"NYFA’s online database, NYFA Source, is the largest searchable resource of grants, services, and publications for artists in all disciplines nationwide. If you’re seeking funding, residencies, or specialized information, it’s the definitive place to search—and it's free. Yet many artists don’t utilize the breadth of information it offers, or are unaware of it altogether."
Since many artists don't know about it, I figured I would help NYFA out and let people know. NYFA, by the way, is the NY Foundation for the Arts. While many of their activities are understandably focussed on NY, their grant database is rather extensive and instructions for its use are good.
For those that are interested, there is a page where a NYFA staff member responds to comments about NYFA Source.
This month's issue of NYFA Current also discusses health care for artists. This article is New York City specific, but does discuss what one city hospital is doing to make care affordable for artists. A similar program might be worth advocating for in other cities.
I am approaching the end of the process of writing text for my next season brochure and I am trying to keep my descriptions interesting as per my earlier entries (here and here) in response to Greg Sandow's post back in March 04 about keeping press releases interesting. He has actually since posted some examples of how to write interesting releases and I bookmarked that entry for further reference. (He is really passionate about the subject and he really expounds on the theme in his entries ranging from May 25 to June 15)
I found a place that does an excellent job of bringing a sense of joy and fun to Shakespeare, Moliere and Shaw. I have to admit to being jealous of their writing skills. About 3-4 months ago, someone handed me a brochure for American Players Theatre in Spring Green, WI. I really only had a little time to read it then. But I took a look at it today for layout ideas and I was really impressed by the writing.
You can get a sense of what they infuse into their work from the play descriptions on the website, but ironically they have much more in this brochure where the space is more expensive.
For example, the website and brochure more or less have this to say about Moliere's Tartuffe:
Here's classic comedy with a French twist. Welcome to the drawing rooms of Gay Paree. To the household of Orgon, a rich bourgeois who's become a bigot and prude in middle age. One ridiculously laughable dude.His family's up in arms over Tartuffe, a flimflam man of criminal bent whose current facade of religious fervor has Orgon totally bamboozled. All in the family, including the maid, get in on the act, trying to warn their master. He's being taken for all he's worth by this shifty devil. What an hilarious disaster.
Wait'll you catch the scene where Orgon's own wife is used as bait to entrap this lascivious rat, who's blinded by his own irrepressible lust for her. Delight in the bite of the spoken word. Ogle at the sight of breathtaking costumes. Your kids will definitely dig it. The villainy at play.
But the brochure includes irreverent notes on Moliere like "The church was so POed at Moliere's lampooning of social and religious hypocrisy that for years his bones were denied sanctified ground." There are about 250 words writing in this way about the play and the director's approach to it. It is notes like this that help audiences understand the background of the show and what they are going to see.
But what I really loved about the brochure was the way they presented their ticket policies, subscription plans and just plain invited people to attend.
Keep in mind this brochure was sent out in the cold of winter.
"Pop thy sunroof mama. and take golden rays along for the ride. You are hereby invited to utilize this brochure as ice scraper, snow shovel, defrost and deluxe heater combined. Clear the windshield of your wintry mind, Feel fiery breath upon shivering bones. Leave behind the frigid Hiber Nation zone. Uncoil. Unwind. Time to don less clothes. The looser, lighter, softly silken supple kind. Pack the car with family, friends and food....Stroll up the hill to your comfu cushioned seat. The stars emblazoned overhead and afire with intensity on the stage at your very feet. You laugh. You cry. You embrace the joys of being alive. Into the arms of summer you've definitely arrived."
Man, if I got a brochure like that evoking dreams of the summer ahead, I would be on the mailing list and looking forward to its arrival in the winter.
Now check out these--
Scandalous Savings and How They Relate To Your Inalienable Rights as a Chosen One.
You are a very important person to us. Among only a privileged few chosen for this critical role. With summer in the wings and stakes so great, your purchase of tickets now is intensely catalytic. Propels us forward, quickens the pace. Electrifys the place....(Explaination of discount on tickets)...Seize the moment from time's incessant march! Ignite the Box Office phones, Crash our website. Burn out the fax. It is your right. Your might. Launch us into glorious summer. Beat the deadline of April 8, 2005.
Really great stuff in my mind. I wanna go to Wisconsin this summer!
My submission deadline is too close right now to change my season brochure but I am going to make it my purpose over the next year to integrate Greg's tips into my press releases and take a lesson from the American Players and fire the imagination and infuse my writing with a sense of fun.
I know I can do it. I have the sense of humor to write that sorta stuff. I just have to get over the idea that my writing has to be poised and professional--sensually exciting without resorting to sensationalism, ala my Demon Horses Unleashed! entry, to try to catch newspaper editors'attention.
Okay a little side trip here that has some small advice for businesses. I am on a search committee representing my division in a search for a International Studies coordinator. There were some applicatant whose qualifications were so unrelated to the position the only reason I imagine they applied was seeking a job in Hawaii. Other than that, the process has been pretty good.
However, it did remind me of some pet peeves I have with the job application process from the point of view of someone who has applied for jobs.
My first pet peeve is with objective statements on resumes. I think they have to be a cruel joke played on the public by job search web sites, books and advisors. The only reason I could imagine for using it is if you are applying generally for entry level position in a large company that won't read cover letters. These places need an easy way to route resumes so the objective statement helps the human resources department out.
Otherwise, I would tell people applying for a specific job or an upper level position to leave it off. This is because it makes you sound like an idiot without any skills. People write such general, all encompassing objectives they sound useless. I am talking about stuff like "Objective: Aquire a rewarding position that will allow me to apply my skills in marketing, management, advertising or public relations."
I have been on interviewing committees for everything from intern positions to department chairs and I have never voted to hire someone with one of those silly objectives. (Obviously, by the time they get to department chair, they aren't using them.) I have also never used one on a resume and maybe that is why my last job search took so long, but I can live with that.
It just seems more effective to me that even if you are fishing around companies for unadvertised jobs, it is much better to be very specific about the job you want, preferably in the form of a cover letter where you expound upon your experience in a directed manner, rather than sound anemic with vagueness.
My other pet peeve is the requirement that you send a resume AND fill out an application. Now I understand that some organizations require that the search process be uniform for everyone. My problem is that places use the same forms for everyone no matter what the job is. I honestly feel frustrated and frankly insulted when applying for a desk job requiring a Master's degree and I have to fill out where I went to high school and if I possess a CDL license.
The forms also only provide a tiny space for talking about your experience. This may be good because it forces you to summate your responsibilities and accomplishments into one sentence and doesn't leave room for a lot of BS. On the other hand, the committee I was on was looking at the form as a primary source of people's qualifications. Writing "See Resume" on the application form was strongly scowled upon. I thought people were much more impressive on their resume. I would hate to think that I had been judged for jobs by what I was able to squeeze on that stupid application.
Of course, you can show intiative and recreate the application on your word processor. This is fraught with peril too. Some folks on my committee didn't like the way an applicant had formated the form he/she laboriously duplicated.
Yeah, it is probably arrogant of me to think I am too good to be filling out application forms. On the other hand, if an organization expects that people will draft original letters specific to the position and perhaps take the time to find out the proper name of the managing director to whom they were instructed to send their resume, they should put the energy into customizing the application process as well.
In an age where technology allows people to customize their lives-when and how they experience the world and entertainment, the fact that companies are using outdated application procedures doesn't speak well for them. The same technology also makes it easy for organizations to create uniform online applications or customized .pdf format applications that don't include irrelevant questions.
So that is my rant and my suggestion-- attract high calibre applicants by requiring only relevant and pertinent answers.
I came across this article on the Chronicle of Higher Education website discussing how students at the University of Texas-Austin have created "Swarmcasting" software that allows people to essentially run their own Internet television station. Seems to me it might present a possibility for organizations to broadcast their performances some day.
How to make money off it, I am not quite certain at this point. I imagine though that as since your digital cable line is the same one that delivers your highspeed cable modem, being able to watch broadcast over the internet on your 60 inch television isn't that far off. Perhaps one day you will be able to choose between watching A Raisin in the Sun performed at Arena Stage for $60 or performed by the high school down the street for $5.
For those who are worried about piracy and reproduction of performances diluting their ability to get people to pay to view their work, the way the software delivers its product is unwieldly for use in filesharing networks. The software authors believe movies and audio distribution may take a form similar to the one they are creating in the future because of this hindering aspect.
It is hard to tell how exactly our dreams of the future will be executed. I came across this blog entry which recounts a speech made by President Lyndon Johnson when he signed the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. The president seems rather prescient outlining his vision for the future since he describes what we know today as the Internet.
It bears mentioning that two years later on October 29, 1969, the first electronic message was sent over ARPANET, the precursor of the Internet. According to some accounts I read, Johnson set aside money in the 1968-69 Federal Budget to fund a project that emerged as ARPANET.
Alas, as visionary as he was, Johnson didn't live long enough to see his dream really come into its own as it did when it surged into public life in the 1990s. If I am visionary about this application of technology for the dissemination of the arts, I hope I am around to see some of it. Though on the other hand, I am sure Johnson is happier not knowing that his vision is also the medium by which vast amounts of pornography is also available. I may be happier not seeing it, too.
Having never lived in a place that had such a vibrant arts community that theatre companies were clamoring to carve out new spaces, I read this article on the licensing of new spaces in Chicago with some interest.
(Have to credit the Improvisation blog Making It Up As I Go for bringing it to my attention. Author linked to me, I followed it back and read some entries.)
The League of Chicago Theatres and City of Chicago announced a new set of guidelines for establishing licensed Off-Loop Theatres (Loop Theatres are located downtown in the area encircled by, the "L", elevated train system.) The League had hoped to have the licenses approved by now but the hurdle they face is the city's resistance to "the theatre industry's request for zoning modifications that would allow certain types of theatrical community centers—i.e., Off-Loop theatres—to open for business in neighborhoods not currently zoned for them."
The new license will only apply to venues with fewer than 300 seats that don't serve alcohol. According to the article, to be licensed, "a company must supply legal, financial and organizational documentation and then must pass a comprehensive inspection of the facility. Standards for public safety—code regulations—will not change under the new PAV." The changes manifest themselves mostly in the simplified application process-9 pages rather than the 23 under the previous system. Requirements for background checks and length of lease have also been relaxed.
The licenses will be administered out of the newly formed Dept. of Buildings rather than Dept of Revenue. The department will do pre-inspections of buildings for theatre groups to apprise them of the severity of any existing code violations they may have to address if they sign a lease. Also, Freedom of Information Act information on violations, liens, court proceedings on the buildings is available for people to do due diligence searches.
The new department head announced the office phone number and promised that his office would end the incessant passing off of calls and conflicting answers people got from City Hall.
The whole article was very interesting to me since I have never had to deal with some of these issues in my own experience. It was also encouraging to see that Chicago was making efforts to help theatre groups find proper facilities and make informed decisions.
The one caveat in the article though was that now that the city was facilitating the process and loosening restrictions, everyone would be expected to be licensed. The practice of enforcers looking the other way and theatres hoping to fly under the radar would be coming to an end.
To go off a little tangentially. The website that featured the story, PerformInk Online, (It "provides a wide range of news and information for professionals in the Chicago theatre industry"), has recently stated that in the near future, they will only accept press releases online and only at a specific email address. Everything else sees the physical and virtual trashcans.
Added to the stronger requirement of licenses, this is another sign of how theatre folks gotta get their operations disciplined and in order.
Cultural Commons website has an article on their home page Are Culture Wars Inevitable? I don't think the author, Arthur C. Brooks, really answers the question but mentions some things to think upon.
Essentially, he talks about the state of affairs and then makes some suggestions about changes for the future, but doesn't really provide any new insights to either area. He says it might not be inevitable, but the statistics he offers seems to show the numbers are against the arts.
This point lurks in the background of my recent study in Public Administration Review with Greg Lewis, which shows that, on an extremely wide range of cultural issues, supporters of the arts bear little resemblance to the rest of the population. For example, we have found that arts donors are 32 percentage points more likely than the general American population to say they have no religion, 18 points less likely to see homosexual sex as wrong, 10 points more likely to describe themselves as politically left-wing, and 12 points more likely to support abortion on demand.
These differences make cultural policy difficult, as long as any of the subsidized content is controversial. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of a satisfying policy for any activity if one part of the population perceives efficient treatment of it to involve subsidies, while for the other it involves censorship (or at very least, that it not be government-funded.
The only solace one might find with those numbers is that a greater percentage of the population in the US hold these attitudes he cites who are not attending the arts. (His assertion that "supporters of the arts bear little resemblance to the rest of the population" is therefore false in this regard. Though certainly people who hold these attitudes AND support the arts do stand apart.)
The solution, at least in a public policy realm, he says "come in four types: elimination of direct arts funding; controlling publicly-funded content; and shifting funding from arts supply to arts demand."
If you are like me, you immediately noticed that there are only 3 options here. The fourth appears 3 paragraphs later--
"a final alternative to these policies is to do nothing. It may be the case that culture wars skirmishes in the arts are inconsequential, compared with the importance of the art subsidized. Whether or not this is the case, however, should be the focus of responsible ongoing assessment of the benefits and costs of art and arts policy."
His discussion of the ethics held by a portion of arts donors reminded me that some people combine the fact they feel uneasy about how to approach art with the idea that museums, theatres, et. al. are places where people of low morals frequent. Nevermind that these people stand next to them on the bus and behind them at Starbucks. Far more graphic situations occur in movies thanks to digital effects than could ever appear on stage (though granted, part of the thrill of live performance the lack of insulatation). Still, there is a stigma attached, deserved or not to the arts by some quarters.
On the other hand, movies rarely combine that lack of insulation while challenging audiences by employing religious icons in unexpected ways. (Joe writes diplomatically.) The experience can be jarring enough without having deeply held beliefs shaken. You have to respect those who face that experience honestly.
You don't have the respect those who damn it on hearsay and rumor or who approach the experience anxiously awaiting the end when they can enumerate their shock. More than ever, the internet allows people to be insulated from the experience, be no less shocked and appalled and express their disgust to their representative all from the comfort of their homes.
People have always had the ability to choose to avoid and ignore that which did not interest them. Now it seems people's main interest is seeking out and calling attention to these very things. The groups you fear will be adversely impacted by these horrors have a hard time not being facinated by something everybody keeps pointing at.
Personally, it seems like the conflicting view that comprise the culture wars are an inevitable part of being alive. I am sure there have been plenty of people who were vocal about their disapproval of the type of art the DeMedici's or the Catholic Church was commissioning. The difference, people will say is that the art was being privately subsidized rather than publically.
Given that the NEA budget is about 64 cents per person in the US, anyone tithing to the church back then was probably paying more than the typical citizen does today. (Though the church's holdings were far vaster than they are today so the subsidy may just be as insignificant.)
As promised, I have delved into the Community Arts Network webpage I cited yesterday. Though in all honesty, there wasn't much delving going on. I hardly clicked upon a link before I came across an article that piqued my interest.
Caron Atlas' "Cultural Policy: In the board rooms and on the streets" offers some thought provoking stuff. She starts out talking about how pretty much every choice we make in our lives is a cultural policy issue. No big surprise there really. It isn't something we can escape.
The next paragraph really got me thinking though.
Cultural policy is both a product and a process, a framework for making rules and decisions that is informed by social relationships and values. It is not easily defined in the United States. In fact, for much of our history, our government has had an official policy of not having a cultural policy,...But not calling something a policy does not mean there isn’t any...In the United States, policy and policymaking are more often implicit than explicit, and thus they are frequently invisible. This prevents us, as a country, from being able to have a conversation about the value of art and culture within our society. And de facto or invisible policies can become undemocratic and unaccountable.
This may seem self-evident to many people and I have to admit, subconsciously, I think I derived that notion from everything I have read. But I had an a-ha moment reading that bit about lack of explicit cultural policy acting as an impediment to conversation.
It isn't just that arts are disappearing from the schools and that the breakdown of the family unit and the competition of computers and DVDs are contributing to the decline in participation in the arts. We, as a people, don't have the ability to discuss the value of what may be lost. It is all monologue rather than dialogue with the cultural folks talking at rather than with the public.
The situation has as much value as an African bushman trying to explain to me the importance a dangerous practice like hunting a lion with a wooden spear has as a rite of passage. I may admire the courage of the young man engaging in the practice, but I will never grasp how the processes results in the creation of a valuable member of the community.
There are so many nuances that the man understands instinctively having been a part of that culture that it would never occur to him to communicate because he takes them for granted as basic truths. I, on the other hand, would probably have no appreciation for the nuances as they would be foreign to my culture.
Another interesting point that Caron points out is how culture and public policy have been connected, especially as a weapon in the Cold War. (An area Drew McManus just recently explored on his own blog.)
The public works programs of the WPA (Work Projects Administration) in the 1930s and of CETA (Comprehensive Education and Training Administration) in the 1970s supported workforce and community by providing opportunities for artists to help rebuild the nation with their art...In the ’60s, an understanding of art and culture as a scarce resource that needed proactive government support led to the creation of the National Endowment for the Arts...And now, in the post 9/11 21st century, diplomats argue for a U.S. reentry into UNESCO as "a real opportunity to advance the ideological interests of the international coalition against terrorism.
Alas, an initiative to employ our artists in a similar manner in the current international conflict hasn't emerged (Atlas' article was written in 2002).
Atlas engages in a good discussion of the myriad decisions in other areas can be de facto cultural policy decisions. She then makes a number of suggestions about how people can become involved or at least aware of how cultural policy is being shaped. One of the suggestions that caught my eye-
Be a sustained part of policy discussions about the other issues besides the arts that are of concern to our communities. Acknowledge and reject priorities set by cultural policy efforts that are not in the interests of a community. For example, arts districts can bring gentrification and cultural development can impose another definition of culture than that which is embraced by community members...
I have often read about how artists move into a neighborhood, the neighborhood becomes the place to be, rents skyrocket and then the artists can no longer afford to live in the place that their very presence made cool. What I never really recognized was that this process could also end up displacing close knit ethnic groups and eroding their identities.
Even if the process doesn't break up ethnic groups or neighborhoods that have established identities for themselves as a group, folks who might never have had the time, opportunity or inclination to consider cultural activities might just start appreciating the work of those strange artists down the street when the landlord tells them their apartment is about to become a luxury condo at triple the rent.
The situation can also give the impression that culture is only for the rich or perhaps that if the cultural activities were any good, the wealthy would be moving in to co-opt it as their own.
Postscript- No sooner did I post this entry than I remembered, I actually had read about artist wrought gentrification threatening the Hasidic community of Williamburg in Brooklyn (a blogger features this poster about their fears). Thanks to Google, I was able to find a story by a Columbia University journalism student on the topic.
I also found this reprint of a New York Times article about some women who are trying to keep the ethnic members of the community from becoming displaced altogether.
Stumbling through the 1s and 0s of the internet as I often do, I came across an interesting arts resource-- CANuniversity. A program of the Community Arts Network, the university exists "a resource for people involved or interested in community arts training. CANu looks at college and university programs and courses and at the university-community partnerships and faculty- and student-led projects that enhance that training and put it into practice."
The "Why CANu" section of the web page kinda creates a scrappy atmosphere for the project
The field of community arts is growing rapidly, attracting practitioners, thinkers and participants around the world. And when the arts intersect with education, community development, healthcare, environmental concerns, religion, politics — in fact in any sensitive area of community activity — skills are required that have never been a part of a traditional arts education.Training in these skills is not yet the field norm. Certainly many practitioners have no formal training whatsoever, relying primarily on peer advice and lessons learned "on the job." Only now as the field matures are formal training opportunities becoming available, often taught by those pioneers whose wisdom comes from years of practice.
Universities are beginning to offer degree programs in community arts, usually as a minor or a concentration within an art degree. But even as this kind of education proliferates, it is still flying below the radar, tucked into arts departments like theater, dance, performance studies or public art, under rubrics like "applied theater" and "art for development." But it's also showing up in programs like public administration, business management, social work, social justice, education, community development, public dialogue, social sculpture, architecture, citizenship, public policy, even tourism. This diffusion is partly because its proponents have to use every trick in the book to squeeze this work into the severely protected fiefdoms of academia. But it's also happening for a healthy reason: As artists collaborate with – and even become part of – other fields, the professionals in those fields are demanding adapted training programs too.
This actually sounds like a reflection of Daniel Pink's new book coming out called a Whole New Mind which argues that right brained folks who currently don't get paid very well will be the element that allows the US to maintain a competitive edge in the world market of tomorrow. He suggests that creative people will be in demand in those fields mentioned in the last CANu paragraph I quoted.
I haven't really had a chance to read the essays and syllabi listed on the website at this point, but I will obviously report anything interesting I come across.
But given that my interests and yours certainly will differ--give it a look-see yourself!
I am not usually star struck or more impressed by celebrities I meet than I am of people I meet in the general course of my life, but for about 10-15 years now, I have sincerely admired one person-- Danica McKellar. Most people know her as Winnie from The Wonder Years, though she has been in quite a number of shows and movies since then.
What earned my admiration was the fact that she did not define herself as a person by her celebrity and has earned laurels in other areas upon which she can rest her reputation. In addition to her on screen involvement, she has a BA in Math from UCLA and has a math proof named after her. For a long time now, she has devoted time on her website to helping kids with math problems and has been the spokesperson for Figure This!, a website that provides math challenges for families to work on together.
Given that I was so awful at math in school, her involvement helping other people in this field of study has been enough to make her my hero for a long time now.
I found a very interesting Studio 360 session with her as a guest that discusses the right brain/left brain connection between the Arts and Math. Her segment begins about 11 minutes into the show, but her comments intertwine with other interviews. The first is Eve Beglarian, a composer who explores the use of math in music. There is also a story on David Galenson, an economist who is using quantitative measures like regression analysis and statistics to figure out what artists are trying to say and at what time in artists lives do they produce the most creative works.
There are some interesting commentary by Danica and Eve about how their math lives/mindset and artistic lives/mindset were almost violently in conflict with each other socially and internally. In some cases, they say their right brain and left brain activities are often mutually exclusive. At the same time, they discuss the aesthetic beauty inherent to pure math and the fact that the solutions to right brain activities lay in left and vice versa.
The third story on Studio 360 addresses the right/left conflict pointing out that usually those skilled in math are usually portrayed in movies and television as abnormal- they are borderline insane or anti-social or idiot-savants. McKellar acknowledges that mathematicians can tend to become absorbed in their work and seem a little flighty at times, but in general, the characterization is more of a caricature than reality.
A pretty interesting series of stories all in all. The program is rather long to listen to in its entirety, but fortunately the individual interview segments are broken out as separate links so one can return to the webpage to listen to each section separately without having to scroll through to the appropriate time stamp.
I was climbing a sea cliff this weekend when I noticed a lighthouse I had been looking for fairly close by. Even better, from my vantage, I noticed the trail that lead to the lighthouse as well. I descended and walked back to my car for water and sneakers (I know I am becoming more local because I am doing bizarre things like clambering up cliffs in sandals rather than "proper" shoes.)
As I was making my way across a field toward the trail, I had to walk over some loose chunks of basalt. Despite testing the stability of each rock, one tilted beneath me and I ended up scraping up my hand, knee and a good portion of my lower back. Undaunted, I pulled myself up, washed my wounds with my water bottle and continued on...until I saw a tour bus pull up and disgorge a horde of folks.
I have already established that I am rather anti-social so regular readers may not be surprised to read that human company stopped me where wounds dripping blood didn't. It was more than that though.
We have all read or had experience with people with poor cell phone etiquette and that is annoying enough. But I have really come to believe of late that people are afraid to be alone with their own thoughts and feelings. I was over at the Kilauea volcano last Christmas and as my mother and I approached the awesome vista, a woman behind us pulled out her cell phone and related moment by moment to a friend.
Perhaps she was just being an idiot, but many incidents similar to that make me wonder if she and other people just don't know how to process magnificent sights like that without the insulation of a television or computer screen. In order to cope with the swirling emotions they are experiencing, they need to distract themselves with technology.
There is a safety in movies and television. Even the roller coaster in an amusement park has all sorts of safety mechanisms. But you can walk right up to the edge of the Grand Canyon and there aren't any safety rails (or at least there weren't the last time I was there.) While it isn't the mythical abyss staring back at you, it is pretty overwhelming and frightening to stand there with nothing but your own caution and restraint to keep you from falling in.
It makes me wonder if as many people have attention deficit disorder as seem to. It may be more the case that rather than deal with reality which brings creeping thoughts of economic, social, personal, spiritual, educational, etc., woes and concerns, people are seeking solace and distraction in phones, PDAs, computers, video games.
So what does this all mean to arts management? Why did I choose to categorize an entry that starts with a story about my bloody knee as Audience Relations rather than General Musings?
As I drove away from my hiking excursion, it occured to me that arts people trying to educate new and existing audiences about what they do not only have to instruct people about understanding their art form, they have to make them comfortable with the personal silence needed to process the experience.
The idea that you have to stop and think about a work probably seems self evident when you teach people what to look/listen for. But it may be a false assumption these days. In days of instant gratification, if you have taught someone to look at an artist's use of light, he/she can deal with Reubens even if they had no previous exposure to Baroque art. However, if they come in contact with an artist who has no concern for use of light, the viewer, having no familiar point of reference may quickly pass by. Even if their teacher constantly used the phrase "what is the artist trying to do", they may not stop to consider that question when faced with unfamiliar elements.
It may not be enough just to "teach a man to fish" anymore. Now you have to teach the person the critical thinking skills to recognize they are in a situation when the goal of getting fish from the water remains the same, but the fishing tool provided is not appropriate in this situation.
The bad news is, this probably will take a major shift in mindset and way of life rather than the intermittent interaction with the arts to achieve. (And that isn't even acknowledging that this is even more to do with less funding available.) It has to be schools, arts people, Oprah and Dr. Phil and then some talking about it.
The good news is, recently groups have started to really advocate getting away from technology (but is it enough?) I have seen TV ads in the past week or so for the Take Me Fishing website and read an article about a book titled Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children From Nature-Deficit Disorder.
These efforts obviously don't address contemplation of the arts directly, but do advocate activites where people have to spend quiet time with their thoughts (lets hope the lake has poor cell phone reception) and critical problem solving skills (like alternative routes that avoid crossing a field of jagged basalt) that allow people to formulate alternative criteria with which to assess a painting.
Ah! Back from Vacation seeing my adorable nephew. I didn't do much thinking about the arts at all during my visit, though I am quite convinced that my nephew's drool patterns on my shirts are harbingers of his future genius in the visual arts.
Fortunately for me, a comment by a blog reader set me to contemplation upon my return so I am ready to write!
Indija Mahjoeddin, a randai scholar in Australia recently commented on an entry back in January on a Randai performance I had attended. I had essentially wondered if, for all the personal growth participation had accorded the students, would casting directors of Broadway and League of Regional Theatre venues see any value in that experience or would the students have been better off doing Chekhov?
Indija bemoans the fact that she has a hard time getting past the gatekeepers at theatres because randai is not avant garde enough for some, but not commercial enough for others.
In my email back to her, I basically pointed out the thorny problems with popularity. While appealing to a fringe audience doesn't always pay the bills, there are some unsettling repercussions to having ethnic art forms become vogue.
When something becomes hot, people want to jump on the bandwagon and don't want to spend the time to grasp the deeper significance of an art form. Instead they are satisfied with parroting the superficial aspects. Worse, there are people who sincerely wish to learn the true nature, but come in contact with instructors who are teaching the superficial elements.
I wasn't in Hawai'i two days before I realized that Hollywood had done hula and Hawaiian culture a great disservice (I actually suspected that was the case before I arrived.)
Trying to maintain true to the cultural heritage of a group while trying to make a living wage educating the greater population about that culture has always been a narrow line to walk.
One of the strangest stories I have come across recently is an article that accuses popstar Gwen Stefani of exploiting a Japanese pop cultural trend. It is just difficult for me to see how a woman who borrows lyrics and music from Fiddler on the Roof for her songs is grossly misrepresenting a trend where Japanese girls dress in clothes from other times and cultures.
The unoriginal stealing from the unoriginal seems like a victimless crime as far as the principles are concerned (those who originated the music and styles they have appropriated might be another matter altogether.)
I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who has been able to successfully present cultural heritage without being, by and large, accused of exploiting that culture. Email me or comment below.
I'd also like to hear from anyone who might have some anecdotes about people who were accused of exploiting or undermining cultural elements only to later be praised as a great disseminator of the self-same material.
For instance, I have always wondered if Carl Stalling and Chuck Jones were vilified for belittling classical music by scoring Bugs Bunny cartoons with it. Today many people credit the cartoons as their first exposure to classical music and in some cases, the initiating incident in their love of the music.