Guarding the Future of International Artistic Exchange at the 2025 IPC Convening

The International Presenting Commons (IPC), a volunteer group of United States–based performing arts presenters and creative independent producers, was created to combat the chaos of the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. In an environment of uncertainty and fear, members decided that quick, decisive, and future-oriented action was needed to not only sustain but evolve a thriving global arts exchange.

In the intervening years, that work of repair and maintenance has ebbed and flowed between steering committee members. Regular online committee meetings have been interspersed with gatherings in Edinburgh, Perth, and New York City, as well as at innumerable festivals and events across the globe. The intervention has shifted over time to address emergent needs, all based around IPC’s values that center advocacy, collective action, and the resource sharing.

What do we need to do to continue producing the conditions for reciprocal international artistic exchange?

In the summer of 2024, HowlRound, in collaboration with the IPC Steering Committee began work on a convening to discuss the state of international exchange and the presentation of international work; this would help inform the shape of IPC’s work moving forward. As international cultural exchange rebuilds from the challenges of 2020 and the COVID-19 pandemic, what are the most pressing concerns? Acknowledging the wealth of organizations and culture workers seeking to advance and sustain this work, what is uniquely the IPC’s to do? The convening was set for May 2025, with the intention to discuss the future, if any, of this group’s work.

And then came November 2024. And January 2025. The second election and inauguration of Donald Trump brought every emotion that I remember from the early days COVID-19 pandemic back with blistering familiarity: isolation, helplessness, anger, dread. Given the policy and priority shifts of the new administration, almost overnight, the intention and importance of bringing this group of people together changed completely. New questions had to be answered:

• What happens when the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and other funders take conservative, racist, or fearful steps backwards?
• What does it mean to accept funds that may explicitly or implicitly endorse ideologies that conflict with organizational missions and/or personal values?
• How do we safely bring international artists, especially from countries most directly targeted by violent xenophobic vitriol, to the United States? Can we?
• What do we do if our sponsored artists are detained by the government? What do we do if we are detained?
• What do we need to do to continue producing the conditions for reciprocal international artistic exchange? Why should we do it? How?

The first day of convening was a cool and rainy spring day in Boston, and participants laughed and joked as they shed their coats and settled into seats in a small black box tucked away downtown. Many of the IPC members are longtime colleagues and friends, so the moments of reunion are always joyous. These first two days of convening also included external stakeholders from all over the country: leaders from foundations, festivals, government, and beyond. For these first two days, the stated goals were to survey field stakeholders on the current state of international exchange in the United States and to identify opportunities, challenges, and gaps in the field. I, along with the rest of the HowlRound team, served as non-participating notetakers for these sessions. This is nothing new for me—I've been the primary notetaker for IPC steering committee meetings for the last few years. As an early-career writer and cultural worker myself, the conversations and learnings from this group have been foundational to the way that I think about international artistic exchange.

This day, though, the tension was palpable. Participants dashed in and out to answer phone calls, have emergency Zoom meetings, or check the news. The first day of convening fell only days after sweeping leadership changes at the Kennedy Center and was held squarely in the midst of the wave of now-infamous “The NEA is updating its grantmaking policy priorities…” emails. The collected cultural workers (who included presenters, service organization representatives, creative producers, and more) were all waiting on tenterhooks for the next outrageous piece of news to drop. Everyone in that room was handling their own emergent and many-layered challenges, each wondering how their work could be impacted next.

The brutal and chilling attack on culture on so many fronts has created the inherent difficulty of choosing what to care for, what to save, and what to label as “urgent” when everything feels like an emergency.

Co-facilitators Roya Amirsoleymani and Abigail Vega brought the room to order, and after remarks from HowlRound director Jamie Gahlon and convening co-champions Ronee Penoi and Elizabeth Doud, started in the only place they could: the anxieties and difficulties of the current moment. Small groups of participants discussed a series of questions focused on challenges they faced, gaps that needed to be filled, and opportunities for more action. The conversation closed with the simple question: “What are you tired of worrying about?”

These conversations developed launching points for action. Once we know what we have lost, or have an idea of what we will continue to lose, how can we hold onto what is most dear?

The most common discussion points fell around a few key issues: Presenters are worried about artist visas, those in higher education are worried about federal pressure and censorship on universities, the collapse of the NEA coinciding with priority shifts from major funders has left a funding gap in the field, and international artists are frankly scared to come to the United States.

In summary of the first day of conversation, convening co-champion Elizabeth Doud offered:

The brutal and chilling attack on culture on so many fronts has created the inherent difficulty of choosing what to care for, what to save, and what to label as “urgent” when everything feels like an emergency. Because the work of the IPC is “international” by definition, understanding and naming the false dichotomy of “international versus national” work allowed us to frame our conversations more holistically. If our practice and projects are infused with values and strategies for global citizenship, we can move our stated agenda forward no matter where we are or who we happen to be working with at the moment.

Despite (or because of) the heaviness of conversations had in the room, day one closed with a celebratory group meal that exploded with toasts, laughter, and camaraderie. Most of the participants were long overdue for a catch-up and were eager to hear about the work being done by everyone else in the room. The participants represent a huge range of generations, locations, and sectors of the arts world, but they quickly formed robust connections over shared passion for the work. Connection and relationships are resources themselves, and the dedicated time to let them flourish was key in the grounding for the second day of conversation.

Day two laid the groundwork for the gathering and allocation of more collective resources. The ground feels shaky, yes, but we still have to acknowledge and draw from abundance where it exists. Again in groups, participants compiled long lists of people, networks, funding streams, and information resources that they knew could benefit others in the room. Two lists were eventually compiled, one that documented “things we don’t have that would substantially change our practice” and another that documented “resources that we have to offer.”

Scarcity is an undercurrent of the United States arts economy in the most supportive of times, and when those already slim resources are under threat it can feel impossible to open a hand and give to the collective, even in small ways. This, I remind myself, is a function of the attack on the arts, not a side effect.

The resources list is robust, interconnected, and offers everything from information resources to legal help to varied support structures outside of the arts economy. Frustratingly (though probably predictably), the lists are lopsided. The pressing needs seem to heavily outnumber available resources. The core need, for most, is additional resources. Leaders acknowledged the need for new audiences, funding streams, and relationships to philanthropy as vital for survival in both the immediate and long-term future. Many expressed frustration with the erosion of resources that support international work. Some pointed to models implemented during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, like Trickle Up NYC, as possible paths forward.

Scarcity is an undercurrent of the United States arts economy in the most supportive of times, and when those already slim resources are under threat it can feel impossible to open a hand and give to the collective, even in small ways. This, I remind myself, is a function of the attack on the arts, not a side effect. The IPC seeks to counteract this status quo, to build abundance frameworks, and to connect needs with resources. The lists built on the second day serve not only as a reference but also as a reminder of how many interconnected organizations, information streams, and brilliant individuals make up the ecosystem that supports international exchange.

Of the second day of conversations, convening design committee member Ruth Wikler recalled:

By rolling up our sleeves and intermingling our diverse perspectives, the group accessed a heightened level of comingled creativity, imagining what we could make possible together despite the pervasive doom and gloom. Solidarity really did emerge as the antidote to what felt like potentially unsurmountable and seemingly unalterable obstacles. Some colleagues brought decades of experience working within major United States institutions to advance global engagement; others brought the agility and the ingenious frugality of the independent producer. Lifetime friendships made space for new contacts. Service organization leaders learned from their members—and left inspired.

The third day of convening was dedicated to discussion of next steps forward for the IPC, so many attendees went their separate ways after the second day. Innumerable plans for future meetups, conversation, and collaboration had been made, but some core questions still felt unanswered. No matter how much work was done, the climate of the current moment makes it hard to ever feel like one can truly breathe a sigh of relief.

Day three of the convening served as an extended meeting of the IPC steering committee. The stated goals of the day were to confirm action-oriented commitments from each IPC member that activated learnings outlined above, and to walk away with renewed sense of commitment to IPC. The first few hours of conversation were productive but echoed more closely the tone of the first day. New questions were being asked and new concerns presented, but commitments and steps forward remained out of reach.

It took a brief but stern chiding from facilitator and IPC steering committee alum Roya Amirsoleymani to move the room to action. She asked whether this field-leading group of movers and shakers felt like they had made as much progress as they had hoped on the mission, values, and vision that had brought them together over five years before. This is the moment, she said, to decide whether this group can knuckle down and make the changes that are needed to come out the other side stronger. And decide they did: The steering committee members took only a few moments to split into groups that focused on envisioning and planning for the future of the IPC, building networks of interconnected strength, and the gathering and documentation of vital resources (among others). Each was able, in a matter of minutes, to accomplish the stated goals of the first two days of convening; They pulled from the knowledge, needs, and resources of the larger room to inform concrete, viable next steps for change in their specific areas of expertise.

This last flash of organizing was a powerful moment of action for committee members. Elizabeth Doud remembered:

It was hard to let some stuff go in such a complex conversation, but when we made choices, it liberated more energy to focus on fewer priorities and channel our collective force towards action.

And Ruth Wikler said,

While some of us could offer to leverage institutional budgets and others of us could simply offer our time and expertise, none of us left the room without distinct commitments and a to-do list. Cumulatively, providing we are able to see them through, the projects to which we committed ourselves should yield a grassroots cultural movement defined by a relationship-centric approach to international cultural exchange, equipped with both a documented history and a course charted towards the future.

Personally, I still think frequently about the last hour of the convening. The months since have been littered with even more grief, more chaos, and more uncertainty than the ones that preceded it. Cultural institutions are closing their doors, titans of the industry are being unceremoniously cut loose, and the road ahead seems bumpy and treacherous. I have to focus on the wins to stay afloat. It’s powerful to remember that the IPC is galvanized and working to change policy, archive irreplaceable cultural heritage, and build the foundations of a prosperous international arts exchange for when we come through this, which we will. Of every question that brought this convening together, two now feel concretely answered:

Why should we do it? Because we have to.

How? Together.