Methodology

Even though community art centers are “unfettered by the demands and constraints of

school administrations” (Davis, 2010, p. 82), they are affected by the whims of city government

and the support of the community. To uncover how a community art center can cultivate good

working relationships with both city government and the community, data will be gathered and

analyzed. In Chapter 2, existing literature on these relationships were explored. This information,

combined with data from previously conducted interviews, will give direction and context to the

next phase of data gathering. The following sections will detail the methods for data gathering

and analysis.

Design of the Study

This theoretical study began with preliminary research in the form of an historical inquiry

into the rise and fall of the Black Rock Art Center in the Black Rock neighborhood of

Bridgeport. This research included interviews with several leaders in the arts in Bridgeport:

Robbin Zella, Harold Levine, Theresa Tillinger, and Ben Ortiz. Once the research was

completed, and the demise of the Black Rock Art Center analyzed, the question of how arts

centers art center can avoid similar fates arose. The long established, award-winning

Neighborhood Studios was the obvious example to study for a possible set of answers to this

question. Because the research question involves three groups—Neighborhood Studios, the

community, and the city government—representatives from each group were interviewed for

their insights into what Neighborhood Studios dis and can continue doing to keep its doors open.

The findings, though related to local issues and perspectives, are anticipated to prove valuable to

other cities.

31

Research Methods

Interviews were chosen as the primary data source for this study because the bulk of

information on this topic lies with those actually involved in working for or with Neighborhood

Studios, or taking classes there. There is no specific scholarly literature regarding Neighborhood

Studios, and there is little to no research on community art centers relating to this research

question, which have been recorded or made public. Previous experience suggests that interviews

yield far more information than is simply suggested by the interview questions. Additional

sources of data include memos, videos, news reports, and a blog. These sources provide

contextual information that can be found nowhere else and, in the case of the videos, provides

the perspectives of people involved in local politics who could not be interviewed.

Interviews Previously Conducted

Most of the preliminary research was conducted in June, 2011. These interviews yielded

much more than information about the Black Rock Art Center and Neighborhood Studios. They

are a rich source of information about the art scene in Bridgeport, Bridgeport politics, and

history.

Interviewees

Robbin Zella is the Director of the Housatonic Museum of Art. Her interview was

conducted, very informally, at a downtown landmark restaurant, Ralph and Rich’s, and was

audio recorded. Parts of the conversation that were relevant to this study were later transcribed,

but the majority of what Ms. Zella spoke of was the ongoing efforts of an organization called the

Bridgeport Art and Cultural Council (BACC) to promote the arts in Bridgeport, and the

partnerships and organizations that preceded this council. The researcher also asked Ms. Zella to

32

recount the history, as she could remember, of art centers in Bridgeport, and then more

specifically about Black Rock Art Center and Neighborhood Studios.

Harold Levine is Chairman of Neighborhood Studios. His interview was conducted over

the phone and transcribed in a word processing program as he spoke. He was asked to provide

his own account of the history of Neighborhood Studios.

Theresa Tillinger is a Board Member of Neighborhood Studios and an active member of

local arts community. She is also the principal at St. Ann School in Black Rock, where the

researcher worked for many years. Interview was conducted at a Black Rock neighborhood

restaurant Ash Creek Saloon and the audio was recorded. She was asked to provide her insights

into Neighborhood Studios success.

Ben Ortiz is a librarian at the Bridgeport Public Library who is also an active and

longstanding member of local arts community. His interview was conducted over the phone and

notes were taken throughout the conversation. He was asked about the history of community art

centers in Bridgeport.

Additionally, the researcher interviewed Melissa Bernstein, former Manager of the Black

Rock Art Center. Her interview was conducted and recorded at Black Rock neighborhood

restaurant Bereket in October 2011. She was asked specifically about the last days of the Black

Rock Art Center.

Data Collection

Data collection for this study was conducted in a similar fashion to the preliminary

research. When possible, interviews were conducted in person and recorded. In certain situations,

interviews were conducted over the phone. People representing Neighborhood Studios, city

33

governance/community were interviewed. Memos, videos, newspaper articles, and a blog are

also sources for data.

Neighborhood Studios

Dr. Donald Rainone is the Executive Director/CEO of Neighborhood Studios and works

closely with city and community leaders. Frank Derico, as program director, is also in a position

to provide information about how Neighborhood Studios has created a positive relationship with

the community and city governance.

Community

The original plan for this study included interviewing students at Neighborhood Studios

and their parents. This would have proved a valuable source of information on how a community

really views the services that a community art center provides. In this case, the timing of the

study again prevented the researcher’s access to a relevant source of data. However, most of

those who were interviewed, both in the preliminary research and in the current research either

live or work in Bridgeport, and thus qualify as community members. The information about

community art centers they provided in interviews was often colored by their experience as

community members.

City Governance

The timing of this study coincided with city elections, so unfortunately, members of city

government such as the mayor and city council members, were unable to be reached to

participate in the study. The city governance perspective for this study was therefore provided by

political candidates—those members of the community ready to step up to leadership positions

in the city government. Mayoral Candidate Rick Torres has a history of supporting community

programs and provided valuable historical information as a Bridgeport native and longtime

34

political activist, as well as informed opinions on community art centers and Bridgeport. The

researcher ran into City Council candidates John Slater and John Weldon as they were

campaigning in her neighborhood, and they agreed to be interviewed for the research. Their

perspectives as Bridgeport natives and politically involved citizens yielded valuable historical

and inside information.

Memos

The researcher has ample prior experience, not only from the preliminary research, but

also from teaching in the Black Rock neighborhood, to draw on to contribute to the study. This

background, combined with impressions drawn throughout the research process, adds contextual

data to the study, and clarifies connections between the data and the literature.

Videos

In the preliminary research, a video of a City Council meeting on the fate of the Black Rock

Art Center was used to gain knowledge of the Council’s attitude toward the Black Rock Art

Center (Common Council City of Bridgeport, 2006). This video provided useful data concerning

how a community art center may foster a good working relationship with its city governance.

Another video containing valuable information is on Neighborhood Studios’ website, and

includes commentary from the art center’s founder (Neighborhood Studios, 2010). Video data

was used to add context to the study.

Newspaper Articles and Blog

Newspaper articles from the Connecticut Post concerning Neighborhood Studios (Brown,

2007) and “Only in Bridgeport” (Grimaldi, 2011) a blog which covers Bridgeport news and

politics, are two sources of information that contribute to the context of the study.

35

Data Analysis

For this study, preliminary interviews, literature, memos and media were analyzed using

connecting strategies. Interviews were analyzed through coding. The researcher’s goal of

providing practical recommendations as a result of this research necessitates the use of emic

categories of analysis for the interviews and memos; pre-established, etic, categories would not

suit this purpose. Roughly, the researcher looked for the following from the two groups:

• From Neighborhood Studios leaders-

o What decisions have Neighborhood Studios leaders made that have resulted in

favorable outcomes for the art center?

o How are decisions made at Neighborhood Studios?

• From City leaders-

o How is Neighborhood Studios viewed?

o Where does it rank on a list of priorities for the city?

o What is expected of the art center?

These questions may be considered a framework for the categories that are isolated

through a constant analysis of the data generated by interviews and contextualized through

literature and media.

36

Chapter 4: Results of the Study

Introduction

Figuring out ways to help community art centers thrive in the city of Bridgeport was the

goal of this research. The findings of the study have been distilled into a set of common-sense

guidelines, presented at the end of this chapter, which community art centers can follow in order

to enhance the potential for success. At the heart of running a community art center are a set of

shared principles, which in this profit-driven, politically polarized society, can be all too easily

obscured. This research is an attempt to use the best practices of a successful community arts

center as a guide for other such centers in the development of a successful and sustainable

presence, even in a distressed municipality like Bridgeport (CCM, 2011).

Significance of the Study

The researcher examined ways that a community art center might cultivate a good

working relationship with its community and city government, with the goal of turning the

information into a set of guidelines to be used in future art center initiatives in the city of

Bridgeport, Connecticut. The research can be deemed a success, because despite obstacles in

finding participants for the study, there were enough individual perspectives and differing

opinions to ensure a valid set of data from which to draw a set of guidelines. Triangulation

resulting from the three streams of data analyzed serves as a further mark of validity. The data

includes lessons drawn from failed and successful community arts centers.

The findings of this study yielded valuable information about how to create and sustain a

community art center in Bridgeport. The perceived profitability of an art center by the

community and city government is not the only factor that contributes to its success or failure,

though it is important. The researcher discovered that although there is no way to calculate the

37

monetary value or return on investment for a city, county, or state in sponsoring an arts center

does not mean such an investment is without value. The true value of an art center to a city is in

the spirit it cultivates-and in the kind of spirit a city needs to have in the first place to make such

an investment in people from whom there is no financial gain. What kind of spirit it cultivates

depends on the quality of the art center’s interaction with community and city government:

finding ways to partner with other organizations, making itself a part of the city’s agenda,

promoting excellence, having approachable, agile, and dedicated leadership, and putting down

deep roots in the community are some of the ways that an art center may achieve greater stability

while promoting a positive community spirit.

The findings provide confirmatory significance regarding the importance of a community

art center cultivating a good working relationship with its community and city government. This

is demonstrated in the study he study through the example Neighborhood Studios having put

down deep roots in the community and the resulting good relationship and reciprocal stability

such depth confers. This is confirmed by the writings of Jack Nasar and David Moffat (2004),

who describe Tyree Guyton living and working in the community his organization serves.

Finding ways to partner with other organizations is a way to cultivate a good working

relationship with city governance and the community, which can be confirmed by the story of

how NJPAC started out by providing educational programs in Newark’s schools, as told by the

Women’s Association of NJPAC (2011). The approachability of leadership aspect can be

confirmed by Calo’s (2005) description of Judy Baca’s leadership style and accomplishments.

This research will be useful for informing policy and can be implemented in the city of

Bridgeport and similar cities. The need for community art centers, and the services and benefits

they provide to a city is clear. By providing these findings to community arts leaders, it is hoped

38

that more community art centers and projects can take shape in Bridgeport in the future, and that

they will be successful.

Bias and Validity

Bias

Because elected officials were unresponsive to invitations to participate in this research,

the researcher acknowledges that the interviews that were used may convey an underlying bias

against the city’s current governance. This bias, however, does not impact the recommendations

to community art centers. The politically involved citizens who did participate—people who

were ready to step into roles in city governance—were not specifically asked to give their

opinions on Bridgeport’s governance, but they nonetheless naturally arose in conversation during

the interview process. Only that information relating to positive recommendations for

community art centers was factored into the analysis.

Validity

The implementation of the original research plan was met with real-life difficulties:

timing, availability, and cooperation issues caused a reduction in the number participants

compared to what was originally expected. Despite being smaller in number, the people who did

participate offered very relevant views and yielded valuable recommendations. The researcher

can only hypothesize that an increased number of participants would have yielded a greater

number of recommendations, but that theory does not invalidate the data already gathered or the

guidelines it yielded.

The formation of the guidelines from data collected from interviews and the literature

necessitated the use of a rule: in order to become a guideline, the information must have

confirmation from another source. Therefore, something said in an interview may not become a

39

guideline unless it is backed up by information in the literature or by another interview, and vice

versa. In this way, individual opinions carry equal weight.

Analysis of the Data

As described in Chapter 3, the primary source of data outside of the literature is

interviews. Interviews, in all but one case, were conducted in person and recorded and later

transcribed in a word processing program. In the case of Frank Derico, Program Director at

Neighborhood Studios, the interview was conducted over the phone and transcribed as faithfully

as possible in a word processing program.

The researcher first noticed certain words occurring more frequently in interviews with

some subjects, but not at all in others. Generally, the perspectives of interviewees who were

involved with the community and were prepared to step up to positions in city government were

very different from those expressed by interviewees who were currently or formerly involved in

running an art center.

Table 4.1. Categories of interviewees

People directly involved with the

running of community art centers

People who are community leaders and

political candidates

Dr. Donald Rainone (Neighborhood

Studios)

Rick Torres (Republican Mayoral

Candidate, former Black Rock Art Center

Board Member)

Frank Derico (Neighborhood Studios) John Slater (Republican City Council

Candidate)

Melissa Bernstein (Black Rock Art Center) John Weldon (Republican City Council

Candidate, former MACH student)

40

The transcripts were read closely several times for frequently recurring ideas and words,

which were highlighted. The researcher also paid special attention to ideas, which paralleled

those from the literature or from previously conducted interviews. The result of this process was

that a main theme for each interview was distilled.

Table 4.2. Interviewees and the themes of their interviews

Interviewee (in chronological order) Main theme of interview

Melissa Bernstein Personality

Frank Derico Partnership

Rick Torres Quality

John Slater Promotion

Donald Rainone Communication

John Weldon Accessibility

Interviews

Below is a summary of each interview, highlighting the points that were most relevant to

the study from an analysis standpoint.

Dr. Donald Rainone.

The CEO and Executive Director of Neighborhood Studios says that “finding the money

to sustain the mission” is more difficult than trying to “communicate that you’re doing very well

with your programs and that your organization’s mission is being fulfilled” (Donald Rainone,

personal communication, 2011). Dr. Rainone mentioned “communication” several times over the

41

course of the interview. Regarding Neighborhood Studios’ relationship with city governance, he

said, “we have an email relationship,” indicating an ease of communication between the two.

“We have a very good relationship with the school board [attributed to] communication and

delivery of our programs” he went on to say.

Dr. Rainone addressed the issue of the lease and change of location, saying that they’ve

“grown a little bit, attracting more attention from the East Side, which has been our identity for

the last 10 years” (personal communication, 2011). They secured a “ten year lease with 5 year

extension” from the Diocese of Bridgeport—they have taken over an old Catholic school

(Donald Rainone, personal communication, 2011; Harold Levine, personal communication,

2011). He says “they managed to renovate the area with earmarks” (Donald Rainone, personal

communication, 2011). This has helped them in “reaching out to the community” and Dr.

Rainone goes on to say that “our presence is felt because we work in the area and we live in the

area” (personal communication, 2011).

Dr. Rainone also talked about the board, saying, “In any non-profit, dealing with your

board is one of the most important things you can do” (personal communication, 2011). He says

that they have “lots of committees” and that the board generally stays out of the “day-to-day

activities” of the art center.

Frank Derico.

The main theme of Neighborhood Studios Program Director Frank Derico’s responses to

the researcher’s questions can be summed up in one word: partnership. His emphasis on the

importance of partnership far outweighed any mention of marketing or leases or boards or any

other aspect of running a non-profit organization. While he indicates that partnerships are the

main driving force behind their growth as an organization, he also cites the change of location,

42

saying, “Now that we’ve moved we’ve had a 20% increase” (Frank Derico, personal

communication, 2011). He implies that this emphasis on partnership extends to their relationship

with city governance stating,

If it’s something the mayor wants to see happen, he sees we’re involved….See if you can

be a part of the direction the city is going in. It’s not about doing something that’s doing

the opposite of what you already do as an organization. (Frank Derico, personal

communication, 2011)

This statement is significant because it is supported by the literature concerning the Heidelberg

Project, which as mentioned in Chapter 2, actually bought the houses they were transforming in

order to fall in line with the city’s rules. (Che, 2007, pp. 41-42). They did not have to change

their identity as an organization, only how they interacted with the city.

A lot of how these partnerships get started, he says, is about showing up at meetings. He

says that in 2008 he “happened to go to a meeting to talk about getting after school providers

together” and that they “wanted to develop a coalition,” which he was picked to help lead (Frank

Derico, personal communication, 2011). He says that “it was a little about what the city was

saying, more about what our funders were saying: partnership, partnership, partnership. No

duplication, and the only way to do that was to know what all the others were doing” (Frank

Derico, personal communication, 2011). Going to meetings is an obvious way to find out what

other organizations are doing—and to partner with them.

Melissa Bernstein.

Having cultivated a friendly relationship with Ms. Bernstein from her days as general

manager of the Black Rock Art Center, the researcher conducted this interview more casually

than those for the other art center leaders interviewed. The researcher focused mainly on the

43

history of the end of the Black Rock Art Center in 2008. As Ms. Bernstein detailed the

circumstances surrounding the closing, it did not take long for the topic of Joseph Celli’s

famously difficult personality to come up,

Not all by any means but there’s a segment of the community, as well as the majority of

city government, who didn’t believe a word he said, didn’t like him personally, and really

didn’t like his politics. And so, a good chunk of my time in my 13 months that I worked

there, a good chunk of my time was actually spent trying to re-brand the art center

without his face on it. What had happened up until I got there is that the art center and Joe

Celli were one and the same thing, and that was a challenge when I got there and it meant

I couldn’t get through to some people because certain people wouldn’t take phone calls

from the Black Rock Art Center. (Melissa Bernstein, personal communication, 2011)

She went on to state that the blame for what happened to the art center could not be placed

squarely on the shoulders of Celli. She said, “A lot of it is funding related, a lot of it is the

yanking around with the lease” (Melissa Bernstein, personal communication, 2011). In fact, she

cites never being granted a long-term lease by the city as the main contributing factor to the

closing of the Black Rock Art Center (Melissa Bernstein, personal communication, 2011). When

an RFP was issued for the Black Rock Bank and Trust building, the building that housed the

Black Rock Art Center, Celli’s angry reaction was “understandable, reasonable” in Ms.

Bernstein’s opinion. However, she goes on to state that, “I always feel like with that sort of…I

think you get more flies with honey. You know, like, he didn’t have to be quite so adversarial

with the city” (Melissa Bernstein, personal communication, 2011).

44

Ms. Bernstein also described goings-on with the board of the Black Rock Art Center. She

successfully applied to the Connecticut Commission on Culture and Tourism for an advisor to

aid the art center in activating its board. The states that the advisor, Todd Pickens’s assessment

was that “the board really doesn’t know what to do” which she attributes to “the fact that Joe’s

president of the board and also general manager, they always just let Joe do whatever and

basically just signed off on things…they pretty much okayed everything he wanted to do”

(Melissa Bernstein, personal communication, 2011). Later in the interview, she contrasted Black

Rock Art Center’s board structure with that of Music and Art Center for Humanity (MACH),

which is now Neighborhood Studios: “First of all, there’s more people involved with MACH.

MACH doesn’t have the board president that manages and tells the rest of his board what to say.

They’re a more diverse group to my understanding” (Melissa Bernstein, personal

communication, 2011).

As for her own involvement, she recalled,

When I started to become the face of the art center in the neighborhood, I’m not saying

every door opened, but I’m saying it helped, because people didn’t want to get on the

phone with Joe. People didn’t want to have a meeting with Joe. (Melissa Bernstein,

personal communication, 2011)

She also revealed that “one of the plusses of having me there is that I have a really broad

network of artists [who are] friends I hang out with” (Melissa Bernstein, personal

communication, 2011). Having this network of artists and musicians, having these relationships,

helped her fill in gaps in programming. This contributed to the Black Rock Art Center being an

45

“anchor that other things happened around” which was “a big benefit, even though the

community didn’t recognize it…in terms of commerce” (Melissa Bernstein, personal

communication, 2011).

Rick Torres.

Where the theme of Frank Derico’s interview was partnership, the theme focused upon

by Rick Torres was promotion. When asked what he might expect from an art center from a city

leadership perspective, he said, “be very active, promote excellence in art” (personal

communication, 2011). He views the role of an art center more as that of a forum for people to

gather and exchange ideas. He sees a community art center serving to “feed larger art

organizations” and being a place where “you could possibly really discover somebody that

would otherwise have gone undiscovered” (personal communication, 2011).

Mr. Torres, as a small business owner, has also seen benefits from the promotion of the

arts in a community, which for him includes “additional exposure…you know people who’ve

never come into Harborview [his store and restaurant] before will come, they’ll like the place,

they’ll come back. So it’s additional revenue for us” (Rick Torres, personal communication,

2011). He sees the benefits his store has enjoyed as “the analog to what the city would gain if it

does a good job with a large, centrally located art center” (Rick Torres, personal communication,

2011). Conversely, with the controversy that surrounded the Black Rock Art Center and the

resulting divisions among members of the community, “if you were with this group you didn’t

go into those businesses, if you were with that group…I lost a lot of business” (Rick Torres,

personal communication, 2011).

In his estimation, the city government is “in it for the promotion and betterment of

themselves” (Rick Torres, personal communication, 2011). The leadership, he says, is a big part

46

of why there are not more art centers in the city, “they don’t embrace the arts” (Rick Torres,

personal communication, 2011). He says, “You need [sic] a mayor that would attend

openings…and other layers of government [sic] to show up…you’re shaking hands and you’re

promoting how great the arts are in Bridgeport” (Rick Torres, personal communication, 2011).

John Slater.

John Slater’s expectation of a community art center is a lot like that of Rick Torres. He

“would expect community forums, [sic] community networking events” (John Slater, personal

communication, 2011). He also cites a lack of promotion of the arts on a city level as one of the

problems (John Slater, personal communication, 2011). He thinks that promotion of arts and

other cultural events in Bridgeport will draw in people from the wealthier neighboring towns,

“hopefully getting some of these wealthy people to say ‘I want to buy property in Bridgeport’”

(John Slater, personal communication, 2011).

Mr. Slater describes the city government’s attitude, as he sees it, as “I’ll believe it once I

see it” (personal communication, 2011). Describing political campaigns with which he’s been

involved, he says, “we’ve tried to point out the corruption and it hasn’t woken up the voters.

Rick has now in two campaigns, and I think the correct message is, if you want to attract

somebody you have to be positive” (John Slater, personal communication, 2011). He says that to

be successful in this city, “you get your community involved” (John Slater, personal

communication, 2011).

John Weldon.

Not only is John Weldon a community leader and political candidate, but he is the only

person interviewed who has actually taken part in programs at a previous incarnation of

Neighborhood Studios. He was enrolled in the Music and Art Center for the Visually

47

Handicapped as a child and remembers it as a positive experience. His expectation of a

community art center would be for it to make art more accessible to the community (personal

communication, 2011). He thinks the city “could do more to foster those kinds of things, rather

than leaving it to the devices of [founder] Pat Hart” but he thinks that on the city’s part “it’s

viewed more as a luxury” (John Weldon, personal communication, 2011).

Results

The resulting guidelines for community art centers have been taken directly from the

themes of the interviews. They are validated by at least one other source—either another

interview or a piece of literature. In other words, the theme of each interview forms the base of

each guideline, and each guideline has been checked against other sources to ensure validity. The

only guideline that did not come directly from the themes of the interviews is the last one, though

it was inspired by the interview of Frank Derico.

• Personality

o Community art center leaders should be cooperative, collaborative, and dedicated.

o This guideline is taken from information found in the interview of Frank Derico

(2011), and the writings of Judy Baca (2009), and Carole Calo (2005).

• Partnership

o Seek out ways to partner with other community organizations.

o This guideline is taken from information provided by Frank Derico (2011) and the

Women’s Association of NJPAC (2011).

• Quality

o Provide a standard of quality.

48

o This guideline is taken from the suggestions provided by Rick Torres (2011) and

information from the previously conducted interviews of Theresa Tillinger and

Harold Levine (2011).

• Promotion

o Provide good service to the community, and the community is more likely to

support and promote the art center.

o This guideline is taken from the suggestions of John Slater (2011) and the

research of Deborah Che (2007).

• Communication

o Have open lines of communication with city governance.

o This guideline is taken from the interview of Dr. Donald Rainone (2011) and is

confirmed by the interview of Melissa Bernstein (2011).

• Accessibility

o Find a convenient location to the community served and be welcoming to

community involvement.

o This guideline is taken from the interview of John Weldon (2011) and is

confirmed by Dr. Donald Rainone (2011) and the research of Deborah Che

(2007).

• Cooperation

o Find ways for the organization to fit into city plans without sacrificing mission.

o This guideline is supported by the interview of Frank Derico and the research of

Deborah Che (2007).

49

Conclusion

Realistic and practical answers to the question of how an art center might cultivate a good

working relationship with both its city government and community have been provided in this

chapter. Data gathered from interviews and literature have been used to present a set of

guidelines that can be realistically utilized by an art center. In Chapter 5, a discussion of who

could benefit from these guidelines and how they could be implemented will be presented, as

well as the researcher’s personal observations.

50

Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion

Introduction

Guidelines supporting the cultivation of good working relationships with community and

city government, distilled from the data collected in this study can be used to help develop and

sustain community art centers in Bridgeport, Connecticut and cities like it. In this chapter, the

personal impact of the study on the researcher, as well recommendations for implementation and

future research will be discussed. One idea for implementation is captured in the form of a unit

plan, which utilizes the findings of this research, and is summarized in this chapter.

Discussion

On the surface, a community art center would appear to be the exact type of organization

behind which a city and community would naturally throw their unwavering support. The value

of a community art center to a city can be demonstrated in many ways. They are known to

improve quality of life and can contribute to uplifting the spirit of a city. They can help solve

problems that might not fit the goals of other community and governmental agencies. They

provide opportunities for learning that people, young and old, might not have had otherwise.

Despite these many benefits that community art centers offer, the truth is, that community and

government support has to be earned, those good relationships have to be developed, and trust

has to be built. The city and community may have expectations of the organization that the

leadership is not aware of, or doesn’t know how to connect with. The guidelines that have been

uncovered over the course of this research are a good place to start.

51

Personal Impact of the Study.

Interviewing the participants and reviewing the literature for this study has been a

illuminating experience for the researcher. After learning about the reasons behind the closing of

the Black Rock Art Center in the preliminary research, the researcher’s interest in finding ways

to promote the arts in Bridgeport in a sustainable way was piqued. Information and insights from

the participants and the resulting guidelines they inspired, in the researcher’s opinion, could be of

value not only to community art centers, but also to almost any non-profit organization. As an art

educator, the researcher’s focus when it came to promoting the arts was confined to the school

level. By focusing on promoting art in the community in the form of community art centers, the

researcher has gained a greater understanding of not only her own role, but the role of art

education on a city level. The researcher was inspired by the examples Tyree Guyton and Judy

Baca, and how one dedicated art educator can bring about change in a city.

Personally, the study has made the researcher look at the struggles of the city in a more

concrete way. Before, the problems of the city seemed so big that they could not be overcome or

even understood. Now that the researcher has gained an understanding of the relatively small

issue of community art centers in Bridgeport, other city issues seem within her grasp. The

unrealistic and unfair way that most people in Fairfield County view Bridgeport seems all the

more silly now. What Bridgeport needs is people who are willing to take the issues seriously and

to make decisions based in logic rather than emotion—intelligence must win out over apathy.

52

Impact on Practice.

With a newfound awareness of the ways in which arts can affect change in a city, the

researcher designed a unit for use in an upper-level high school art class geared toward

promoting social change through art. The intention of the unit is to demonstrate to students that

they can spark a dialogue about the city through their artwork. They will have the opportunity to

share their own perspectives on exactly what is the spirit of the city. The unit begins with an

inquiry-based discussion of artworks selected by the researcher, which reflect the “spirits” of

various cities and towns from different locations and historical contexts. From this discussion

will flow a brainstorming session in which students will have a chance to share words, which

they think characterize the spirit of the city. Then, using the words that most resonate with them,

students will individually brainstorm and sketch to come up with an image that best

communicates their idea of what makes up the city’s spirit. By removing medium restrictions

from the project, students are freed to fully express this idea in whichever medium they feel is

best. The unit will culminate in a critique and then a student exhibition in which they will have

the opportunity to share their work with the community. This is the most important part of the

unit because it will teach students the value of sharing their artwork and the kinds of dialogues

that can be created when the community has access to art.

Recommendations.

Further research in this area would require a few changes. First, the timeline for

collecting data through interviews should be extended to allow more members of city

government to participate. Timing the interviews to take place at a time when city elections are

not imminent would also be prudent. The input of students and parents of students would also

add a valuable dimension to the research, provided the community art center being studied is

53

willing to allow the researcher access. In the case of this particular study, timing prevented the

participation of students, as they were busy preparing for a major performance. A study that

includes several art centers throughout the state or region would yield more data from which to

refine and substantiate guidelines.

Bringing to life a new art center for the community of Black Rock would be a major

accomplishment, and if this research could be a part of that genesis, then the researcher’s highest

hopes for this project will have been fulfilled. This study will be put in the hands of each of the

participants, beginning with those from Neighborhood Studios. It is hoped that the research will

become part of the conversation among community arts leaders, and will be a catalyst for

change. Hopes are high for the city of Bridgeport. This research may help bring about the arts-

based revitalization that the citizens of Bridgeport have been waiting for.

Conclusion to the Research

For Bridgeport to thrive, it desperately needs investment in the arts. Art centers and other

art education initiatives have helped other cities in their revitalization efforts. The city’s needs art

centers to help it identify and enrich its spirit especially in, now in such an economically stunted

and politically polarized environment. Guidelines such as those presented here provide a viable

roadmap for arts centers to follow toward stability in such an environment. Building a good

relationship with both the city government and the community is critical for the fulfillment of an

art center’s mission. Community art centers are capable of bringing about the kinds of social

changes which other types of organizations cannot, and these guidelines could help give them an

edge—a fighting chance to make a difference.

54

References

Adejumo, C. (2010). Promoting Artistic and Cultural Development Through Service

Learning and Critical Pedagogy in a Low-Income Community Art Program. Visual Arts

Research, 36(1), 23-34. doi: 10.1353/var.2010.0009

Baca, J. (2009). Judy Baca: Public Memory. Public Art Review, 20(2), 28-9. Retrieved from

Art Full Text database

Biography for Seth MacFarlane. (n.d). In IMDb. Retrieved from

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0532235/bio

Brown, D. (2007, September 5). Not all arts deals in Bridgeport are equal. Connecticut Post

Online. Retrieved from LexisNexis.

Calo, C. (2005). Judy Baca's Legacy. Public Art Review, 17(1), 39-41. Retrieved from Art

Full Text database

Che, D. (2007). Connecting the dots to urban revitalization with the Heidelberg Project.

Material Culture, 39(1). Retrieved from Art Full Text database

Common Council City of Bridgeport. (2006, September 6). The future of Black Rock art center

[video recording of meeting]. Retrieved from

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6682426444996905049#

Connecticut Conference of Municipalities [CCM]. (2011). A tale of disproportionate

burden: the special needs of Connecticut’s poorer cities [Public Policy Report].

Retrieved from http://advocacy.ccm-ct.org/Resources.ashx?id=77eea051-0dd1-44d7-

94b8-e4d092dda018

55

Croghan, L. (1999). Speyer places bet on Newark revival. Crain's New York Business, 15(30), 3.

Retrieved from Business Full Text database

Davis, J. (2010). Learning from examples of civic responsibility: what community-based art

centers teach us about arts education. The Journal of Aesthetic Education, 44(3), pp. 82-

95. DOI: 10.1353/jae.2010.000

Grimaldi, L. (2011, November 3). The city’s theatrical twin jewels–what would the

mayoral candidates do? [Web Blog Post]. Retrieved from

http://onlyinbridgeport.com/wordpress/the-citys-theatrical-twin-jewels-what-would-the

-mayoral-candidates-do/

Gogarty, L. (2010). Fluxus Ministry. Art Monthly, 40. Retrieved from Art Full Text

database

DeGregorio, T., Stashower, G. and Turbine, Inc. (n.d). Helping students find their future

through the arts [Pamphlet]. Neighborhood Studios of Fairfield County.

Herszenhorn, D. (2001, August 19). Rich states, poor cities and mighty suburbs; in

Connecticut and New Jersey, urban poverty confronts leafy affluence. The New York

Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/19/nyregion/rich-states-poor-

cities-mighty-suburbs-connecticut-new-jersey-urban-poverty.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Hocking, P. (2010). I Wish I had a place like this when I was growing up: New Urban Arts

and the cultivation of creative practice. Radical Teacher, 47-56. Retrieved from

Education Full Text database

Kingsley, E. (2011). Being a community art center in Bridgeport. [Unpublished paper].

Lampert-Gréaux, E. (1998). Cultural cachet. TCI, 32, 38-41. Retrieved from Art Full Text

database

56

Maxwell, J. (2005). Qualitative research design: an interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

Moffat, D. & Nasar, J. (2004). The Heidelberg Project—Detroit, Michigan Places, 16(3).

Retrieved from Art Full Text database

Neighborhood Studios. (Producer). (2010). Neighborhood studios of Fairfield County

[YouTube video]. Retrieved from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiscBg3BlSo&feature=player_embedded

Orr, M., & West, D. (2002). Citizens' Views on Urban Revitalization: The Case of Providence,

Rhode Island. Urban Affairs Review, 37(3), 397-419. doi:

10.1177/10780870222185397

Shapiro, J.H. (2011). Magic Trash. Watertown, MA: Charlesbridge.

Suede Productions. (Producer). (2011). The Heidelberg Project [Video]. Retrieved from

http://heidelberg.org/

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation. (Producer). (2010). The North Pole [Season 9,

Episode 7]. Quoted clip and images retrieved from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qna1JHIsyVM

Show information retrieved from http://www.fox.com/familyguy/videos/74381/the-north

-pole?sortby=date

Women’s Association of NJPAC. (Producer). (2011). Video on Lawrence P. Goldman and

NJPAC's Arts Education Programs [Video]. Retrieved from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JPx4dIRyY4

U.S. Census Bureau. (2009). Estimates for Connecticut School Districts [Small Area Income and

Poverty Estimates]. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/saipe/saipe.cgi

57

Appendix A

BOSTON UNIVERSITY PROGRAMS IN EDUCATION

UNIT PLAN

Art Education Program

NAME: Spirit of the City THEME: Community UNIT RATIONALE: Paris: the city of light. New York: the city that never sleeps. Chicago: the second city. Detroit: the motor city. The spirit of a city can be described in many ways. These famous cities’ spirits have been cleverly captured with words. This unit will explore the possibilities of an image to capture the spirit of a city. Art, especially art that comes directly from the community can serve “to generate discussion and [be] a voice for the community” (Moffat and Nasar, 2004, p. 15). The expression of individual definitions of the city’s spirit can serve as a catalyst for change and an opportunity for empowerment. Publicly displayed community art has “creatively solved myriad problems in blighted neighborhoods” (Baca, 2009, p. 29). Like the work of Tyree Guyton, the works produced over the course of this unit will be “not only about what you see. It's about the dialog it engenders” (Moffat and Nasar, 2004, p. 17). Creating a dialog is the first step toward social change, and home-grown perspectives are more valuable than those of outsiders who seek to define the city’s spirit on a superficial level. If interpretations of the city’s spirit are less than glowing, steps can begin to be taken toward changing that spirit. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE: Spirit of Bridgeport By examining the culture, mood, and environment of the city of Bridgeport, Connecticut, students will come up with their own two-dimensional images that express what they feel is the spirit of the city. Empowering students to start their own dialogues on the positive and negative aspects of the city, and allowing them to display their images to the public will prove to students the value of both addressing social issues in art and allowing the community access to socially critical artwork. GOALS: Students should (based on National Visual Art Standards, Grades 9-12): Understand:

1. The process of creating their artwork, from brainstorming to finished product (Content Standard 1, Achievement Standard B).

2. How the visual characteristics of their image communicates or expresses their idea of what represents the spirit of the city (Content Standard 2, Achievement Standard A)

58

Know:

1. Why they are creating their image and what it might mean for the community (Content Standard 5, Achievement Standard A).

2. How their art fits into the context of the city and its history (Content Standard 4, Achievement Standard E).

Be able to: 1. Create an artwork based on several rounds of brainstorming and analysis of their idea

(Content Standard 2, Achievement Standard E). 2. Express their idea clearly by choosing an appropriate medium and technique, and by

showing significant effort in the brainstorming process (Content Standard 1, Achievement Standard A).

INSTRUCTIONAL CONCEPTS: This unit is based on “the idea that the skills of imagination, developed especially

through engagement with the arts, are key to social change” (Hocking, 2010, p. 51). This unit allows students to use their imaginations to draw attention to their own unique perspectives of the city. Allowing these young voices to be heard can be seen as part of what community art centers provide cities: public engagement with art. The concept that art can serve as a community voice is the central concept in this unit. Other important concepts covered here are learning the process of development of ideas, choosing an appropriate medium, and using techniques and processes that clearly express the idea. LESSONS: Lesson 1: Cities represented in art history (one class period) Students will view slides of various works from different times and cultures which show cities and towns, either, idealized or real, which convey a sense of the spirit of the place. There will be an inquiry-based discussion of the works and the sense of mood, energy, environment, and culture each piece conveys. OPTIONAL: Students will take a mini-field trip to the transportation center to view the full size reproductions of the Bridgeport Brass Works murals which are on display there. This will give students a sense of how Bridgeport’s spirit has been represented in the past. Lesson 2: Brainstorming: What is the spirit of Bridgeport to me? (one to two class periods, with homework possible for those who need more time) Students will collectively brainstorm a list of words that describe the spirit of Bridgeport to them, allowing each student the opportunity to contribute. These words will be written down and displayed so that all can see. Then, students will choose the words that most resonate with their feelings about Bridgeport and write these down in their sketchbooks. Students will individually sketch ideas for images which they think best communicate the ideas that were brainstormed. Students will be asked to generate at least three ideas for images, and be able to explain which medium they would use for each idea. Lesson 3: Creating the artwork: Phase 1- planning and choosing materials (less than one class period) Students will have the opportunity to gather their materials based on what the teacher feels confident that they are proficient enough to use without further instruction. This unit is on imagination and expression of an individual idea—it is not focused on learning a specific medium. Standard 2-D media in which students are likely proficient by this age include: graphite and paper, watercolor and paper, acrylics and canvas, pen and ink on paper, brush and ink on

59

paper. Though students are likely proficient in these media, it is always a good idea to go over proper use of the materials and clean-up procedures. Lesson 4: Creating the artwork: Phase 2- creating (two class periods minimum) Students will create their artwork in their chosen media. The teacher should be available to answer questions and should circulate to monitor in-process behavior. Lesson 5: Displaying and Critiquing: Creating community dialogue (One class period and after-school hours reception) Students will display their pieces in classroom and participate in a critique focusing on understanding the perspectives of others. Formal aspects of the artwork should also be discussed in the form of constructive criticism. Next, student work will be collected and displayed in a pre-determined public location—ideally an art center. The teacher should plan ahead for working with a venue on the art exhibit and reception. Students can help with publicity and perhaps providing items for the reception if needed, food and drink for example. This final lesson of the unit is important because it drives home the meaning of the unit—that creating artwork can create meaningful dialogues that can further positive social changes. INSTRUCTOR VISUALS: Ambrogio Lorenzetti, “Peaceful City” from “Effects of Good Government in the City and in the Country”, Palazzo Publico, Siena, Italy, 1338-1339 Retrieved from http://www.proprofs.com/flashcards/upload/q1271805.jpg

60

Pieter Bruegel the Elder, “Landscape with Skaters and Bird Trap” Retrieved from http://www.repfineart.com/reproduction-oil-paintings/pieter-bruegel-the-elder/

Katsushika Hokusai, “Women Returning Home at Sunset” Retrieved from http://www.katsushikahokusai.org/Women-Returning-Home-at-Sunset-%28Sarumaru-Dayu%29-large.html

61

Camille Pissarro, “La Place du Theatre Francais, 1898. Retrieved from http://collectionsonline.lacma.org/MWEBimages/eps_mm/full/M46_3_2.jpg

Fernand Leger, “The City”, 1919. Retrieved from http://img.artknowledgenews.com/files2010jan/The-City-Fernand-Leger.jpg

62

Georgia O’Keefe, “New York, Night”, 1929. Retrieved from http://cache2.artprintimages.com/p/LRG/7/793/ITZI000Z/art-print/georgia-okeeffe-new-york-night.jpg

Pablo Picasso, “Guernica”, 1937. Retrieved from http://www.artchive.com/artchive/p/picasso/guernica.jpg

Judy Baca, “Division of the Barrios and Chavez Ravine”

63

Retrieved from http://www.sparcmurals.org/present/cmt/Division.jpg

Tyree Guyton, “The Dotty Wotty House” Retrieved from http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-A5UXu46kKGg/TbcBO1RptVI/AAAAAAAAD08/buvYE9C64FM/s1600/20070713000306603.jpg

64

MATERIALS: Sketchbooks Chalkboard or other large display Paper Watercolor paper Canvas Graphite Pens Brushes Ink Watercolors Acrylics Materials for displaying artwork (could be matte board, frames, other mounting materials)

65

ASSESSMENT: Adherence to art class rubric, quality of brainstorming, in-process behavior, participation in Lesson 1 discussion and Lesson 5 critique, participation in student exhibition References: Hocking, P. (2010). I Wish I had a place like this when I was growing up: New urban Arts and the cultivation of creative practice. Radical Teacher, 47-56. Retrieved from Education Full Text database Moffat, D. & Nasar, J. (Fall 2004). The Heidelberg Project—Detroit, Michigan. Places, 16(3). Retrieved from Art Full Text database

66

How does a non-profit community art center develop a good working relationship with both its community and city governance? Neighborhood Studios” in Bridgeport CT. will be a test pilot for this research Prior Knowledge

Areas of Research

Research Strategy

Connections/Goals

Previous research into the rise and fall of Black Rock Art Center, whose former building, which will now be turned into

a tapas bar.

Previous experience as a participant in the

Bridgeport art scene

Experience as a Bridgeport voter and

familiarity with Bridgeport politics

Connections to leadership of

Neighborhood Studios from previous research

paper

History

Demographics of Neighborhood Studios

students

Experiences of Neighborhood Studios students and leaders

Experiences of city officials involved in decision-making around issues involving art centers—past and present

Literature on similar community art centers in

cities similar to Bridgeport

Theoretical study

Interviews (See Prior Knowledge)

I hope to understand the connection between art education in the form of

art centers and urban revitalization.

I hope to understand

why, despite support for arts centers from the community and other

branches of government, the city government of

Bridgeport’s support for arts centers has been

less than steady.

I hope to be able to answer the question of whether or not support

for an art center is purely a result of how profitable it appears to

be to the community, as some believe.

Appendix B