Monday, November 23, 2009

Reality Television and Art School collide

When I was studying fine art at the University of Washington (Proud Alum 2005) I always joked that the personal torture that was the dynamics of 65 people competing for 16 slots then competing against one another for being the smartest, most talents, most avaunt guard or whatever was the making of a reality television show. (Love triangles and backstabbing included). I loved the experience: I am an expert problem solver, can research anything including physics of black holes, representation of females/ by females, can make rather than buy many things (lumber poodle, no joke) and have endured years of critiques to make me acutely self-aware/self-deprecating. I think everyone should have to do a year of art school, really!

And I don't know how I missed this in July- but here it is, art reality shows. Do I think this will benefit art- quality or appreciation? No. I think this will reinforce already negative stereotypes of artists. Do I want more people to see how artists work, not just the Damien Hursts or Andy Warhols but the Kiki Smiths and Uta Barths. I want the practice of art to be more accessible to more, I think Reality Television may hurt the cause.

What do you think?

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Competing interests

I am not into the Twilight series- have your pick of reasons why- but so many people are!

‘New Moon’ Takes In $72.7 Million on Opening Day

The Twilight Saga: New Moon” took in $72.7 million in its first day to break the single day domestic box office record previously held by “The Dark Knight,” which had a $67.2 million opening day last year, the Associated Press reports.


How do we court this audience, the tween audience away from mediocre literature, fantasy narratives and arcane gender roles?


I understand the value of good entertainment, I have spent many an afternoon watching dumb movies or trash television but how do we engage these audiences with existing art, that has many of the great qualities of the entertainment genre but actually supports artists, local organizations and promotes personal/ intellectual growth? Can we capture the tween audience without pushing the same product?


Arts organizations are suffering in this economy- why is it that boxoffice records are being broken? Is it just mass appeal, platinum marketing accounts, or is it deeper?


Friday, November 20, 2009

NYTimes article is it about theater or entertainment?

Seattle made the NYTimes spotlight as a "Permanent Theater Festival" in this weeks Escapes section. I view Seattle as a Theater town, I serve on the board of a great local theater. There are many opportunities to see great art here, and it does sway towards performance. One of my reason's for staying in Seattle is the access to the arts.

What concerns me about this article is that it is mostly about entertainment and large venues- when the richness of arts really comes from small companies. When I think of Seattle arts- it is rarely Teatro Zinzani it is the small neighborhood venues and public works supported by the city and county. Also- we have an amazing Ballet and Opera across the street from Teatro. What do you think?


Tuesday, September 15, 2009

A swift kick in the pants

This kick in the pants is not coming from me, but from one of the smartest business/marketing bloggers and book authors I have read. Yes, its Seth Godin- in a great rant about how non-profits need to get with the innovation program, take risks, and yes CHANGE.

*For another perspective check out Beth's Blog- more good points! What do you think?

Monday, September 14, 2009

The problems with a free market economy

Name calling has become pretty standard in politics lately, so I am a little weary of saying anything against a free market society for the sake of some uniformed person calling me a socialist.

This article caught my attention, and pretty much stopped me in my tracks. You see my befuddlement comes in two parts: first) according to a Gallup poll 61 percent of American's do not believe in the theory of evolution and second) US film distributors will not be importing a British made film about Charles Darwin based on the market. CRAZY. A movie about one of the most significant people in our relatively recent history (you know because humans have been around in some form for HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS and the earth itself formed 4.54 BILLION YEARS AGO) to unveil secrets of animal and human life- the evolution thereof.

Whether you believe his theory or not, his scientific theory, inquiry, study, process, published writings have made an impact of how Americans live and view their lives in the context of the rest of the world. The very notions of the 'survival of the fittest' are underlying American values. Yet a film version of this man’s life will not be available in the US because of perceived market.

Is this censorship? A free market economy at its worse?

As far as I see it the issue is that important pieces of work- art and history- will not be shared because someone isn't making a buck. This isn’t a new issue facing the arts or information. Galleries don't necessarily share important work if they won't make money from it, important news doesn't make it to the air (or is hidden in a paper or online) if it doesn't sell ad space. Commerce drives the information we have access to as people, and can become an excuse for censorship. What do you think?

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Abstract Art: Making way in the White House

President Obama has made some good progress for the arts in the first 9 months of his presidency: see stimulus package. He can do more, and I am sure he will- once this Health care reform business is on its way into being, the economy is fixed and you know he has resolved two horrific wars. Or shall I say WE- cause after all it takes two to tango- and 51% of the voting public to elect a president.

This could very well be a post about volunteerism- which is more valuable now when more people need- access, educational opportunities, and hope... but it isn't.

This is just a fun blurb about how President Obama is making some changes to the permanent collection of the White House- which has been lacking in modern art- not to mention art made by people other than affluent, old, dead, white men- not that they are bad artists, just not representative of the arts, by any means. OFF THE SOAPBOX. I am excited to share with you this blog post, about what is a big step forward in arts in the white house:

By bringing works by the likes of Diebenkorn, Thomas, and Albers, as well as Jasper
Johns, Robert Rauschenberg, and Louise Nevelson, into the White House, Obama is
symbolically ridding the executive mansion—and, by extension, the
U.S.
Presidency—of the xenophobia that has informed the American rejection of
abstraction. Our national fear of abstract art— “I don’t get it”—and the anger
that it can provoke—“You call that art?”—are, at least in large part, vestiges
of the anti-foreigner attitudes of the forties and fifties, which informed those
fundamentalist congressional objections to abstractionism, and gave rise to such
blots on our history as the House Un-American Activities Committee, McCarthyism,
and the electrocution of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg.

Obama’s selections also demonstrate that we are smart enough to “get” abstractionism.
He’s smarter than we are, and more eloquent—and, as a graduate of Columbia and
Harvard Law, as much a member of the Ivy League elite as is President Bush. But
President Obama has repeatedly endeavored to make himself, and even his
heterogeneity, relatable. A person from a blended family, a background colored
by loss, with the problems, struggles, internal conflicts, and flaws familiar to
so many other Americans. Perhaps if one ordinary American is willing to take the
time to appreciate and understand abstraction, the rest of us may find ourselves
inspired to do the same.



Now, doesn't this give you hope that we have a president that will support the arts?