Module 2: Questions

19 Comments

1. In the readings for this module, I saw a delineation between a couple different political issues that have been and continue to be influencing who can participate in the arts and to what extent. These are the politics of diversity, of economy, of integrity, and of education.

   Becker talks about diversity with the example of one state forbidding art that show a racial mixture, while another state may promote, or even demand, this representation. In the Representing the City reading, it is shown that arts and cultural organizations generally concentrate in neighborhoods that are diverse, ethnically and economically. However, while this is great for the people in those neighborhoods, the organizations remain invisible for the most part to the majority of the city’s population.

   In terms of economy, Becker discusses that fakery actually may be worthwhile for artists because of the value associated with it, despite the fact that doing this would compromise their own talents and reputation. Integrity also affects artist participation when people assert the belief that alteration of an artwork is OK only if it does not affect the artist’s reputation. However, this goes for even the artists themselves, so the public opinion actually restricts artists from making changes to their own work and expressing their own creativity.

   Finally, Ivey looks at participation from an educational point of view. He notes that many university arts administration programs assume drastic differences between the for-proft and non-profit sectors. They design their program as training for only one or the other and thus can limit students’ and emerging arts leaders’ participation within management of the arts.

   For me, the most shocking comment in the readings this week was Becker’s point that a state’s failure to act is actually seen as a form of cooperation. Arts participation is bound up in higher power, and creativity and imagination can be jeopardized just because a state makes certain funds available over other funds. Artists cannot display- let alone produce- what they want because of social and political influence.

2. A resonating theme throughout the readings was that of access of participation- to what extent can individuals (artists or otherwise) freely express their creativity? This question seems simple at first, considering the foundations of our government which is rich in promoting the power of the individual spirit. Bill Ivey and the Arts and Public Purpose article both eloquently state that participating (in the broadest sense) is an American right and the skills gained in the process help generate and sustain a creative life.

   Ultimately however, the concept of individuals freely expressing their creative endeavors (whether through music, visual or performing art) is affected by countless political practices, often unintentionally. In particular, Becker exclaims in his article Art and the State that “the state pursues these interests (in the arts) both by supporting what it approves and by discouraging or forbidding what it disapproves” p. 167. For example with the combination of regulations, funding channels and legal restrictions, the state- although promoting a certain type of art, is in turn ignoring another by choosing to fund/allow the first.

   I believe this large concept dovetails with the issues Bill Ivey discusses in regards to creating a new system for supporting the arts. If the idea that many nonprofits have fallen into a system which relies primarily on private donations and government funding holds true, this means they are in fact further restricting themselves by choosing to act with the entities which provide guidelines, yet restrict their output.

   Personally, I think Ivey’s idea to reevaluate the public interest and utilize the current resources (instead of constantly looking for additional) is a valid suggestion. In order to evolve from the current system, which promotes, yet restricts certain art practices, emerging leaders need to look to different, innovative business practices. The human imagination combined with the ever-evolving world of technology will only create more opportunities, and thus, more questions regarding access and participation. Perhaps by reevaluating current regulations, laws and the like- the political influences on art practices will change.

3. The recurring theme that I identified throughout the readings for Module 2 was that the arts in America are made up of the creative endeavors of artists and the interest of audiences, but are distributed and in essence controlled by government orgs and corporations. This is not a new model as most industries in America are structured in this way, but I have always had an idealistic idea that the arts could transcend this system.

   Bill Ivey explores what he calls the, “Cultural Bill of Rights” and expresses his belief that each citizen should be granted the opportunity to both create and participate in the arts, but later in his article, “America Needs a New System for Supporting the Arts,” he touches on the various ways in which America is not granting its citizens those rights.

   Ivey touched on how much radio has changed over the years by offering less and less variety of music (even though more and more varieties of music are available) and radio stations are run by a handful of companies (who dictate what is played and are interested in their own agenda, not the what the public might want). “Despite the growth of new media, the majority of consumers still learn about new music by listening to the radio: The most important medium lets fewer and fewer recording artists through the gates. Consolidation makes it especially difficult for local artists, new performers, and mature artists to obtain radio exposure.” (p. 5)

   I am particularly drawn to this idea because of my own experience of being a gatekeeper of sorts and playing music on the radio as a DJ. I play music on an independent station and am not told what to play but I feel that it is my responsibility to both play what I think is good music, provide variety (I never play the same artist twice during a show) and showcase a certain amount of emerging artists (in order to help them gain more exposure). It really scares me to think that private interest drives what music is being heard, and that money is really the determining factor. The gatekeepers (large corporations) have complete control over how the music is being curated and both the interests of the artists and the interests of the audiences get thrown by the wayside. How can we as arts administrators and arts advocates switch the current cycle of curating to reflect the wants and needs of the artists and audiences? (really how?)

4. One of the most polarizing topics I found in the readings was in Bill Ivey’s article called “America Needs a New System for Supporting the Arts.”
   Ivey discusses the controversy between the NEA’s protection of “artists” through their heightened copyright laws, but how they have narrowed the entry gate of radio by deregulating monopolies on station ownership.
   Ivey also talked a lot about the differentiation we draw between non profit and for profit. It got me thinking about the implications for artists of being involved in a nonprofit. Are many arts orgs non profit because they cannot turn a profit? Are they non profit because society has decided that their area of the arts is not worthy of investing in?
   Ivey’s mention of the “small inventory of DVDs maintained by Wal Mart or Target,” struck me as well. While I think that the arrival of netflix or amazon have made wider consumption of independent films possible, we do not often think about the repercussions of what is found in stores like that, and the curation of the media that is available.
   This article made me ponder how our world would be different if arts organizations were for profit. If arts and culture programming was part of the mainstream consumer culture.

5. A couple of links from the Diigo site really resonated with the readings for me this week.

   Erin’s link from NYmag.com looks at the role of the artist as a culture in terms of power and community. Specifically, it looks at Hasids vs. “Artisen” (that seems to be Yiddish for Hipster)in Williamsburg. Who has the power in this neighborhood and where is the line between art, community, and nuisance? http://nymag.com/realestate/neighborhoods/2010/65356/

   In relation to this article, the Re-presenting the City essay, facts and data figures may seem rather idealistic. Building bridges within a community can’t be as simple as creating cultural institutions can it? But then, I recall the antidote in the NYmag story, where one Hasid has created a space that crosses barrier between two distinct social existences. What he is doing seems to be subverting the Hasidic culture, but also bringing young Hasids in with the Artisen. So yes, this center is crossing lines and working to bring the communities together, but in a rather undermining way.

   The other link that I found particularly intriguing with this weeks readings was Doug’s post from reason.com “The Artist Formerly Known as Dissident” http://reason.com/archives/2009/08/07/the-artist-formerly-known-as-d

   I agree with Ivey’s appraisal of the current arts system, and that we need a new one. Mainly, that is because we have created a nation of artists who are dependent on government funding. How dissident can you be when the NEA or SAA’s are putting food on your table? Possibly, the better question would be, “How do you sign your name to your art when the fed is putting food on your table?” Transmedia applications allow for a higher level of anonymity for the artist. Dissent can happen more readily, but how does an anonymous artist get paid?

6. The politics of participation come from a variety of sources. Bill Ivey’s discussion of national politics involved in government and organization leaders participation in the arts is very different from Raymond Williams’ assertion that “culture is ordinary” and we participate in it every day – no matter what we do.

   I was intrigued with Ivey’s discussion about the similarities of nonprofit and for-profit arts and how they must work together to change the system for financing and regulating the arts. Ivey’s discussion was also supported in the Arts and the Public Purpose Assembly paper. The conclusion that “a fully functioning, flexible arts sector is institutionalized within our society, and that this sector should hold public debates with a force and importance equal to that of other sectors…” made me think about how many arts organizations are just trying to stay open by asking/competing for money, but not engaging the greater community in a discussion of the value/use of the arts. The assembly also identified the need for “more overt and continuous commitment of time and resources by artists and arts organizations to public purposes.” This commitment was also addressed in the Stern and Seifert reading. Stern and Seifert said, “arts and cultural organizations … tend to concentrate in neighborhoods that are ethnically and economically diverse.” This assertion is backed up by their inventory of organizations within a specific location. The fact that arts organizations are more abundant in diverse neighborhoods shows the importance placed on creative expression in these areas whether for social action or just creating art.

   I believe that power can come from the collaboration of individuals and not just from the top down. The power of the diverse communities to engage in economic revitalization and social action should be looked at seriously by policy-makers. Ivey’s discussion on a national scale still holds true to the grassroots ideas in the Stern and Seifert article. Collaboration is necessary for change to occur.

7. “If every arts leader is basically engaged in the same juggling act, simultaneously pursuing artistry, financial success, and some sense of the public interest – how have we come to have an approach to analysis and intervention that serves only the nonprofit part of America’s complicated arts system?” – Bill Ivey

   I was just having a discussion with a fellow music colleague about the different philosophies that artists have about financial compensation. As Ivey mentions, there is a dichotomy between the for-profit sector which is often dismissed as “commercial,” and the non-profit which is “mission-driven.” When this distinction is made, conflicts in philosophy occur. Do we assign merit based on the “commercial” gain, or the “mission” for which it stands? I think that we tend to consider excellence by “mission,” but this has caused the non-profit sector to “[grow] bigger without getting richer.” What makes an artist a professional versus an amateur? Is it financial gain (being able to live off of your art)? Is it excellence? I feel like the word “excellence” has a “mission-driven” connotation. When people talk about “mission,” it sounds like they are describing something lofty – the greater truth that art strives to communicate. Financial gain seems to contradict that message. An example is independent vs. mainstream. As soon as something becomes mainstream, it loses a certain audience.

   As the line between professionals and amateurs get blurred, what will be the distinction? Will it be financial gain or mission-driven excellence? I tend to have a more “mission-driven” philosophy. To me, someone who is considered “professional” is serious about his/her art, and has the training and skill that distinguishes him/her from an amateur. However, this “professional” may not get paid very much. In fact, this person’s income may not come solely from his/her art. I know that some of my colleagues have a different point of view – that we as professional musicians should be able to live off of our art. I agree that we should be financially compensated for our special skills. However, I don’t feel that playing Pachelbel’s Canon In D for a wedding (for which I get financially compensated) is an example of who I am as an artist. As an artist, I would prefer to present a performance of Haydn’s F Minor Variations because I feel a stronger personal connection with the music and therefore have a message (or “mission”) to communicate in that performance. Would my opinion of the Haydn piece change if it became as mainstream as the Pachelbel Canon? I don’t know.

   How can the arts administrator juggle artistry, financial success, and audience appeal? Is finding this secret the key to keeping art “sustainable” in society?

8. William’s reading states that culture is everywhere and I believe the same can be said about politics that directly and indirectly influence the practices within the arts and culture sector, they are everywhere and involved in shaping how people go about moving through the art world.
   However, I believe is should also be noted that there are artists who are directly opposing laws and political constraints such as Swoon, Banksy, and historically artists like Basquiat and Keith Haring. When considering how politics can affect participation, I agree with Arielle in that there appeared to be categories which determined participation such as diversity, economy, and education.
   While Becker describes in detail how different political forces can and do affect those moving through the art world, I feel that there might be a shift in how these constraints of politics could possibly be changing especially with the increased use of technology. As Daniel mentioned, it was alarming to see how corporations like Clear Channel have a large control over the music that is being aired on the radios and how there is less of a variety of music available to the public. I can’t help but wonder through it this is changing with sites like Pandora, LastFm, 8tracks and the like where there is a communal sharing of information and a large variety of music. How could politics affect sites like these? According to an article at socialistworker.org (http://socialistworker.org/2010/04/19/setback-for-internet-freedom) there may already be people planning on controlling the internet.
   How can non-profit and for profit organizations work together in order to secure freedom of creativity and expression and hold up Ivey’s Cultural Bill of Rights?

9. How do power and social practice intersect across transmedia environments?

   Over the course of these readings I could not help but think of the music and film industries. I really appreciated Ivey’s “Cultural Bill of Rights,” but while I was reading that I could not help but think “Is this something that most Americans would even care about?” In my opinion the average American consumer, when consuming music or film, does not want to have to think or explore for what they like. (Tell me what to listen to or see) This has been a trend going on for quite some time now. Which is why there are so many bad music acts and films being distributed.

   I believe for most people there is a unspoken security in things being homogenous across different places in our country. I mean, why visit a local restaurant in some town you’re visiting when they have an Olive Garden and you know exactly what you’re getting when you go to it? (crap) Sadly, this has taken foothold in our society (my opinion). This is especially pervasive with the music industry. After the chairmanship of Michael Powell the FCC deregulated the radio industry to the point of Clear Channel basically monopolizing what was on the air. It’s no wonder emerging artists have had to seek new forms of media for exposure. I quit listening to over air radio a long time ago and have subscribed to XM satellite radio to hear new artists (XMU ch. 43 if anyone is interested) and of course DJ Leftovers radio show on KWVA 88.1 on late thursday night 12-2. Support your local independent radio DJ!

   Music is something that I value highly and it is really difficult to see what is going on right now without getting pissed off. Corporate America has duped people into thinking they are involved in the process: American Idol. Just watching the America Country Music Awards last night I could not stop laughing. Talk about curation, wow. I wonder what Hank Williams would think of “country” music now. It is a world of spray on tan, designer jeans, NO hats, and when you cease to be a pretty face you’re back to playing the casino circuit.

   I believe someday there will be a blowback to all of this CRAP that is out there being passed off as art and it will be our job as arts administrators and advocates to get this new hungry audience pointed in the right direction. We have seen and read about how a vibrant arts scene can transform a community and must be there when the audience comes out of their DEREGULATED, garbage consuming coma.

10. How do power and social practice intersect?

    How do power and social practice intersect in transmedia environments?

    The overwhelming theme that continued to present itself for me throughout the readings and suggested materials was that of access. Regardless of context, but particularly for the arts, the foundation of creation, participation and consumption revolves around access. In the United States the first amendment protects our right to free speech. Therefore, artists have the freedom to create anything they want, right? Well, sort of. In a Utopian US, maybe. However, the reality is very different.

    1. In order for an artist to become an artist, presumably, a certain degree of exposure to the arts is necessary. We see this dwindling in our country, as government support of the arts, particularly in education, has all but dried up. The importance of arts exposure to individuals in their formative years is critical. Not only is this the period of development for language and literacy (ARTS!), but also social behavior and personality (ARTS!). These skills and innate foundations of who we are need the arts — for a myriad of reasons this post will not allow me to support in great detail, however, there is an overwhelming body of research and literature to back me up.
    2. The access to resources to study, tools and materials to create as well as space to create and exhibit is critical. The cost of these resources is dictated by the free market — which may or may not be something the average artist can afford. Thus, artists either need to be forced into marrying into wealth (the old fashioned way) or follow a career that will yield an income to support the artists habits…yet then years go by and time is scarce and the well of creativity and passion dries up.
    3. Sustainable careers and exhibition require an audience — and at least part of that audience must have enough disposable income to support the artist by purchasing their work. Taste and trends are influenced largely by media in modern society. People look to celebrities, celebrity magazines, blogs, television and the internet for guidance on what to wear, what to do, what to like etc. If something is out of vogue, and not picked up as a cause by anarchistic groups of the avante garde — then an artist is out of luck.

    Granted, these are some rather dark and dramatic leaning observations — but to some extent they are accurate and certainly not far from the reality in which we find ourselves.

    In response to the second question, the control of access (in its various forms) has shifted greatly with the advent of new media technologies. YouTube is a great example of a decentralized system that allows amateurs to create video and post it online for unlimited viewers. That said, the popularity of the video is still subject to the ‘tastes and trends’ that I mentioned previously. Further, the access to equipment including a camera, software, a computer and the internet are NOT ubiquitous. And…the quality of that material, both what is created and how it is reviewed and perceived, is at a loss without the critical skills of thought learned through the arts in education (which is virtually non-existent in most schools today).

11. Perhaps I am a bit jaded, but I always believe that government/bureaucracy/state/”the man” has more control than we would like to admit. It’s an iceberg – what we plainly see is only an indication of a much larger entity. Despite that, I do believe that communities and individuals have the opportunity to create social change, especially if we more fully understand the ways in which culture is expressed. We need a wider, broader and more inclusive perspective with which to view culture, the arts, participation, and opportunities for change.

    Many of the posts have discussed Ivey’s “America Needs a new System for Supporting the Arts”, and I have to agree that I found it very compelling too. Recently, I have been preoccupied with the idea that art needs a “re-brand”. We need a broader definition of “art” – one that includes the cultural, historical, community organizations, as well as larger, more widely recognized ones, and the many ways in which people participate. (And one that doesn’t stigmatize artists, but that’s a different conversation.) The “Art & Public Purpose” discussed how arts are so pervasive, we often do not know we’re participating. A more inclusive definition of participation would also help us acknowledge the full spectrum of art and participation forms.

    Along with this re-brand of perspective, Ivey is essentially asking for an overhaul of the way in which we envision, and then build, the arts sector. Instead of separating the arts from the for-profit sector and government, we have to think of new ways to define these relationships. As Stephanie Moore said, I think this provides many opportunities for change, and not necessarily just from the top-down. If we can acknowledge a wider definition of art, then maybe more individuals will be involved in the rebranding of what art can and should do for society. As Ivey says, “If our shared purpose is to build a public good by shaping an equitable, open, and exciting arts system, we must first paint a picture of that ideal landscape, then create public policy and private practice that will make our dream reality”.

12. What are the politics of participation—in curating, collecting, critiquing,etc?

    How do power and social practice intersect?

    How do power and social practice intesect in transmedia environments?

    I think the single greatest complication in negotiating the politics of arts participation in the current world environment is Web 2.0. When we use Diigo to tag a page to be shared with our classmates, we are also ascribing value and meaning to that page. We choose our tags based on our own perspective: how we understood the page’s intent, and the reason we were reading it in the first place. In programs like Diigo, the creator of the page has no more say in how that page is categorized than any other Diigo user. For the most part, I think our ability to custom-organize the internet is a positive thing, but that process has a different meaning when the web page in question is or is representative of a work of art, as opposed to a news article or forum.
    Art is rarely meant to be “neutral”. Even if it’s never meant to be shown to others, we create art as a means of expressing an idea. Is the value of art decreased when the ideas the artist intended and the ideas other participants have interpreted are not congruent? At the very least, I can imagine being extremely frustrated if my artwork was linked or posted to a site that was using it to make an argument or support a cause that I was opposed to.
    Becker’s “Art and the State” chapter clearly lined out many of the issues of power that arise when the government has a stake in arts participation. While the internet is a space in which art can be supported and categorized without government involvement, I’m not convinced that the internet has been any more fair to artists than our governments have. Becker asks “If I sell you my painting can you paint a mustache on one of the figures in it, as Duchamp did on a reproduction of the Mona Lisa? Or, once you have bought the work, can I come to your home and demand the right to alter it?” This kind of thing is no joke online. Encyclopediadramatica.com outlines multiple e-arguments in which people do the exact things Becker is describing to digital art and artists.
    I don’t think that the internet or web-users are inherently “bad”, but I think most people are generally unprepared for the responsibility of e-curating, because it isn’t often recognized as such.

13. How do power and social practice intersect?/How do power and social practice intersect in transmedia environments?

    As far as the first question goes, I find that I really agree with Daniel, especially his first paragraph – up until recently, I believe that diffusion of art into our mainstream society is controlled by the government/the suits. However, with the advent of the digital era, that power has diminished (somewhat). I continue to go back to the Henry Jenkins clip that we watched for the first module – I believe that artists’ engagement with new media/transmedia environments helps to reduce the interference of government/corporate entities, and is an outlet for creative expression for those who may have never had an opportunity to share their work with others. But, it also makes for a more crowded landscape, and in some ways (I believe), the rise of digital media consumption in our culture has the ability to devalue the work of professional artists who are already struggling to make a living. Ivey points out the directions in which both for-profit and non-profit arts communities have handled issues of legislation, funding, dissemination, etc. I believe that both groups have been behind the curve in learning how to adapt and navigate in the late 20th/early 21st c, particularly when it comes to new media forms, but that the non-profit arts world has been slow in embracing technology (of course, I speak from the perspective of a classical musician, and primarily in reference to that world). I agree that finding modes through which we can find common ground between for/non-profit arts communities will serve to reshape the way audiences engage with artists/artwork across the spectrum.

14. The one thing that jumped out at me throughout the readings this week was the idea of artists acting as a catalyst for change and engaging the community. That alone is very political.
    Of course, there are many ways artists and arts participators (as defined by the Saguaro Seminar) can engage the community without direct agitation, (ie: commentary and provocation)
    Within these participation methods there are different politics, specifically as emphasized by Ivey, the politics of economics. I think its interesting to note that looking at for profit models and creative approaches to running non-profits is growing and important trend as the economy of the arts has been redefined by deregulation and corporatizing of the art sector.
    On the micro level we see culture clashes within the non-profit organizations that want to stay mission driven and not worry about financial issues, while at the same time the nature of fundraising focuses on the constant seeking of new funds. I’d like to say that emerging leaders in the arts are starting to look at for profit models of running non-profits and even for profit ventures in the place of traditional non-profits. The important thing is that greed does not take over and that organizations strive for the best art while still thinking about the audience and bringing in money.
    Within the community artists are able to act as agents of change, as they provoke and promote dialogue between participants. Golden, in her video about the Harlem art scene, shows how artists and the arts are creating communities as they portray, define, and interpret what is going on around them.
    With the internet and transmedia environments we are able to create large networks of artists across communities in order to look at varied perspectives about society and what is going on in our communities. They help define the present and frame the future through their art.
    But we must look at the big and small picture. We must look at policies that are going into place an how we can affect our community but also our society as a whole. Whether through creating art, running an organization in a more practical way, or participating in the arts in other ways.

15. No doubt John has already seen this and will be utilizing it in class over the next week or two. :) Interesting new transmedia tools to explore uses for the decentralized cultural phenomenon on Twitter: http://mashable.com/2010/04/20/revisit-twitter-wall/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Mashable+%28Mashable%29

16. So, I posted this to Facebook as well and Sarah Collins posted almost immediately! She’s created a “revisit” visual of #artsed in the twitter flow. Check it out! http://moritz.stefaner.eu/projects/revisit/#/artsed/%23artsed/200/false

17. While reading the material for Module 2 I found myself asking more questions than receiving answers. Some of the questions I wrote down as I read (organized by article) were:

    Does capitalism sustain art, minimize art making, or neither? (Cultural Bill of Rights)

    What is our American Cultural Heritage and how do we manifest that into art? Where does pop art fit into that? (Cultural Bill of Rights)

    What about reality TV shows as a recording of our culture in a multi-media setting? How does this relate or differ from “This American Life,” an American folk effort? (The American Assembly)

    In other countries, particularly South American countries, music artists profit from shows but not from the distribution of their music. Distribution only gains them popularity. In the U.S., artists profit from both distribution and from shows. Does the way that America treats the music industry vs. the way South America treats the music industry mean that we, Americans, put more value on some kinds of art vs. others? A composed song vs. a mash-up mix? (Art and State)

    Do the economics of the U.S. make art more or less sustainable? (Art and the State)

    From my artist experience class, Micheal Salter told of one of his sets of work which was based on remnants left by the previous artist who occupied his studio. Does Salter owe anything to the other artist? Should he? How does the other artist feel about it? Do his feelings change if Salter makes a significant profit from the work set? In order for us to move forward in art making and culture do we need to let go of some of our ownership rights? (Art and the State)

    All of these questions seemed like they were going to be answered by Bill Ivey’s article, “America needs a new system for supporting the arts.” But I can’t quite grasp what that system is.

    The idea of sustainable art reminds me of a metaphor an old Chief told his grand daughter who was leaving the reservation for college. He said, “you must ride two horses simultaneously while every one else only sees one horse.” In art, there is the creative aspect of art-making and the sustainable aspect of making a profit. (Or at least that’s how I perceive it.) Those are the two horses. Often though, we can only see one horse at a time. “America needs a new system for supporting the arts” is recognizing this issue and addressing it. In order for art to be sustainable we need a new system. The first step in doing that is seeing the two horses.

    Interchangeable with art making and profiting from art, the two horses, is social practice and power. Within the context of our module question one horse is power and the other is social practice. They must be rode simultaneously.

    The intersection in the transmedia environment conflicts with previous perceptions of power. In the transmedia environment of the internet and art, no one is usually profiting. It’s just a public space. Maybe power, then, is how many people you can influence? Then social practice and power have the same intentions? This is a really interesting point when juxtaposed with my business education where power and social practice rarely occur with the same intent. Or so it seems.

18. I saw time as a correlation between Bill Ivey’s analysis of art funding and Thelma Golden’s lecture, How Art Gives Shape to Culture Change. The idea that art as we have known it does not necessarily represent art as it has become. In Golden’s case she is speaking specifically about the black experience in art vs. the African American experience in art and she uses those cultural labels of race to define the timeline that she is describing. Ivey is focusing on the importance the infrastructure of arts both as a funding and a regulating mechanism. He is bringing to our attention and warning of the danger of ignoring the outmoded aspects of the system and the loop holes that it creates and how those loop holes affect the arts. Both Ivey and Golden emphasize the importance of Art as a vessel of culture change. Ivey clearly defines the ramifications of copy right law on the exchange of ideas and the creation of new art. Golden focuses our attention on how the changing and static social milieu which influence and shape the experience of art made by African Americans and Black Americans (I include both terms because both are still relevant and not everyone with darker skin are of African heritage.)

19. How do power and social practice intersect?
    How do power and social practice intesect in transmedia environments?

    Nowadays we are living in an epoch that is the result of old days’ struggles. So we are dealing with those aftermaths. Today everything is much better than those gone days; however we notice that everything could be much better since there is more social improvements that allow more people living in the earth, more technological accomplish that sustain people wellbeing, and more cultural affairs that give more sense to our life. For me it is difficult to say how bad we are in cultural issues because I see a lot of improvement when I compare nowadays cultural politics with those from old days. My real apprehension is related to useless talking with organizations that mislead artist desires and mislead the purpose of arts. Most artists are lonely people who made their job humble and almost anonymously. Usually they don’t speak by themselves; someone else does it. So art administrators have an enormous responsibility representing artist aspiration and defending their interest in upper social debates. I believe that artist must associate among themselves to give their ideas of arts in sustainable society. It is unbelievable how much money cultural affairs moves and how few of it gets into artists’ pockets. Is the media getting most of the profits? Does art world belong to everybody but artist? Are artist only employees of the media? May an artist survive outside of the media?
    It is hard to think about public support for arts when Americans have not yet established a basic health-care program for all citizens. Health-care is a basic right in most civilized countries and it is the State (through taxes) that should supports at least basic health benefits for their people. By another side those countries that can afford better health-care programs depends on politician’s equity (holders of power) for the distribution of wealthy. So, when cultural affairs emerge in public discussion I fell that I am losing my time trying to make this topic a national problem. However the “Art & Public Purpose” gives me some clues about how to focus this matter and how to address it. Since this is a matter that has to be reinterpreted over time it came to my mind famous quotation by former president Kennedy in 1961: “Ask not what your country can do for you–ask what you can do for your country.” I think we should reinterpret this quote as “Ask not what cultural politics can do for you–ask what you can do for cultural politics.” That vision inevitable will lead us to participation. We, artists, are responsible for our own sustainability. We should generate arts social organizations to pursue financial support, artistry, and promotion of our work. The holder of the power will surrender to any organized association that claim new rules for their sector. Would be possible with all the diversity that exists in artistic matters? I think it is possible but we have to wait a break-point that I assume it will be given with nowadays discussion about internet free access. If we have to pay internet access would we have the right to “consume” everything that is there? And if it is so, would arts association have the right to ask royalties only because internet provides artistic images, artistic musical sounds, artistic entertainment, etc.? Arts matters need anxiously new witty leaders that can speak for artist; however if there is not artist discussion those speaker would have nothing to say. If the media is asking for more of this big cake called “art world” why artist should not to do the same?
    I think that power and social practice intersect through profit and non-profit organization. Both of them will exist forever since it is the most efficient way to organize poverty and wealthy. Profit organizations do not need special laws since they are doing money, otherwise they would not exist. That kind of organizations, lesser in number that the non-profits ones, survives by themselves because they take advantage of the better products of non-profits organizations. So it is a sort of vicious circle (or may be virtuous circle) through which successful artist get incomes from their artistry.
    By another side most artists had died in poverty so it is no strange that young people assume that fact before they decide to became an artist. Known that historical fact, some societies had organized special laws that guarantee at least basic health benefits for the artists. Would American society support this idea? Would society accept to pay those kinds of royalties to artists? Would the media accept to pay special taxes to support they artist? Historically, things like those happened; for example in Chile, in the 1940s, a special law was promulgated by the National Congress creating the “Symphonic Orchestra of Chile”; a new tax was charged to all country’s cinema halls in order to get the money to run that orchestra, of course the orchestra in return should tour the country three months a year. The law lasted 23 years and then was abolished. The orchestra went into the University of Chile and still performance annually seasons.
    Nowadays leadership and witty speakers are a key matter in art world and I really would like to hear voices claiming more ideas about organic and articulated relationship between different branches of Arts. Arts are many things, but at the same time is only one word.