So you may have been wondering why we didn't cover the Public Art Panel hosted by Milwaukee Artist Resource Network (MARN) at Bucketworks on Monday night, especially since we'd covered nearly every plausible and implausible angle of the Janet Zweig project kerfuffle. "Why, oh why, Cricky?" I hear you plaintively cry.
Fair and insightful question, dear reader, and my answer is simply that the decision was not based on disinterest or apathy stemming from a victory won but rather on a lack of time to blog it up and the knowledge that both Mary Louise Schumacher at Art City and the MARNsters had a handle on it.
That being said, after reading Mary Louise's post--to whom, by the way, I'd like to say, "Buck up, kid," in the most soothing way possible--and watching the video of the meeting through the great courtesy of Bucketworks, I am filled with mixed emotions and somewhat conflicted thoughts and, quite frankly, I couldn't be happier! I know you're thinkin' I’m screwdelled in the noodle for sayin' that, but I can no more deny my true reaction than deny my geeky love for the zany tunes of the brilliant Tom Lehrer--link provided for the sadly uninitiated.
Here's the two-part reasoning for my giddiness:
1. While it's clear that nothing truly practical arose from it, this meeting served the purpose of facilitating dialog and discussion at a level seen only in spurts recently, and that is a good thing in and of itself. Questions were asked, some had no answers--at least not yet--ideas were exchanged, project updates were shared, and some very good learnin' was had by all.
2. The push and pull that is inherent to the artistic life--the beauty of process and the questioning of intent, the quest for freedom and the desire for form, the investigation of the intangible and its transformation into the tangible, the careful balance of the idealistic and the pragmatic--all of these things were clearly apparent at this meeting and that means progress.
To wit, I'd like to point out a couple of extremely strong moments during the discussion. For those unaware of primary purpose of the panel meeting, it was to address several questions regarding public art, which are, and I quote the MARN listserv message:
* Who has the voice?
* How does the public effect change in this process?
* As an artist how do you "get in on the action"?
* How to make sure things don't go haywire?
* What to do when things DO go wrong"
Okay, I'll begin with Murph Burke, Chair of the Milwaukee County Public Art Committee. She, good people, was golden, and I mean golden, with statements like this:
Now, doesn't that sorta talk send shivers of the Right On! kind down your spine? Indeedy do! Learning is a lifelong process--we do it everyday in all sorts of ways and sometimes we're not even aware of it when it's happening. In light of that fact, it behooves all of us to speak about art and what's going on in the arts with non-artsy folks as frequently as we can. In conjunction with that, we must be willing to respectfully listen and discuss art with those not regularly engaged with it so that we may learn from them as well. Respect is a two-way street, kids, and there's just no way around it.
In that same vein, someone in the audience very firmly and persuasively argued:
Who was that off-screen genius? I so wish I knew 'cause I totally wanna add her to my BFF collection. If you're reading this, oh woman with a million things going on and still breathing, comment or email Cricky immediately so I may give you kudos directly.
Jill Sebastian, sculptor/installation artist/Professor at Milwaukee Institute of Art & Design (MIAD), agreed to some points made there, but noted:
"I do think you're right that a lot of artists think why aren't people paying me to do this, and I'm not an artist who ever asked that question. Ya know, the first question to me is, ya know, as an artist I make art, and connecting with people is, I have to agree with Murph, ya know, that's part of making art. The other stuff follows after that... What my experience tells me over and over again, even though people talk about the average population not being educated to art, over and over they say we want art... What happens between the artist and the community isn't the disconnect in education it's a disconnect I think in process. The most exciting works that I've done in public art have been when I've been working directly with community groups from kind of the grassroots, where I'm not brought in, ya know, here, here's an artist, drop you in on here, instead it starts out as a conversation as to, ya know, what are your dreams and goals and how do you live and what can we do together, and then I take those kinds of conversations and, ya know, process them through what I can contribute as an artist. The money comes after that. I think anybody that is working from the other way around is asking to be misunderstood."
Wow. Just wow, folks. These are exactly the types of conversations we need to be having on a consistent basis because what's being demonstrated here is the utter complexity and diversity that exists throughout the artistic community and, indeed, within the creative process itself.
There is no one way, no perfect solitary solution to grow and maintain the arts within the larger society--all ideas, methods, opinions, and concepts must meld and yet retain their distinctive quality in order for success to be had. We need to approach the discussion of public art and art in general through all of these means and with all of these points of view intact. Though it may make each of us weary and disheartened at times, just as it is with creative expression, the work of communicating the value of art never, ever ends.
If you've got some time on your hands, check out the video for yourself.
Related:
Miltown Proves Its Artsy Love
I don't know... the constant uncritical, often thoughtless reaffirmations of art's alleged value are starting to wear me down beyond "disheartened" and into the territory of "disinterested".
What IS Art, anyway? The word has so many definitions, and so few of them are sensible. Do we really want to fight for and advocate something so loosely defined? What if i find some people's idea of what art is abhorrent?
An nagging example from two projects i'm currently working on simultaneously: i think the presentation of Shakespeare's characters today is offensive. The expectation that i should get emotionally invovled in the lives of 400 year old fictions in a world where 126 million children work in the worst forms of child labor, including forced prostitution is pretty disgusting.
Under what circumstances can it possibly be in my interest to help Shakespeare producers in their mission to get more government money (which is really my money) or philanthropic support to do things that i find disgusting? Likewise, why should they waste thier time trying to work with me?
Seems more practical to spurn the art world, even spurn the concept of "art" and just create experiences of value by whatever means i've got access to.
Posted by: Ben Turk | May 21, 2009 at 12:16 PM
You've absolutely made some valid points here, Ben, and perhaps I should have been more clear that independent artists, collectives and groups have complete freedom to choose whether or not they want to engage with the rest of the arts community and in any efforts/projects the majority wants to take on and/or sees as necessary. In other words, you need to do whatever you think is best in your own interest and according to your own philosophy.
My intent of writing this post is to express what I see as need of action to be taken by those who believe in the concept of public funding for the arts. If you work from the position that art cannot exist without the monetary and advocacy support of the larger society, then you must do the work to communicate with that society and not simply assume that you will receive the support solely based on what you see to be the merit of the work. Discussion must happen continually or it will remain to be issue that only those directly involved with the arts see to be important.
Certainly, each and every artist has a right to work from their own idea of what they deem to be art and if that means, as you say, "to spurn the art world, even spurn the concept of 'art' and just create experiences of value" then so be it. I stand behind you and others on your right to do so.
There is no rule that states that all must be of the same opinion, share the same goals, and/or work in the interest of each other or the whole. But by voicing your opinion and asking these relevant questions, you open the discussion up and offer insight from a point of view not normally heard from or recognized by the larger community. And that, my friend, is all sorts of good.
Posted by: Mary Dally-Muenzmaier | May 22, 2009 at 10:30 AM