The Art and Business of Choosing One's Neighborhood

Combining both of my emphases of business and art, I would aim to answer the posed questions in a viable and creative way. The business side of me says generally people move to increase value or some sort of benefit they see fit in their lives and worth relocating to move. The artistic side is a more abstract approach and chimes in to say that people choose their neighborhoods based on the feeling of being accepted and to be a part of a greater cause. There are similarities between the two of these although I do believe there to be slight urges that may not be present in one or the other siloes of discipline.

To further my thoughts above concerning similarities and differences amongst the business and artistic side of why people would choose to move to a neighborhood, stands the similarities. Firstly, it is a deep, primitive urge that every human being possesses to want to feel a sense of belonging. Humans want to be included. We are social creatures and have a common intrinsic value of togetherness. I believe the basis of this feeling is the family influence we experience as infants and children. Now, there are varying amounts of this presence in individuals but it is human nature to want to feel inclusion. Furthermore, the importance of value is a common trait amongst human beings. Having a voice or role that matters in any place is an important value a human being must feel for safety in their tight-knit community.

That brings up my point in business that a choice in picking a neighborhood must also bring value. Aside from the sense of belonging and inclusion one must possess to pick a community they decide to move to, there is on every businessperson’s mind the viability and benefit they see in that home or vicinity. Whether it is to gain a presence, improve the value of the neighborhood both economically and morally, or to bring financial benefit as an investment property, all of these reasons (amongst a slew of others) could be a factor in the businessperson’s equation of finding value.

On the right side of an artist’s brain, is the screaming voice that says community must have a certain feeling about it before they would choose to move there. Artists are typically known to be emotional and in touch with the world around them. This subliminal or subconscious tendency drives the artist’s soul and heart, not only into his work, but I also profess into the decision of finding his place. There is also the greater cause ringing. The need to bring vision to all, most certainly has an affect on the choice made to move into one subdivision over the other. Artists might ask themself, “Will I, as an artist, contribute to this specific creation of mankind called a neighborhood? Do I bring enough aesthetic and artsy value to this creative space?” If the answer of a fellow Picasso would be yes, then he would surely pack up his easel and art materials and move in. Coincidentally enough, there would be the constant appeal of the sense of belonging and feeling of importance. That question answered earlier ties in to the underlying needs of inclusion and togetherness. Artists want to contribute to the bird’s eye view of the art of living.

The likelihood of these separate and similar choices would most certainly have an impact on the community they enter. It’s the age-old story all of us have heard, telling that even a droplet of water can make ripples that move across the whole pond. I do believe one person can change the entire dynamic of a neighborhood. Although, my previous reasoning’s as to why both business and artistic people would choose to move to certain neighborhoods relies mostly on the fact that they are choosing to move there out of desire and freewill. They are not being forced in any way, and as stated in my earlier paragraphs, these people are listening to the callings both interdisciplinary and universally.

It is not a coincidence that when human beings choose to enter a neighborhood that choice will have an outcome and hopefully a positive impact on that community. Whether the individual or family ideologies lean more left-brained business or right-brained creative, the deeper instinct is to feel a sense of belonging, inclusion, and togetherness. These values are deeply ingrained in my being to feel a part of something bigger than me in my neighborhood. And spread beautifully on top of those base feelings, are the call of creativity and viability. 

Sources for Research Presentation

Art Sources

My first source for my art study is title The Art of Community Transformation by Seana S. Lowe. This article is from the Education and Urban Society publication. The article has much strength and helps to use many notable sources, which I plan to investigate and research further into, to draw the connection of art and community.

She focuses mainly on disconnection and the benefit of introducing community art as an effective way to bind together a community. She also tells that a professional artist must be the director of this project and help to be the “catalyst for the artistic process.” This source will help to tie in my thesis that art can indeed bind a community, which in effect will increase the altruism and collective efficacy as a whole in that community.

Source:
Lowe, Seana. “The Art of Community Transformation.”. Education and Urban Society (2001) vol. 33 no. 4: 457-471. Sage Journals. Web. 6 Oct. 2013.

My second source is from a Project done at BYU, coincidentally enough, where artists came together and using their talent used a Billboard to convey a message of encouraged inspiring interaction and dialogue rather than an advertisement from a company selling a product. The artists showed a poem on the billboard, then taught workshops, and then concluded by having a community art event with reading from the poems that were shown on the billboard. This source will help to build further insight and support to the fact that art can bring together a community that will in turn build collective efficacy and altruism within a community.

Source:
Daniel T. Barney. and Ashley Mae Hoiland. "The Billboard Poetry Project." Visual Arts Research 38.2 (2012): 39-40. Project MUSE. Web. 7 Oct. 2013. 

Business Sources

My first source presented takes a bit of an obscure view of the viability of art in a community by delving in the pros and cons of the Business of Art Education. It takes an academic and economic approach to answer the question of whether or not the business of art education is a benefit or risk to the arts. Largely she pulls from her personal and other art education businesses experiences to conclude that indeed these could be viable ventures however certain risks would need to be avoided. These findings will help to cement the idea that community and art education can indeed be viable.

Source:

Shin, Ryan. "The Business Of Art Education: Friend Or Foe?." Art Education 65.2 (2012): 33-39. Art Full Text (H.W. Wilson). Web. 6 Oct. 2013.

The second source from which I’ll be using is a scholarly journal in which it is made evident that by artist’s ‘sweat equity’ economic development and retail growth can come as fruition. The journal studies New York’s South Houston neighborhood claim to upscale success in the late 1970’s when ten years prior the neighborhood was struggling and impoverished. The journal goes in depth about the gentrification of neighborhoods and how a neighborhood can benefit as a whole from this type of art scene presence. It will pull in the ties that artists living within an art neighborhood can draw other types of business and create a central hub of altruistic behavior through collective efficacy.

Source:

Shkuda, Aaron. “The Art Market, Arts Funding, and Sweat Equity: The Origins of Gentrified Retail.” Journal of Urban History (2012) vol. 39 no. 4: 601-619. Sage Journals. Web. 6 Oct. 2013. 

Business Success - Two Things to Do and One Thing Not to Do

         As one of the last students probably to submit this posting, I do not beg pity or claim complete unintended procrastination. However, as a measure of guiltless, last-minute posting I plead that this minor delinquency is in fact related the the greater altruism of the class blog posts as a whole. Further, I did this act as a way in which I could read the feedback of the other students remarks and create a post that would hopefully better the good of the group and contribute to the collective efficacy within our class.

As a part business major, I decided to pursue the correlations Sampson draws in his chapter "Social Altruism, Cynicism, and the 'Good Community' of collective efficacy, altruistic character and the moral/legal cynycism to the wellbeing of communities. Specifically, I wanted to target in on the positive impact a business can have, a.k.a. altruism, on the world. To expound, I wanted to be able to prove locally and corporately, that business if pursued ethically, legally, and morally and following an altruistic bushiness model could indeed create a highly successful business venture. Not only financially but also creating a social impact that could be life-changing.

Sampson pulls data from two experiments in the chapter and both support the the facts that the more collective efficacy and altruistic character that are present in a community the better it's wellbeing. The third interesting discovery came by way of the greater the presence of the moral or legal cynicism in the community the lower the community wellbeing. See the figure from Sampson's text,  (232).

Because we can pull these distinctions from these neighborhood groups we can also correlate these findings towards a business model's success. If we think of the business as a whole similar to that of a community. Namely, that if the presence of collective efficacy and altruistic character are in high levels, and in contrast if moral and legal cynicism are in short supply, then the business should therefore succeed and have a "durable structure" as Sampson discovered (221).

Examples of these business models where collective efficacy and altruistic tendencies are in abundance, are Starbucks, Tom's, and Land Over Yonder. I'll highlight these companies starting with the largest of the three companies. 

Starbucks, as we all know sells a lot of coffee. In 2011, a study performed by The Chronicle of Philanthropy found that Starbuck's gave away $30.5 million dollars in pre-tax profits (Forbes, "American Companies That Give Back the Most"). That same year they grossed $11.5 billion dollars yet they still gave away 2.1% of their pre-tax dollars to charitable donations (Starbucks Corporation, "Fiscal 2011 Annual Report"). Out of 300 top U.S. companies reviewed, Starbucks was in the Top 10. Is it any relation that their main goal at becoming a responsible company is this; 

"At Starbucks, we have always believed in the importance of building a great, 

enduring company that strikes a balance 

between profitability and a social conscience." 

(Starbucks, Starbucks Company Profile Sept. 2013.)

Starbucks is a model child to build a business after if you do indeed want to give back to the greater good and make a billion or $10 billion dollars. 

To highlight a second company that has achieved wild success by jumping on the collective efficacy and social altruism bus is a company you may have heard of called Tom's. Tom's is best known for giving away a pair of shoes for every shoe that is purchased. Their slogan is, "One for One." Since 2006, the company's founding date, Tom's has donated over 10 million pairs of shoes (Toms, Giving Report 2013). Spanning over 60 countries, Tom's is leaving their mark and without a doubt benefitting the greater good of the communities they donate shoes to. 

The final company I would like to highlight is a local company based right here in St. George, Utah. A company that is also founded on principles of benefitting the "common good". Land Over Yonder is one such example. LOY, gives school uniforms to children in developing countries. With use of their sales profit, donations from LOY are able to ultimately facilitate education. In certain developing countries without school uniforms students aren't allowed to attend public schools. Their slogan is "Look Good, Do Good." In 2013 so far, they have been able to help 25 students receive school uniforms (Land Over Yonder, Mission). As a new company I hope their business model follow's the hard evidence of Sampson so they can benefit from a successful company that will in turn benefit the greater humanity of this earth. 

All things considered, it is heartbreakingly obvious that by increasing the presence of cynicism and lowering the presence of both collective efficacy and community altruism that yes, indeed, your company will most likely fail (take Enron for example). The companies showcased above namely Starbucks, Tom's, and Land Over Yonder have taken the opposite path. They will continue to see sweeping success by continuing to give back and keep in mind three important factors. They are as follows, first, focus on the collective efficacy of the business, remember who keeps you alive (Hint, hint: others). Secondly, polish your altruism and keep that as guiding star. Lastly, do not associate with any type of cynical or selfish entity. 

In the wise words of the billion-dollar company Starbuck's, 

"an enduring company strikes a balance between profitability and a social conscience."

Sources:

Sampson, Robert. Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect. Chicago:          The University of Chicago Press, 2012. Print. 

"American Companies That Give Back the Most". Forbes. The Chronicle of Philanthropy. n.d. Web. 30 September 2013. 

"Starbucks Company Profile". Starbucks. September 2013. Web. 30 September 2013. 

"Fiscal 2011 Annual Report". Starbucks. September 2011. Web. 30 September 2013. 

"Giving Report". Toms. 2013. Web. 30 September 2013. 

"Our Mission". Land Over Yonder. n.d. Web. 30 September 2013. 

Collective Efficacy Theory - Chicago vs. Adventure Racing

Collective Efficacy Theory is a social cohesion for shared and controlled expectations by a group or community. It is their social organization shared together that can control or effect directly an outcome or expectation. This definition proves largely concrete and repeatable throughout it's testing.
One such experiment was done in an Adventure Racing scene. The Adventure Racing team tested in the experiment I read about consisted of three person teams. All of the teams that competed in this particular race participated in the experiment. Their findings were outstanding and are summarized here,

"Consistent with the theoretical concept, the results of the study indicated a moderate to strong positive relationship between perceptions of collective efficacy and subsequent performance at each CP (checkpoint) and throughout the race. The findings provide some support for the structure and relationship defined by the theoretical concept (of Collective Efficacy). That is, a reciprocal relationship exists between col- lective efficacy and performance (Myers et al., 2004; Watson et al., 2001)."

So to reiterate the point of their findings, the higher or more prevalent the collective efficacy of the team the higher or better performance was found. Those teams who showcased high levels of Collective Efficacy performed the best in the race. 

As far as answering the questions posed by Sampson, here are my responses below (I will be answering the questions on a 1-5 scale. 1 being least likely to to action and 5 meaning extremely likely to take action.):

1.  The likelihood of my neighborhood taking action if children on a street corner were hanging out and skipping school would be a 4. 
2. The likelihood of my neighborhood taking action if children are spray-painting a graffiti on a local building would be a 5. 
3. The likelihood of my neighborhood taking action if children were showing disrespect to an adult would be 3.
4.  The likelihood of my neighborhood taking action if a  fight broke out in forms of their house would be a 5.
5.  The likelihood of my neighborhood taking action if the fire station closest to home was threatened with budget cuts would be a 3. 

All things considered after answering these questions myself, I feel my neighborhood has a medium to high presence of collective efficacy. I do feel safe and have a high confidence level that if the situations above were to occur or if a serious crime took place in my neighborhood the probability for action to be taken would be very high! 

Reference to Adventure Racing here - http://sgr.sagepub.com/content/40/2/163.full.pdf+html

"Real Communites" - Are they or Aren't they? - Second Blog Response

The importance of place in a neighborhood is highly important as Sampson suggests, however the globalization and correlations of this "neighborhood effect" showcase a common theme that could be happening in cities everywhere. On a different note, Sampson sheds light to an alternative ideal showcasing that "placelessness"is appearing as well. He provides facts to both sides and then presents us with his findings of what he has researched in Chicago and the similarities throughout other neighborhoods in the world.

I have recently moved to a home a couple blocks from the apartment I lived at previously. The home I live in now actually feels like a home. I have a sense of security and feel safe. It's the same feeling I had growing up in my small farming hometown. It's great, it really is. In contrast, at the apartment I lived at before this home, I didn't have those same feelings of place, so to speak. The feelings of "placelessness" were more present and I didn't have a non-spatial community to relate to as some social-network theorists have shown can cross-cut geographic ones. Why, since I have moved, is the feeling place suddenly there? Why do I feel place when I only moved 4 blocks away?

My thinking to the above posed questions is somewhat vague as I largely don't know why there is such a difference. I feel some major factors in the feeling of place is a psychological association with the word "home". I live in a home now. That phrase rings deep psychologically and I believe connects neurons in my brain to the feelings of security, safety and love which I have mentioned earlier. The feeling of being "home" (assuming home has a positive definition), means to me a feeling of place. I associate home as a place where I feel connected and accepted. Although, I do live next to many strangers (neighbors I haven't introduced myself to yet) I still feel a sense of place.

This may stem from a belongingness to my work and school environment where I spend most of my time in the day. It is indeed interesting insight as to how I feel connected yet spend very little time at my home. I feel that work and school are to me other real communities and also, I feel I belong to a group somewhere out there in cyberspace to a group of creative bohemian photographers. :) This group is where I passionately belong and feel the most connected. Oddly enough, this connectedness is largely internet-based and has little face to face real-world interaction. It taps into the irony Sampson states that the "implication of the decline of community" and that it is dying due to technology and "globalization" yet it has been a "longstanding narrative of public intellectuals and scholarly pundits preaching the places - especially as instantiated in neighborhoods and community."

Stories from those intellectuals and pundits tells us we just might be doomed as our "community is dying", however the historic event of this occurring over and over seems to be a wolf cry. I'm not saying we are becoming more connected or less connected, I'm trying to push the notion that we may be seeing a revolution of community to a more non-spatial community that cross-cuts geographical boundaries. I am simply following the layout of Sampson and playing cards from both sides to shed light on the interesting events happening in community here and there.

A Neighborhood and I - Blog Response I

Hello,
My name is Shaun and I'm an Integrated Studies major here at Dixie. My two areas of focus are Business and Art. My passion is photography. I absolutely love the idea of being able to capture time and preserve a piece of history. There is something magical in the process of taking a photo and being able to freeze what you see. Even more so, which I have learned to love, is the disappearing art form of developing 35mm film and capturing time on a roll of film. What an unbelievable thing a camera is in that it can trap light and make an image. It's super cool to me.

To me neighborhood means many things. Growing up in a predominantly religious and rural neighborhood I experienced firsthand what Robert Sampson has defined as a community's well-being, collective efficacy. The neighborhood was small, and everyone new everyone else. Close and tight-knit communities. Our neighborhood was probably five blocks by five blocks. It was intersected largely on one side by a highway and on the other side farmland. The neighborhood was built upon trust and caring. I looked to my friends parents as a second set of my own. I believed they were good. There was a high standard of excellence and character set amongst the neighborhood. Together everyone was striving to better each other and as a whole, the community.

The individual neighborhood's in my perspective, are what make up the community. It's those smaller units of the collective puzzle that make the biggest impact. From the neighborhoods are where the foundational community building blocks are created. They start and almost ironically end there. I entirely agree with Sampson's research findings in these Chicago neighborhoods and think it's intriguing.

What a discovery to know that all we need to benefit a community and it's inhabitants is to model and unite the neighborhoods in collective efficacy. An interesting follow up article would be to see these finding put to the test with case studies to watch the collective efficacy at work! I am excited to be able to shed light on my creative mind and also my business-minded side to see how they will fit together in a study of community impact. I'm optimistic in this new academic venture!