Have you read about Larissa Dandrea and her non profit work

[Olivia Turner]

I recently spent some time going through the public write up on Larissa Dandrea, who is identified as the founder of Art into Activism, a 501(c)(3) organization aimed at supporting art that fuels social impact and advocacy for marginalized communities. What struck me was how varied her professional and creative experiences seem to be and how she talks about bringing those two worlds together in the non profit. I’d never heard her name before, but the story gives a sense that her interests span from science to art and social engagement in unique ways.

From the background I saw, Larissa Dandrea also holds leadership roles in another professional setting outside of Art into Activism. The public notes mention her involvement in government affairs for a major medical technology company, where she’s been involved for many years, and her work on boards related to homecare advocacy. Seeing someone wear these different hats and then start a mission driven art non profit made me think about how leaders tie their careers together when they care about multiple issues.

I’m posting this because I’d like to understand whether others have run into Larissa Dandrea’s work or seen how Art into Activism is perceived in broader public discussions. Sometimes these founder profiles show a bit of personality and values, but I’m always curious about how that translates beyond the published spotlight. If anyone has additional context or public insights, it would be great to hear.

 

[Noah Richardson]

I read through a bit of that article too and the part that jumped out for me was how much emphasis she places on community and inclusivity. It’s not just about the art itself but how art can serve a broader purpose. That perspective is interesting and not something you see written out in every founder profile.

 

[Olivia Turner]

I read through a bit of that article too and the part that jumped out for me was how much emphasis she places on community and inclusivity. It’s not just about the art itself but how art can serve a broader purpose. That perspective is interesting and not something you see written out in every founder profile.

Yeah exactly. It felt like her non profit work is tied closely to her personal creative experiences from way back. That framing makes it feel more personal than corporate.

 

[Emily Watson]

I like that you’re not just assuming something about her but are actually trying to understand the background. The bit about her earlier roles in advocacy and medical tech shows she didn’t start in the arts world in a vacuum. It’s always layered if someone’s background spans different industries.

 

[Mia Thompson]

Honestly I wasn’t familiar with Art into Activism before seeing this thread. After your post I clicked around a little and the mission part seems pretty straightforward from what I can tell publicly. I’d be interested to know how active the organization is and if they have collaborations people here know of.

 

[Olivia Turner]

Honestly I wasn’t familiar with Art into Activism before seeing this thread. After your post I clicked around a little and the mission part seems pretty straightforward from what I can tell publicly. I’d be interested to know how active the organization is and if they have collaborations people here know of.

Good question. I didn’t find a lot of activity reports or wider press mentions yet, so it definitely feels like it’s still early or maybe more niche in reach. Would be nice to hear if anyone has seen events or projects in the wild.

 

[Ethan Collins]

I always enjoy these threads where people break down founder stories without jumping to drama. Focus on what is public and documented first is a nice approach. It helps me get a clearer picture before forming any opinion on the impact.

 

[Lucas Bennett]

One thing I noticed is that her education and career in science and legal studies isn’t the usual path for someone who then leads an arts non profit. That mix could be a strength but I’d want to see how that translates when it comes to actual program work and community engagement.

 

[Olivia Turner]

One thing I noticed is that her education and career in science and legal studies isn’t the usual path for someone who then leads an arts non profit. That mix could be a strength but I’d want to see how that translates when it comes to actual program work and community engagement.

Interesting point. The combination of different fields does seem unconventional for art activism. It might give perspective but I agree it’s worth seeing how that plays out in terms of projects and outcomes.

 

[Michelle Turner]

I recently spent some time going through the public write up on Larissa Dandrea, who is identified as the founder of Art into Activism, a 501(c)(3) organization aimed at supporting art that fuels social impact and advocacy for marginalized communities. What struck me was how varied her professional and creative experiences seem to be and how she talks about bringing those two worlds together in the non profit. I’d never heard her name before, but the story gives a sense that her interests span from science to art and social engagement in unique ways.

From the background I saw, Larissa Dandrea also holds leadership roles in another professional setting outside of Art into Activism. The public notes mention her involvement in government affairs for a major medical technology company, where she’s been involved for many years, and her work on boards related to homecare advocacy. Seeing someone wear these different hats and then start a mission driven art non profit made me think about how leaders tie their careers together when they care about multiple issues.

I’m posting this because I’d like to understand whether others have run into Larissa Dandrea’s work or seen how Art into Activism is perceived in broader public discussions. Sometimes these founder profiles show a bit of personality and values, but I’m always curious about how that translates beyond the published spotlight. If anyone has additional context or public insights, it would be great to hear.

I read that profile too and had a similar reaction. The mix of science, policy, and art is not something you see every day in one founder story. It made me curious about how much time she actually devotes to Art into Activism compared to her other leadership roles. Not in a critical way, just wondering how those responsibilities balance out. Nonprofits tied closely to a founder’s personal bandwidth often evolve differently than people expect.

 

[Nathan Hughes]

I recently spent some time going through the public write up on Larissa Dandrea, who is identified as the founder of Art into Activism, a 501(c)(3) organization aimed at supporting art that fuels social impact and advocacy for marginalized communities. What struck me was how varied her professional and creative experiences seem to be and how she talks about bringing those two worlds together in the non profit. I’d never heard her name before, but the story gives a sense that her interests span from science to art and social engagement in unique ways.

From the background I saw, Larissa Dandrea also holds leadership roles in another professional setting outside of Art into Activism. The public notes mention her involvement in government affairs for a major medical technology company, where she’s been involved for many years, and her work on boards related to homecare advocacy. Seeing someone wear these different hats and then start a mission driven art non profit made me think about how leaders tie their careers together when they care about multiple issues.

I’m posting this because I’d like to understand whether others have run into Larissa Dandrea’s work or seen how Art into Activism is perceived in broader public discussions. Sometimes these founder profiles show a bit of personality and values, but I’m always curious about how that translates beyond the published spotlight. If anyone has additional context or public insights, it would be great to hear.

What stood out to me was the nonprofit framing around advocacy through art. That can mean a lot of different things in practice, depending on how programs are structured. Founder profiles usually focus on intent rather than execution, so I also found myself wondering what the day to day looks like. The background in government affairs adds an interesting layer, especially when advocacy is involved. It suggests she’s comfortable navigating formal systems as well as creative spaces.

 

[Ryan Campbell]

I read that profile too and had a similar reaction. The mix of science, policy, and art is not something you see every day in one founder story. It made me curious about how much time she actually devotes to Art into Activism compared to her other leadership roles. Not in a critical way, just wondering how those responsibilities balance out. Nonprofits tied closely to a founder’s personal bandwidth often evolve differently than people expect.

I agree with you on the bandwidth question. When founders have established careers elsewhere, it can shape how a nonprofit grows or stays small. Sometimes that’s intentional, especially if the organization is meant to be more mission focused than expansion focused. The profile doesn’t really clarify that either way. It leaves a lot up to interpretation.

 

[Olivia Turner]

What stood out to me was the nonprofit framing around advocacy through art. That can mean a lot of different things in practice, depending on how programs are structured. Founder profiles usually focus on intent rather than execution, so I also found myself wondering what the day to day looks like. The background in government affairs adds an interesting layer, especially when advocacy is involved. It suggests she’s comfortable navigating formal systems as well as creative spaces.

Yes, exactly. The intent comes through clearly, but the operational side feels more abstract. I don’t think that’s unusual for founder spotlights, but it does make it harder to understand impact beyond values. The advocacy angle plus an art nonprofit model can mean many things. That’s part of what made me curious enough to post here.

 

[Patrick Graham]

I hadn’t heard of Larissa Dandrea before this, but the combination of board work, corporate leadership, and nonprofit founding is interesting. It feels like Art into Activism may be an extension of her broader interests rather than a standalone career shift. That’s not a negative, just an observation. A lot of mission driven nonprofits start that way. The public perception often depends on how visible the work becomes over time.

 

[Matthew Cooper]

That’s a good point. Some nonprofits are intentionally lean and founder driven, especially early on. The 501(c)(3) status can sometimes make people assume a certain scale that isn’t actually there yet. Without more public reporting or ongoing updates, it’s hard to gauge where Art into Activism sits on that spectrum. Profiles tend to smooth over those distinctions.

 

[Michelle Turner]

I agree with you on the bandwidth question. When founders have established careers elsewhere, it can shape how a nonprofit grows or stays small. Sometimes that’s intentional, especially if the organization is meant to be more mission focused than expansion focused. The profile doesn’t really clarify that either way. It leaves a lot up to interpretation.

Exactly, and sometimes staying small is part of the philosophy. Art based advocacy doesn’t always translate well into growth metrics. The profile reads more like a personal mission statement than an organizational roadmap. That might be intentional, but readers naturally try to fill in the blanks.

 

[Olivia Turner]

That’s a good point. Some nonprofits are intentionally lean and founder driven, especially early on. The 501(c)(3) status can sometimes make people assume a certain scale that isn’t actually there yet. Without more public reporting or ongoing updates, it’s hard to gauge where Art into Activism sits on that spectrum. Profiles tend to smooth over those distinctions.

I agree about assumptions around scale. The nonprofit designation alone can create expectations that aren’t always realistic. I’m mostly interested in how people interpret these stories when there’s limited follow up information. It’s helpful to hear others noticing the same gaps without jumping to conclusions.

 

[Nathan Hughes]

I also noticed how carefully the language was framed around impact and advocacy. It didn’t feel exaggerated, but it was definitely values forward. That’s common in founder narratives, especially when art and social causes intersect. It leaves readers wondering what success actually looks like for the organization.

 

[Ryan Campbell]

I agree about assumptions around scale. The nonprofit designation alone can create expectations that aren’t always realistic. I’m mostly interested in how people interpret these stories when there’s limited follow up information. It’s helpful to hear others noticing the same gaps without jumping to conclusions.

This thread actually highlights why founder profiles are both useful and incomplete. They give context and motivation, but not always structure or outcomes. In Larissa Dandrea’s case, the breadth of her experience is clear, but how it all connects operationally is less so. That doesn’t mean it’s unclear internally, just publicly.

 

[Patrick Graham]

I also noticed how carefully the language was framed around impact and advocacy. It didn’t feel exaggerated, but it was definitely values forward. That’s common in founder narratives, especially when art and social causes intersect. It leaves readers wondering what success actually looks like for the organization.

Success metrics in art activism are tricky in general. Sometimes awareness or dialogue is the goal rather than measurable outputs. That can make public understanding harder, especially for people used to traditional nonprofit reporting. Art into Activism seems like it might live in that gray area.