October 20 & 27
Comments should address the initial primary and secondary questions below.
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
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?
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
Traditionally, we have seen a hierarchal approach to curating, collecting, and critiquing. Drawing from text outside of our Art & Society readings, DiMaggio on “Social Structure, Institutions, and Cultural Goods” discusses ‘cultural resources’, ‘cultural capital’, and the ‘institutionalization of cultural capital’ (borrowing from Bourdieu).
In the 1930’s the institutionalization of cultural capital centered on “high culture”, as seen with museums, symphonies, opera houses, universities, etc. Participation had been a one-way street, in that cultural institutions disseminated culture to the select members of society who could afford it.
Overtime the high arts cultural capital system could not sustain itself, as new technologies and shifts in participation emerged. In re-thinking its public purpose, these organizations now are re-structuring their curation, collecting, and critiquing to reflect democratic practices.
Popular culture, on the other hand, has in many ways surpassed its cultural counterparts. It has flourished, not only financially, but as seen with their cultural resources: intellectual property and copyright.
Ivey asks, “Had those of us cared about the health of America’s system for supporting the arts, by concentrating narrowly on cultural nonprofit groups and the agencies and nongovernmental organizations that help them, overlooked the policy interventions that were really shifting our cultural landscape?”
What has been taking place in the television, radio, print, film, and recording industries, has been largely ignored by those involved in the non-profit sector. The amount of federal regulations and deregulations that occur affect all subgroups of the cultural sector, and future research should be devoted towards finding cross-sectoral practices that best support artists, arts, and the public.
The part that resonated with me most from this week’s readings was the idea of power – or the imbalance of power – between the commercial and non-profit arts sectors. The non-profit sector has power as the source of all things “art” and they are the almost exclusive point of focus for national arts policy advocates. But, arts/cultural participation rates for Americans reveal a strong preference for the commercial arts, giving them power as the purveyors of culture in the eyes of patrons.
In “Arts and the Public Purpose,” one of the main points the Assembly makes is that the arts define what it is to be American. If that’s true, then denying the effect of the commercial arts on our national cultural identity and pretending that the commercial arts do not have a place in discussions about “the arts” is naïve and short-sided. For example, by pretending that the commercial arts were out of their scope of interest, Ivey suggests that arts advocates have actually decreased their own power and influence in the political field because of their fractured advocacy efforts and lack of engaged leadership for the entire sector.
If the people want pop culture, Hollywood and rock stars, why is that a bad thing? More importantly, why does it diminish the “traditional” arts? Or, does it? In a free market society and a representative democracy where majority rules, are the people wrong?
Beyond the initial influence of the Ford and Rockefeller foundations (i.e., their interest in expanding access to the “refined arts”), why has the dissonance and power struggle between the commercial and non-profit arts persisted? Can both non-profit and commercial arts be seen as legitimate and part of a larger arts whole? If the arts community began to see itself as a comprehensive whole, would that change anything?
According to Seifert, “cultural participation rates are higher in diverse neighborhoods than in other sections of the city” (p. 294). Would the same commitment to embracing the diversity of the entire arts community lead to greater cultural participation nationally? Would it strengthen the entire arts community if we didn’t see each side as an “other?”
I don’t know. But ignoring the effect of the commercial arts on our national culture and the ripple effects of commercial arts policy on “traditional” arts makes traditional arts advocates more like an ostrich with its head in the sand than the kinds of passionate and visionary leaders that our field needs now, more than ever.
As with last week, I’m not sure that I’ve answered the question. This is just what’s been on my mind after doing the readings…
Art requires funding in order for it to be sustainable. Investment in the arts sector is risky because about 80 percent of the profit comes from 20 percent of the works of art. When distinguishing between profit and non-profit artists and private and public artists, it is important to recognize that “not for profit organizations cannot ‘earn’ all the money it takes to sustain their operations; they have to raise on the order of half their revenues through contributions and grants” (The American Assembly).
With this in mind, government has an interest in art organizations and therefore has some input on how art is performed and created in society. One notable way the government tries to control art is through copyright laws. One example from Art and The State discussed the case about a circus performer preventing a television station from broadcasting film clips of him being shot out of a cannon.
At first read, you may ask why? Television would capture more viewers and thus more art would be spread about society. The circus performer wanted to regulate his performance and thus make it scarcer and in higher demand.
I think that this raises an interesting point about how power and social practice intersect in transmedia environments. Art can be consumed through many mediums. In this case it was through live performance or television. In the present day this still holds true except add the element of the Internet into the mix. An event is hard to control because there are so many different ways in which one can capture and share a moment. In some ways it creates different perspectives but who is the real author. Similar to what we talked about last week during class, is the author the performer, or the videographer/ photographer watching the performance?
Government has created certain laws to try and protect the rights of artists. As quoted in Art and the State, “the state has no direct interest in the works of art themselves; its interest is confined to keeping peace among its citizens and, by enforcing the rules of the game, seeing that they may enjoy the rights guaranteed them.” This line between legal or illegal copyrighting has become more blurred and I expect it to become even more so in the upcoming years.
Politics, in any regard, cannot exist without participation. Politics is dependent upon participation, and therefore one cannot exist without consideration of the other. Participation in this sense must be a group of people, rather than an individual. So, when we consider the politics of participation, we should consider several issues – such as which groups are we referring to, what separates or unites these groups from others, and how is participation defined in relevance to the group(s) in question. Further, the term “politics” connotes an engagement in a decision making process, making relevant discussion about the types of decisions the group(s) may be facing, and the groups that will be impacted (and in what way) by those decisions.
When we look into the politics of participation as it’s relevant to art and culture and practices therein, specifically the practices of curating, collecting, and critiquing, we are faced with an examination of what cultural items are chosen for presentation for public engagement and educational studies. We can quickly identify museums to be the primary holders of the collections of these items. Museums in America take on an immense responsibility to provide a neutral platform that promotes tolerance for other cultures. This is addressed in the American Assembly’s document “The Public Purposes of the Arts” which supports the notion that museums uphold American pluralism and the nations’s democratic values both locally and on a global scale.
Power, as it relates to the museum, resides with the groups determining what will and will not be revealed within the museum showcase, for the public. This may be disconcerting – who are these people? Is their agenda in line with that of the museum? Are they easily swayed, or seduced by potential sponsorships? This concern is not limited to museums, though. Scrutiny of corporate interests influencing television and radio programming is common. Both, as well as magazines and even websites, are filled with advertisements that fund their production. The media and culture outlets surrounding us tell our story, but we might consider the story to be a trick mirror at times, rather than a true reflection.
In any form of manifested culture, individuals will find their niche. Whether it’s loyalty to reading the same newspaper every week, or utilizing a favorite book store or art center, or watching entire seasons of television series, the groups of people who choose to participate specific activities form another very important group central to the role of arts and culture. Traditionally, engaging in cultural activity has been tied to social practice. Whether viewing a performance, writing a song, sharing a meal, or clipping an article for someone, there was an element of human-to-human contact, some exchange of ideas and real face to face contact. This is culture, perpetuating itself, in social practice. The list of ways to engage in social practice on the Saguaro Seminar website is impressively long – and almost anyone could do almost everything on the list.
Enter transmedia. Notions of power come into question, as artists gain the ability to share work with broader audiences without a physical vehicle. Anyone can participate in and anyone can consume culture in the new environment. Well, almost anyone. Computers are still more expensive than the entry fee to a museum or a movie or concert. Schools are still underfunded and poorly equipped to handle new media as educational channels. Still, tools now exist that have changed our notions of power and participation. The emerging systems seem to discourage social practice in forms of personal interaction, and encourage more expedited, frequent, and clipped digital communications between one another. The Arts and Public Purpose article sums up current shifts and their impact on the cultural sector, suggesting that the traditional houses of arts and culture seemingly have no choice but to adapt to these changes and reinterpret their mission within this new context. I would suggest that the definition of social practice may also be under examination, and is likely changing.
Politics of participation (or the decisions and funding relating to arts and culture participation) deals, not only, with financing for the arts, but with freedom of expression, classification of arts, international cultural/art exchanges, copy right and intellectual property issues, and the effect of corporate business and ownership on the dissemination of art and culture.
With the increased transmedia modes of capturing and disseminating art,
Although there has been a substantial shift in participation trends and in ideas on what constitutes quality art over the past several years, one fact remains in the art world: it is still controlled by its funding sources and ability to be sustained. Money = power. Where and who revenue or funding is coming from greatly controls what art forms are taught, disseminated, accessible, and dominant. Who funders chose to support (be it a traditional opera house or a non-profit arts education center) promotes certain practices that they define as quality.
On the other hand, the art forms and cultural practices that the majority of the public consumes (i.e. styles of music or film, or pop culture art forms) influences what is created and what is supported. For example, with the growth of web participation in consuming film, music, visual arts, and other forms of art and culture, more funding agencies are supporting organizations that educate youth in using tools for developing these forms of transmedia projects, and museums and performance art organizations that utilized transmedia modes of disseminating works of art and ideas.
In Art and the State, Becker directly addresses connection between aesthetics and politics, discussing how even politicians and decision-makers have subjective views and likes that influence their choices on what may be good, bad, valued art, and that creating economic activity is often a primary concern.
Becker also discusses the rights of the artists, and how the state can support or prohibit their work, depriving them of freedoms (as arts can mobilize a revolution or support and perpetuate existing ideas). I immediately thought of a key example of this form of governmental cencorship. I heard while at SPARC this summer. David Sequiros, one of the Three Great Mexican Muralists had painted a mural titled Americano Tropicano over the Golondrina in Venice Beach, CA – the oldest Mexican restaurant in LA. It was about native American genocide and the ruin of the indigenous peoples. It was a powerfully moving and beautiful mural, but due to the political content it was immediately destroyed and he was forced to leave the US.
The politics of participation are rapidly changing due to the increased accessibility of media through digital channels. Group A1 gave a great presentation last week where we saw how performance arts organizations are finding ways to increase their audience (both the size and the scope) by creating audio and visual recordings of performances and selling/releasing them to other institutions for viewing. This practice of creating a copy of a live performance completely changes the concept of live performance as being a temporary happening that has a limited window for participation.
Back home, The Orlando Shakespeare Theater just opened their production of The Turn of the Screw featuring my two most favorite local actors, and it makes my heart hurt knowing I’m going to miss this amazing production. I would GLADLY pay full ticket price for the opportunity to see a live stream or even a prerecorded version of the show simply so that I could have participated in the viewing of this production.
While there is certainly no replacement for a live performance of our favorite musicians, it doesn’t prevent us from buying their albums and listening to them over and over again. Why should music be one of the few mediums that allows us this opportunity for ownership of the experience?
The politics surrounding the shift in art accessibility for theaters and galleries in particular are overwhelming and a would require a large time and financial investment from the organization. Not only that, but the way we think about art and how it should be viewed would have to be reexamined, and many artists may not be willing to share their work on such a vast scale. There’s something precious about the temporary nature of a run of a show or the length of an installation. There’s also the fear that comes from not knowing what can/will be done with your work once it’s been released to the public and is out of your hands. By keeping a work of art locked safely in a museum or prohibiting photography and recording devices in a theater there is a great deal of control one can exert over his or her work, and that is lost once it’s reproduced for mass consumption.
The music industry faced this exact issue years ago when Napster hit the scene in 1999 and people stopped buying music and began downloading it off the internet for free, leading to massive copyright infringements of music and movies. It led to revolution in the music industry and has transformed the way we buy and sell music today. Record labels had to fight to take the power back from the consumer who now had unlimited access to entire CD’s, bootleg recordings from concerts, and other hard to find songs all with the click of the mouse.
I’m not advocating for all arts participation to be free, however the idea of making it more accessible is incredibly appealing to me as an audience member. The technology exists but it has yet to be utilized on a broad scale, but perhaps this is just the beginning. Art lovers can only hope that companies like The Met will pave the way for other organizations to make their performances accessible to a national audience so that we can sit at home in our pajamas and still enjoy top quality productions.
When do power and social practice not intersect especially in regard to the arts? Drawing from Susan’s comment about DiMaggio’s interpretation of art and culture, I would agree that the politics of pop culture are more left to the imagination. In some ways, this has allowed this art form to develop without the limitations of traditional ways of being limited in a ‘social practice’ sphere. Perhaps it is all too new to think about in a sweeping generational way – we are beginning to understand where pop art fits into the whole arch of art history, meaning how it should be curated and critiqued, but are we prepared to responsibly collect ‘works of art’ like the Learning to Love You More website? And if so, where will the newest generation of policy managers and trans-media organizers learn to adapt these practices?
On another note, I totally love Ivey’s bill of rights, especially that of understanding quality.
He quotes, “The right of Americans to engage art and art making of thehighest aesthetic quality, especially art that embodies universaltruths or art of quality that auditions the unique character ofdiverse nations and communities.”
This makes me think of Kant and the categorical imperative. America, as it has demonstrated in the past, treats art and culture as Kant’s understanding of achieving a ‘means merely’. I appreciate Ivey trying to portray, in regards to Kant, that American culture deserves its place as an ‘end in itself’. That said, I certainly hope that in the future, we in America will no longer have to justify the value of art in order to ‘achieve higher test scores’ or ‘ improve donor funding’.
On a fundamental, organic level, art can’t help but demand participation. The American Assembly says it well: “The arts are so pervasive that we are not always conscious that we are engaging in them when we are.” While the underpinnings of an art world is to unite, even to the best of its ability, it may, subconsciously divide.
Historically speaking, art has represented a more refined and cultured world, splitting up the arts sector into categories best sectioned by class. Williams asks, “What kind of life[…]this extraordinary fussiness, this extraordinary decision to call certain things culture and then separate them, as with a park wall, from ordinary people and ordinary work?”
Art is all around us. Our access to art, on the other hand, is often guided by a hand much bigger and more powerful than our own.
In art worlds, the politics of participation most often comes down to money. What museum exhibit, for example, will attract a foundation? How will a museum rearrange its program objectives in order to meet the values and beliefs of the foundation? If the funding comes from a governmental entity, how might the museum further alter its designs so that it doesn’t “offend” or offer a view that some may deem as unpatriotic?
So long as the art sector constantly revises itself to receive the financial support needed to sustain its infrastructure, these realities impede the art sector’s capacity to accomplish its work in an authentic manner. Ultimately, this results in censored or diluted products.
While the museum is busy playing the field, attracting appropriate financial suitors, it also needs to consider its audience and how to break through class and social status in order to reach them. Gaining ground in the ever growing resource-sharing of the digital age is one step, but that step leads down a steep, spiraling staircase of controls and copyrights issues.
Control is everywhere, power is everywhere. Art worlds must work to combine these participatory giants into a culture that works for the public good.
While completing the readings for this week, I continually found myself reflecting on how governments influence the arts, intentionally and unintentionally through laws. Becker sums up his ideas on the subject, stating, “The state thus acts like other art world participants, providing opportunities to get art work done by giving support both directly and indirectly for what it approves of, and acting as a constraint on other activities by preventing access, for worked deemed unsatisfactory, to some of the facilities ordinarily available to all participants.” (191)
There is a fine line that determines when a government should regulate artwork and how it is presented and performed, and when it is the right of the individual to express themselves freely. Laws on public safety and copyright laws that provide protection for artists’ creativity are put in place, but again these laws are usually vague. So the question that this all comes down to, is: Because ideas, artworks, and performances are so easily distributed and accessible now, do artists have a greater moral obligation to censor their artwork? Should disclaimers be printed in programs and distributed with other advertising materials like ratings on videos, or does this take away from the artist’s desire to create shock within their audience. Who should win out in this situation? Public safety (physically, psychologically, etc.) or the artist’s right to practice free speech?
For example, performances that created discomfort and criticism within audiences include Chris Burden’s Velvet Water, where he “breathed water” until an audience member stopped him. However, the audience was unaware of Burden’s intentions, and so sat and watched Burden essentially drown himself. Eventually someone broke the traditional barriers between artist and audience and stopped him, therefore ending the piece. The whole performance could be construed as psychologically violent towards the audience. Should this be allowed, and if not whose responsibility is it to stop it?
Another example is Kim Jones’s performance of burning a cage of live rats. While they screamed and burned to death, Jones joined them screaming out his pain from Vietnam. His audience had no warning about what they were about to see, and many were so disturbed that they left the performance. The taboo of the performance followed Jones through the rest of his career.
In this instance, should the government step in and demand artists provide disclaimers, in an attempt to provide safety for the public? Or is this the responsibility of the venue holding the performance, or again is it the civic responsibility of the artist? And does this type of censorship restrict an artists creativity and impede on his rights as a citizen (at least in the USA)?
I am not sure there will ever be a straight answer to this, but I do think that these are issues that must be brought up when dealing with art and politics, and is a strong example of how power (in this case of the artist on the audience) and social practices (of traditional performance art in a gallery space, and the barriers and social expectations that accompany it) intersect.
Curating, collecting, viewing, and critiquing art are all interwoven and complex threads of the art world. And as the readings articulate, each of those art world practices are further complicated by politics, laws, and societal values. But for me, the most uncomplicated and pure aspect of art worlds is in the hands and minds of the artists themselves. Artists do not work autonomously, they obviously are affected and affect the other art world sectors, but in its purest form, the creativity of the artist is the most unadulterated aspect of the art worlds. Perhaps a naïve stance, but I still choose to believe that the creative spark within an artist is the only aspect of art worlds which has the capacity to be completely unaffected by politics. Many, many artists choose to use politics to fuel their art, but it is a conscious choice they are making. I believe that just as easily as an artist can incorporate politics into their art, so can they purposefully remove all politics from their art. Part of how I identify myself is as an artist and so I will forever choose to believe that an artist’s creativity can be completely free from the politics that affect other threads of the art worlds if they want it to be. I know from personal experience that everything I have created in my personal time is only limited by the physical properties of the material and the edges of my imagination. I generally choose not to make political statements with my art and don’t allow laws, politics, or other’s values to affect what I make. And looking at another artist who famously exemplifies this shows that it is possible to participate in art with minimal interference from politics, laws, and prevailing social values.
Giorgio Morandi has been called one of Italy’s most famous still life painters. His works are tender and small, unassuming and beautifully subtle. Most of his famous works are groupings of containers that relate to each other like communing people. His paints are cool on the color wheel but have a warmth and coziness created by the intimate nature of his compositions. His pieces are extraordinary in the quietest possible way, and would stand alone as masterful works, but what makes them most interesting to me is the political climate in which he created his work, or rather, the political climate from which he removed himself. Morandi came into his artistic maturity during the rise and domination of Futurism in Italy in the first half of the twentieth century. Futurism was founded and most vehemently propagated by Filippo Marinetti who loathed anything of the past and wanted all aspects of Italian society, from architecture to politics, to reflect an unashamed push into the future. The movement celebrated and admired speed, technology, violence, and industry. It sought dominance over nature and embraced the constant and interconnected movement of the people, objects, and space in which they all exist. While Futurism took control of Italian society, Morandi got discharged from the army and retreated to the hills of Tuscany with his mother and sisters. It was during his time there, removed from the industrial and Futuristic centers of large cities, that Morandi created most of his famous still lives. Though the state sanctioned the style of all art, Morandi created his pieces without regard to the politics of the day and stayed true to his personal creative spirit. That untainted and uninfluenced creativity is what allowed Morandi to paint subtle and tonal paintings with familial undertones during a time when exaggerated violence, movement, and bright colors dominated all other art.
From what I know personally and from historical examples, I want to believe that there is still an aspect of the art world which can be free from politics, laws, and dominant social values. Though I believe that no one exists in a vacuum, I do believe that people can choose what influences their creative starting point, and people can choose to remove themselves from almost all outside influences. Though the other aspects of art worlds may be uncontrollably influenced by particular forces of money, power, and collective ideals, an artist’s creativity can still be purposefully isolated from such influences if the artist so chooses.
See my post for this comment with pictures and a movie (real transmedia style): http://aaablogs.uoregon.edu/jeanelle/2010/10/18/the-politics-of-participation/
——
The idea of “power” in relation to participation almost immediately made me think of Caesar and the “power of the gaze”. This is probably a familiar concept to other art historians or visual culturalists. In the typical use, the “power of gaze” refers to the assumed agency of a subject as it is gazed upon by a viewer. In many examples from art history, the subject is a nude female figure represented in any media whose eyes are averted. In this example, the power in the relationship belongs to the viewer. The viewer looking at the representation is able to see the figure as an exposed subject, but the subject cannot see the viewer (basically a practice of voyuerism, although that would depend on the intention of the viewer). However, some historians have suggested a complete opposite effect of an unreciprocated gaze between viewer and subject. Caesar, when parading with his court through the avenues of ancient Rome, would place himself in a position and dress in such extravagance so as to be conspicuous among all the other attendants and paraders. He would want to be seen, but at the same time, he would gaze off and not meet others’ eyes, he would not return their gaze upon him, and in this way he would affect power over those who were compelled to look at him. The same is true of casual relationships between any number of people. Imagine talking with someone you know in class or in a meeting, and imagine that during your conversation, he never once looks you in the eye. I think that would be unsettling, for sure, but is it any more or less unsettling than if the same guy instead stares into your eyes for long periods of time? The issue then, is the ability to participate or not participate, and therein lies the power-granting element that is either usurped or stolen between the viewer and the subject.
It’s not the ability to look and not be seen or to be seen and not have to look, it’s the ability to make a choice between being seen or not seen, looking or not looking. That, to me, is participatory politics, being the choice is often whether or not to participate, and sometimes whether or not to allow someone else to participate. That power comes down to reciprocal values. It also touches on social practices, what kind of behavior is expected in a relationship in order to respect every participating party in that relationship by maintaining comfort and agency. Back to the example of your buddy in the meeting: with the caveat that this guy doesn’t have any social inhibitions or developmental disabilities, it’s rude and weird to not make eye contact when you are communicating, and it’s rude and creepy to stare. Or, at least it is in a Euro-American western society. The ability to negotiate these relationships comfortably, to chose whether or not to participate or allow someone else to participate, are fundamental human freedoms that are accepted and expected in most Western cultures, dictating appropriate social behavior.
However, at some point with the mobility and access granted by contemporary communication technology those distinctions between comfortable, weird, and creepy, are unnervingly blurred. Take, for instance, a new example, one still rooted in visual culture, however completely distorting the relationship of viewer and subject. (Forgive me for this possibly indelicate example). In an online chat room dedicated to “romantic” relationships (romantic being used as an indicator of culture rather than an emotional experience), especially one that includes webcams, there is no longer a mutually exclusive activity of viewing or being viewed. The subject with the webcam is able to create an emotion or an impulse in the viewer. The viewer, who perhaps does not have a webcam, is able to maintain complete and selective anonymity. In this transverse environment, both parties can enact power on each other with different intentions and effects simultaneously. As it does in countless other contexts, technology enables the collapse of distinctions and identifiable relationships. In a community where exchange is the only mode of existence (you really don’t exist on the internet if you never log on, nothing of yourself is ever communicated in this media and so you really have nothing to do with it.) participation is not only a granted right, but it is the only possibility. You can only participate, opting out is not an option.
What happens to the power, then? One can’t have power unless there is another entity that is powerless, otherwise it means nothing. But everyone has power, at least to some extent, everyone in this environment can personally control how much she participates and how much she allows others to participate in her activity. Very much like an object in motion in a vacuum, power relationships are propelled in every whatever direction, without the impulse to stop or be restricted. Media that allows multitudinous levels of action or inaction in singular participants throws the assumed system of participation/power into disarray, allowing this relationship not to be enacted and maintained, but rather constantly renegotiated.
How do power and social practice intersect in transmedia environments? On multi-dimensional planes that are hardly imaginable.
The politics of participation within the art world can exist on many levels. Politics can exist within how an independent gallery space manages their collections and business ethics, how funders chose to influence that which they fund, and all the way up to the way a given country decides to monitor the creation and presentation of art.
Many of us want to see more recognition for the arts, both within our nation and globally. As artists, art administrators and arts educators, we see the value of the arts in our communities and the effect they have not only on the creativity of an individual but also on the ability to positively change the health, education and economic status of oneself. “The Arts and the Public Sector” lists four public mandates that are addressed by the arts including how we define our nationality, our quality of life and economic growth, education, and the enhancement of our individual lives. The articles calls to see a public arts sector that will be held in equal importance to the sectors of health, science, education and so forth.
Back in 2009, there was a petition online, sparked by a comment made by Quincy Jones, for the Obama administration to establish a Secretary of the Arts position in the Federal Government. On one hand, if art could be held with more legitimacy on the government level, our country may be able to do bigger and better things with the power of creativity. Many social based arts projects in existence today work to tackle big issues that our nation is suffering from, including health and education. If we had an arts sector on the federal level, our country would have the opportunity find more ways to use the arts for positive change across the board.
The one thought that kept sticking out in my mind as I made my way though the different readings was how the combination of government and art can be a double-edged sword. While having more funding for the arts would bring forth opportunities for positive change, the regulations artists and arts organizations may run into may make it difficult to tackle certain topics. A high percentage of art that is made is created in response to social and environmental issues affecting our communities. If a large amount of our art programs were put on the government level, would the intersection of power and social art practice collide? I believe they would. If you look at the United States Department of the Interior, and see the differences between federal environmental action and that of non-profit environmental groups, the differences are clear.
Throughout Becker’s “Art and the State,” the issues of regulation, nuisance, censorship and intervention arise. If we put too much on art being funded on a State or Federal level, we will most likely run into these issues. Although this is an extreme, I kept thinking back to my summer trip to Prague, Czech Republic. When you visit the museums, galleries and non-profit art spaces in Prague, you learn how much the creativity of artists was stifled by the government and the ability for museums to form art collections was highly regulated during the Communist regime. And this is not to say that the communists did not regard art – approved art still entered museum collections and artists were acquired by the state to create Communist related statues throughout the city. This is an example of how Becker states that the arts can be seen by the state as being “capable both of strengthening and of subverting order.” Art and expression without government control and censorship was definitely seen as a threat to the state and therefore highly regulated.
Even though Communism is an extreme, it still addresses why it may be best in certain situations to keep art and the government separate. If the government or private sectors manage the arts, we risk that the art being produced will be done so for the fact that it is safe or merely profitable. If we can manage to finance the arts in as much of an independent fashion as possible, social practice will be given it’s best chance to flourish and address the issues at hand without having to worry about affecting a political campaign or making a profitable sale off the white wall of a gallery. I still believe art needs to intersect with government for a positive overall social change in our society (e.g. in our state-funded education systems, national museums, social programs, etc.), I just think we need to be cautious as to when and where art and government power intersect.
What are the politics of participation? I have to admit this question had me totally intimidated, it seemed so vague with each term having multiple implications. After reviewing the readings, trying to draw on the themes of politics, power, and participation in the arts I found myself dividing my response into three areas. The power of art to influence and mobilize through participation, the role of the arts in creating person to person exchange to strengthen communities, and the role of the state in art making and how it is crafted by our participation in policy making.
At the beginning of The Arts and the Public Purpose selection, the arts and participation are defined as a “treasured American activity”, there is a paragraph devoted to the variety of important roles that the arts play in the life of the individual and the community. I have always been in awe by the power that the arts have in unifying and mobilizing people behind a cause or theme. The most recent transmedia display that I can think of is the use of celebrity and reputation to support gay and lesbian teen culture against the pressures of bullying. I think every day I come across a new video that is either a song or poem or just an artist using their personal power to get a message out to a broader community. Recent natural disasters have also prompted the gathering of artists to use the power of their art to build support (whether financially or simply awareness) for a common goal. The Art and the State reading discussed that the government is fully aware of the power of art in unifying people. It explained that “when the government sees artistic activates supporting national interests, it provides financial support…” (p.182). Art has power and with a strong message behind it, it can be stimulating. This stimulation can bring communities together and create participation.
I was really intrigued by the Re-Presenting the City article and the exploration of arts and culture and their relationship with urban diversity and participation. The two themes that stood out for me were discovering the ways that arts organization contribute to a city’s social fabric and the investigation of how diversity and arts participation support one another. Learning that (at least within the population examined) that arts organizations are more prevalent and engage higher levels of participation in more economically and ethnically diverse areas, demonstrated the social presence and significance of the arts. People want to connect to each and learn about different experiences and world views and the arts provide the perfect venue for this blending of ideas. Being exposed to a variety of personalities makes us more open and understanding as citizens. Discovering that within these diverse neighborhoods, where arts organizations thrive, audiences and participants were drawn in from other communities was a positive reflection of the power of arts. The arts organizations create “bonds that strengthen the ties within a group and are the bridge that link different communities to one another.”
I got to say that in preparation for his arrival, that this has been the term of Bill Ivey and I really dig it. I have an evolving understanding of the role that the state plays as an actor within artworlds. The state or government is a participant in the arts whether you are for or against it; they create the framework in which creative industries are developed. Within our society government influence is felt is through subsides and access or distribution. As a future leader in the field, I understand that a passive role in the development of the way art is viewed and functions in the United States is extremely detrimental. Arts organizations, both commercial and nonprofit, have to take a proactive role in creating arts policy.
Well I think that I sort of addressed the question. I think that there are many elements of politics in participation. I hope to be active and engaged in producing, consuming, and advocating for arts.
As Becker explains in “Art and the State”, governments become part of an art world because they often have the power to censor art of which they don’t approve while also providing funding for art they deem to be appropriate (and probably expresses their own ideals). Therefore, politics plays a hand in the creation of art. Becker uses the FCC as an example: the FCC threatened to revoke the license of any radio station that played music deemed to be “pro-drug”. Radio stations of course had to comply with this or else they would lose their license. Recording artists in turn would then have to write songs which did not contain drug references if they wanted their song to be played on the radio. Musicians can of course continue to write and record songs that say anything they like, but if their songs contain “explicit lyrics” then they won’t be played on the radio. If the musician’s work is not played on the radio then he is not reaching as large an audience as he could be, and is thus making less money. The government is then forcing recording artists to limit what they say.
However, I feel there are ways of getting around this. It’s common to hear versions of songs on the radio that differ from the album version. Many artists will change lyrics that are found to be offensive or contain profanity and record “clean” versions of their songs. Once the song becomes popular on the radio, many people will buy (or illegally download) the CD with the original lyrics intact, thus the original version of the song is still heard by millions of people.
In transmedia storytelling artists may experience more freedom to express themselves. For example, a writer is not required to cram all of the backstory into a single film because that can be explored in another, separate work, such as a comic book series. However, in some ways I feel that in a transmedia environment artists have even more restrictions on them. Different media outlets have different regulating bodies with varying standards. The MPAA assigns ratings to movies; without a rating from the MPAA a film will not get wide distribution, and so a filmmaker will attempt to comply with their standards. If there is a TV show that corresponds to the movie, that TV show is given a rating by the FCC. The FCC may have different guidelines for what is appropriate for television, and so the TV show and movie may contain disparate stylistic elements in order to comply with the individual standards.
When talking about the politics of participation it is hard not to focus on the amount of power the state has over the art world. The state’s control of key funding for the arts gives them a unique opportunity in shaping public exposure. What I found interesting about the Becker reading is how the state intervenes either for or against and artists. By providing subsidies to the arts and culture sector the state is giving their own critique on the art world as well as cultivating a “national identity.” For example, national historic landmarks in the United States are preserved by the Department of the Interior, having been deemed important because “they possess exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the United States.”( http://www.nps.gov/history/nhl/ ) The state collects artistic and cultural works, and assists in preserving other works for members of the public.
Alternatively, the state may censor art or intervene in its production. This may be to benefit the state itself, or for the public good, to block images or ideas that the public might find offensive or disruptive. The most extreme levels of censorship can be imprisonment or execution, but more often, censorship takes the form of preventing mass circulation of an art work. This is interesting because the state for the most part is not restricting the production of such work, it is simply forbidding the distribution of said work through normal channels to a wider audience.
Participation in the art world is also important on a smaller level than the state, in communities and groups of people. The correlation between diverse neighborhoods, and the number of art and cultural groups in Philadelphia was interesting. “We argue that arts and cultural organizations and engagement do not parallel divisions of race and social class; rather they tend to concentrate in neighborhoods that are ethnically and economically diverse.” (Sterns and Seifert) Overall, it seemed that communities with a diversity of ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds had a much higher level of participation in cultural organizations. Also, economic revitalization is tied to a higher level of cultural engagement found in these neighborhoods.
Higher income levels in Philadelphia, according to Sterns and Seifert, were more likely to participate in mainstream culture. Perhaps this is true because of their access to a more transmedia environment. Individuals with more disposable income have the means to own a computer and access the internet, visit arts events and cultural programming outside of their neighborhoods, and have more leisure time to devote to the arts. Perhaps with their greater access to information, they travel to take part in events held in other communities. This in turn results in less participation in arts and culture organizations that are local to them. A more economically diverse community may feel it is important to have programming within their own neighborhood, and means dictate that much more of their focus is directed there. If this is the case, is there a way for less diverse neighborhoods to increase their participation in a local setting by using a transmedia environment on a smaller scale? Meaning that by collecting and curating regional art and cultural artifacts by using some of the transmedia concepts we have discussed in class, is it possible for a more homogenous neighborhood or community can have an increased level of arts and culture participation? Is this even necessary, if members of these groups are still engaged in and identifying with cultural programming of nearby communities?
“Commercial arts organizations market to broad, mass, and global audiences, on the one hand, and to niche audiences targeted by specific advertising needs or other corporate objectives, on the other hand. They are, in large part, market driven” (The Arts and the Public Purpose, 69). The politics of participation within the corporate context is entirely based on profit, be it monetary, market share or brand acceptance, visibility and outreach. This is a stark contrast to “mission driven” non-profit arts groups who “work hard to maintain and expand existing audiences for the artistic fare they specialize in…” (The Arts and the Public Purpose, 69). Clearly, non-profit arts organizations are politically focused in preservation, exhibition and public participation, foremost, while maintaining enough income to keep the organization operational and expansive enough to support new initiatives. While both types of organizations are different, they are mutual to each other. Non-profit organizations often inspire works made by commercial organizations, which in turn contribute to non-profit organizations.
Hovering above commercial and non-profit arts organizations is the all-encompassing state, which is largely responsible for herding art worlds in one direction or another. “Like other participants in the making of art works, the state and its agents act in pursuit of their own interests, which may or may not coincide with those of the artists making the works” (Art and the State, 165). The state’s power to intervene affects the way artists conceptualize, create and distribute their works. In Art and the State, Becker suggests that intervention takes place in a variety of forms, including: open support, censorship, and suppression. While the state can provide funding and resources to individual artists and arts organizations, it can just as easily deprive artists from needed resources and even legally censor and remove an artist’s freedom from ever displaying the art in a public place. While such a practice might arguably defy the Constitutional rights of freedom of speech and expression, “the interests the state pursues through its intervention in the arts have to do with the preservation of public order – the arts being seen as capable both of strengthening and of subverting order – and with the development of a national culture…something which promotes national unity and the nation’s reputation among other nations” (Art and the State, 180).
TOC 2010: Jeff Gomez, “Storyworlds: The New Transmedia Business Paradigm”
What are the politics of participation—in curating, collecting, critiquing, etc?
How do power and social practice intersect?
How do power and social practice intersect in transmedia environments?
By also drawing from the Politics of Culture (Di Maggio, 2000) and Arts Inc. (Ivey, 2009) I could better understand how the elite portion of society drove and still have been driving resources to their own benefit. They are always finding ways to use the law in their benefit when they create foundations or philanthropic organizations with questionable benefits for a major part of the population.
In Brasil, Politicians and the elite use state arts organizations to expand their political powers. They use public money in ways that are more related to vanity than to the democratization of culture and benefit of the public.
Taking a closer look you will find many examples of cultural sites and public patrimony being used only by the elite and more schooled people. At a first moment we might listen to people saying: “the people are not educated, they do not understand art so, they do not enjoy it.”, “Museums are boring.”, “Art is for crazy or snob people.”
In fact on all of this statements you can find some portion of truth although you can argue that it is also a false statement.
When we inquire: Why does that happen? Why does the majority of the population seem to not be interested in art and culture? We find out that we can write a list of factors that leads the situation to this kind of reality.
And this list will clarify why the generalized opinions are not totally valid. And we will start to see the list growing and we will be unable to mention all of these factors in this text.
When we start to research the cause of each situation we start to see that culture is in fact everywhere and if the people in Brasil, in general are not in the theaters, museums, operas… is because they have a number of issues that exclude them and therefore keep them apart from those types of institutionalized art forms.
Historically, these types of cultural events are exclusive. When black and poor people could not participate or enter the churches to engage in the cultural rites, they had to build their own churches to promote their faith, including their chants, expressions and others ways of expression. Street art is another example of cultural phenomenon that is manifested through dance, theater, chants, poetry and many other forms since a very old time and anywhere in the world.
In fact these types of street cultural manifestations are very reach in Brasil and they are happening all the time throughout the day, every day of the week.
So we ask:
Are people engaging with these activities, in the busy hours of the day in downtown Rio, Sao Paulo, Recife? The answer is yes! Intensely. These people are totally engaged and dialoguing, consuming, participating in many different ways.
We could say:
So let the people engage in what they are interested and leave the snob institutions problem to the elites.
But…
If we think that the same elite is using public money to build transmediatic tools to spread their elitist ideas of “high” culture and segregation to reinforce their position of power, supremacy and superiority we should position ourselves toward an action and politically engaged or informed opinion and start to change some things around.
Due to this politics of culture our populations have being deprived from understanding, appreciating, respecting and preserving their/our own patrimony. The results of this ignorance are the worst possible. For example, the depredation of architectural buildings and historic sites, the lack of participation and understanding of our own history and therefore of our cultural identity, the lack of participation and consequently understanding of other art languages and its diversity. The lack of dialogue between social classes. The unequal spending of public money on high paid/ expensive exhibition installations of thousands of money as well as the production of media material (such as exhibition brochures and catalogs that will be distributed within a very “select” group) to embellish the vanity of their “ managers”, directors and coordinators. This amount of money that instead would have been better invested if equally employed in community outreach and in educational programs in the same institutions. Usually many of these spaces lack on developing a welcoming environment, where people can feel safe and eager to enjoy, appreciate, touch and create art and dialogue. In the contrary, many times they express the “sophisticated” taste of its managers very aware of the high fashion cold designs they are used to consume in their personal lives.
The lack of educational programs that usually drive thousands of students to these sites every day, their families and the local public represent a waste of public money. Usually these types of organizations reflect clearly the types of governments that support them and unfortunately, Latin America is still a very retrograde society that values more the people who have power and money than the people who have life experience and knowledge. The scars of the colonial, patriarchal, centralized, anti-democratic system are still vivid in our culture and generating as many down-sides as the dictatorial governments did some years ago.
If as an America, you feel that we have some things in common you probably will be tempted to find out what brought us to this common ground when we had such a different historic context starting in the XVI century.
The politics of participation in curating, collecting, critiquing, etc. all involve many factors and steps both from the government and the public. Money and power is a large issue, for it seems that the one with the funds, has a large say in the art world.
Becker’s article seems to focus on the impacts the government has on art and media. I agree that much art is controlled by the government “…by supporting what it approves and by discouraging or forbidding what it disapproves…” (Becker pg.167), this can be shown throughout time wherein artists have been commissioned by the government to make works that glorify their country and rulers. Such as works like the “Liberty Leading the People” by: Eugene Delacroix, or “We Can Do It” Rosie the Riveter posters by: Howard Miller. Both try to send out a sense of nationalism and pride in their country, through support by the government.
Becker also explains how the government can influence art through laws taking into action the complaints of the public, and FCC censorship on the media. Media in itself is an important source for profit and non profit art. Having censorship on media creates difficulties for artists today to expand and get recognition. For example, Ivey states “Today the average radio station in a large market in the United States programs music from a playlist of 20 to 22 selections… 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.” (Ivey, pg. 5) Another censorship is the FCC on television, and again, with the radio. They cut out content that may be “offensive” for the public, but why should they get a say as to what is offensive or not? Even with the censorship of the FCC many medias “speak out” with such shows as South Park, or Family Guy. The show “Family Guy” even has a song dedicated to the FCC’s censorships.
In the end the government, and people with money, can greatly influence what is art and how it is displayed or produced. With upcoming changes, profit and non-profit art are starting to work together to reach broader audiences and hopefully inspire new art and media forms. By expanding through transmedia, societies can bring new art for “every human society has its own shape, its own purposes, its own meanings,” (Williams, pg. 17) and by breaking the transmedia barrier and working with different organizations and communities, societies can show their own shape, purpose, and meanings in art. As Ivey says:“….excellence is where you find it.” (Ivey, pg. 6)