Module 2: initial questions & responses

16 Comments

1. What are the politics of participation?

   The politics of participation refer not only to the evolving political climate within the arts community but also to the position of the arts sector in wider society. In America Needs a New System for Supporting the Arts, former NEA chairman Bill Ivey discusses the failure of the arts community to consider challenges facing both for-profit and nonprofit arts organizations. Ivey argues that while institutions like the National Endowment for the Arts succeeded in strengthening the nonprofit portion of the arts, they allowed the commercial branch of the arts sector to suffer as a result of the consolidation of media corporations. The tendency to view nonprofit and for-profit organizations as separate entities, with one providing superior quality products than the other, has ultimately weakened the entire arts community. It is in the best interests of arts leaders to come together to plan a new path forward where the success of nonprofit arts organizations is linked to the success of for-profit arts organizations.

   When considering the arts community in the wider context of society, government plays a role in determining which art is produced by either lending or withholding support from certain artists and arts organizations (Becker, 2008). Becker almost seems to consider the state to be another participant in the art world because of its ability to impact what is considered art and what art is produced.

   How do power and social practice intersect?

   In their study of the Social Impact of the Arts Project in Philadelphia (2000), Stern and Seifert address their finding that economically and ethnically diverse communities are more likely to have a large concentration of arts and cultural organizations. This finding contradicts widely held beliefs that these disempowered groups are not served by social institutions. The study suggested that levels of participation in the arts and culture are high in these societies, but also suggested that “mainstream participation” in larger (and likely more expensive) cultural institutions is less common for members of these diverse communities. This says to me that while there are opportunities for people in these neighborhoods to engage with the arts, there is a limit to which arts and which institutions they are able to participate in because of socio-economic and geographic barriers. While there may be an abundance of social institutions in low income communities, the ritzier institutions are usually located somewhere else and offer limited means for low income individuals to participate. The findings of this study, while hopeful, don’t necessarily mean there isn’t a problem to fix.

   How do power and social practice intersect in transmedia environments?

   Raymond Williams’ article Culture is Ordinary speaks to the intersection of power and social practice in transmedia environments. Williams’ definition of culture includes a wider range of communal practices than what individuals at the teahouses at Cambridge view as culture. Williams identifies the transmedia practices of making music and reading poems during his rural upbringing as essential to his definition of culture. Although some might not consider such banal occurrences to be art, Williams makes a convincing argument that the banal occurrences of everyday life are in fact the backbones of culture in society.

2. In discussing power, I think it is only right that we think about how we talk about power. Usually, when in the context of political, managerial, even parental power, “power” is seen as a type of oppressive authority forcing some other into submission. The determination of a group of individuals can also be precisely the power necessary to overcome oppression.

   As an arts manager to-be, I feel it is crucial that I believe in the potential of the individual and the power of a united community in creating positive social change. But what is social change? What is social practice? To me, social practices can either maintain the power of individuals to control their own livelihoods, or reinforce power dynamics which control the livelihood of individuals.

   As I am building a field guide describing the products of prison arts, I have on my mind both participation and politics in social practice. The way that public safety, state and federal governments arrest, incarcerate and treat criminals is a direct reflection of social practice. To expect a person to live in sometimes solitary confinement 24 hours a day, with almost no social interaction in a year’s time, let to deteriorate physically and mentally oftentimes underneath a shadow of racial discrimination is a social practice. It reinforces the power of state and federal governments to maintain safe communities. But to what end?

   Imprisoned people who are also creating and sharing artwork define a new generation of makers and collaborators who no doubt challenge accepted notions of art participation. My research so far has suggested that some of the prison artists feel as if what they create is a type of giving back for what they had taken before. In this way, art is a process of reciprocality, a demanding of emotional and spiritual control from political power. This notion echoes Bill Ivey’s Cultural Bill of Rights which affirms “the right of Americans to fully explore America’s collective experience as it is embodied in (the arts) and the right to engage in those traditions that define us as families, communities, ethnicities…” Who, then, is an American? Ivey recognizes this issue in his call for a new system for supporting the arts. I can name many groups who cannot freely claim ownership for their work. Mentally handicapped persons are sometimes housed and forgotten, restricted from art making, unaccepted as creators among the rest. I have witnessed young international students be expected to only make art and speak the language which reflects the “American way” and so a devastating amount of individual agency and family heritage is thus stolen. What we lose as people living together in a place through these types of oppression does not end within the realm of visual arts. The practice of films idolizing the federal government, the white, middle-aged male leader and only enhancing the stereotype of the disadvantaged, uneducated “southerner” or “communist” activist are still in full swing. What is more disheartening, perhaps, is that these films exist partially because they are the messages that people are attracted to. They sell.

   Fortunately, avenues for an individual who may or may not fit the description of the “ideal American” to express themselves honestly are increasing in number and power. I hope to help these avenues grow and expand, and especially for underrepresented, forgotten or mistreated populations. That is, as soon as I figure out how to assert power myself, as I’m only one person and really can only speak for what arts I need to give me strength.

   On a side note, in response to the Saguro Seminar website, I wanted to share this article in Scientific American outlining the benefits of meditation and downtime for one’s memory, cognition and overall happiness.

   http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=mental-downtime

3. 550: Module II response

   Participating in any environment means that there has to be a structure in place that allows for the interaction of such thoughts; it has to allow for the construction of those thoughts, and it means putting ones self in a slightly venerable place. While art and politics seem like separate entities, they in fact, have a lot of intersection. Artists participate in making art and when they exchange it for money, the state enforces the laws it has created concerning a taxable income for the artist. Is this true always? Art can be seen as a commodity, to be sure, and as such is susceptible to the inherent property rules that the state instills. On page 165 of Art and State, the author states, “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” (Becker, 2008).
   Another part to the social practice of art comes into play when we take a look at who actually wrote some of the structures put into place for the artists and art venues. For example, Bill Ivey talks about the how the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations helped to craft “America’s first effort at wholesale intervention in the arts” and how “they laid out the boundaries that have enclosed our cultural-policy agenda over the past half-century” (Ivey, 2005). This has been a great model in the nonprofit growth of the country, and was formed from two hardy individuals wanting a positive change; however, it is getting to be dated, and may need a revisit at some point, hopefully by individuals that want to continue to make a difference with art and art organizations. After all, power in the wrong hands can have a lot of negative side effects. When “commercial” organizations have the power to tell the public what to look at, when to come see it, what it is about, then there is a shift in the art that is being produced. Thank you, consumerism. Power can be utilized through visual means; in fact, it is one of the more powerful tools that any kind of company can use.
   Art can also be seen a propaganda, as we have seen esp. throughout the history of the 1900’s, I’m thinking of WWII posters. Art has become a tool that the government uses to facilitate feelings, either for or against, an opposing force. These images are then treated as the reflection of governmental thought, which has the ultimate goal of affecting its citizens. These images also reflect political interests, which forms a sort of political aesthetic for the public. This is one of my favorite topics, personally. War propaganda posters are some of my favorite pieces of art. Having and creating a visual of what each country wanted to portray is rather potent, and here we can see examples of how power is linked through these types of images and how society reacts and examines their own way of living in response to these images. I think any kind of poster that tries to rally people together (hopefully for the greater good) has meaning or some entity behind it; it forms a tangible quality to the art, something you can feel, even more so than other artworks.
   There can be this unspoken power in transmedia environments, because of its organization: the interfacing that happens when a person is in a personal space, looking online and viewing a page is different than if that person was in a public place looking at a poster. It keeps the viewer in an informal and less “aggressive” place, which leaves room for the viewer to make controlled and/or thoughtful decisions rather than maybe rash or uneducated ones. The transmedia environ has to be aesthetically pleasing and have current and relevant information too. If an organization has poor skills at crafting or hiring multi-media personnel, then they are certainly without a necessary public attention grabber.

   Becker, H. (2008). Art and the state. Art worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press.Art and the State

   Ivey, B. (2005, March). America Needs a New System for Supporting the Arts. In The Chronicle Review. Retrieved October 16, 2013

4. Last year I wrote my senior thesis on the ways art produced during and immediately following the Mexican-American war was used to trigger a sense of patriotism in a rapidly dividing nation, so I found this week’s readings on art and politics very interesting. Most of the art I studied was for an American audience, and much of it showed American soldiers as heroic figures. My research on this topic coincides nicely with many of the points made by “The Arts and the Public” reading, which espouses some “purposes” of arts in American society. Much like I argued, the American Arts Council finds art to be a useful tool in promoting American nationalism. With access to the internet, it’s much more difficult to control which art people are exposed to. A couple hundred years ago, only “high art” would have been the most recognized form, and people with money could not only commission certain works of art, but also regulate what was shown to the public via prints and lithographs.

   There are still so many intersections between art and power, even with the wide ability for mass communication, most notably through government involvement. Among other things, Becker notes, the state can intervene if citizens complain that a piece of art is infringing on their rights (Becker 177). Of course, this interference is seen through the FCC’s regulations on television and radio, or through banned books, for example. But the state can also help artists create their masterpieces by providing funding and support. I always find this interesting because by selecting certain artists or projects to fund over others, the government effectively controls part of what is being produced.

   I like what Becker says about representation: “Art worlds allow the alteration of art works when the changes do not affect the artist’s reputation, and condemn it when the changes will confuse our judgment and put assessments of the artist in doubt” (Becker 173). In recent years, I think the ability to share art has grown exponentially through the use of transmedia. One advantage that can come with the use of transmedia is anonymity Banksy!). There are many non-traditional options and venues for artists to explore that aren’t constantly regulated. Because of this shift, artists have more power over themselves, but there are also more opportunities for misrepresentation.

5. The politics involving participation are akin to the politics of any subject really; they seek to further the personal agendas of the individual or affiliation, ultimately refuting their position as non-personal or unbiased in their critique of said subject. As it relates to the arts, Becker astutely argues that yes, government has and always will have various ways to intervene when it suits them (p. 165), but they also provide needed financial avenues to artists and organizations that depend on their assistance. In this double-edged sword of accountability, it is important to remember that the State and it’s “power” are not to be dealt with haphazardly but with a genuine respect and gratitude for providing us with the liberties of self-expression and artistry that we have come to know and pursue. Politics as it relates to participation and specifically, curating and programming, can be varied depending on your local and state government’s threshold of values like aesthetics. Those enacting for the public can cause a small nuisance by refusing you zoning regulations for your risqué art installation within a public park, or cause an outcry by denying your organization future subsidies for promoting unsuitable, unpatriotic, or unmoral material fit for public consumption (Becker, 166).

   Becker also illustrates how government can both support, sensor, and suppress the arts and how artists will ultimately find a way to continue producing works (180). At the beginning of the twentieth century when black jazz musicians were not allowed to play for white audiences due to their skin color, these artists found alternative ways to collectively share the language of jazz and musical improvisation with one another. They often met in secrecy during late hours to create and revel in this hip new culture with their comrades. Similarly did Olivier Messiaen continue to compose from the confines of a Nazi POW camp during World War II and Alexander Shostakovich fell in and out of Russian favor numerous times during Stalin’s reign (despite critical praise) for not adhering to nationalistic views, never able to satisfy Russian political favor even after his death. If we expand the notion of social practice and politics through a transmedia lens, we encounter issues revolving around copyright pertaining to music interface programs like Pandora and Spotify as well as the piracy of mp3s, e-books and videos as well as computer software. How will government adapt its political reach in an age where what is owned and what is shared becomes less and less discernible?

6. When I hear the word “politics,” I think of control, power, manipulation, strategy, influence, prestige, maneuvering, trust, and chess. When someone participates in an arena, or world, how do they conform to the politics of it, how are they influenced by and how do they influence the politics of that arena, and how do they make the politics conform to themselves and their needs? What governs the participation of an activity or world and how do we adapt so that we are accepted into it and maneuver ourselves to a position of influence to make our vision come to fruition?

   One does not necessarily need to be a curator to influence what will be curated. One does not need to be a critic to influence the critique given. One simply needs to be in a position of influencing the right person in control of that activity. The politics of participation entail integrating ourselves, or our organization, to fulfill a specific role, or creating a needed role, so that we may become a trusted advisor or indispensable part of society; we have to build our knowledge base so that our suggestions and programs are intelligent, realistic, and feasible. If we are in fact a curator, we have to be politically savvy so that the choices we make prove to be beneficial and pleasing to multiple constituencies or board members so that we form alliances and remain in our position of power. It is most useful to have multiple alliances, which are often built on trust and emotional value, within the institution and/or community so you can use leverage for different issues as needed and show strength in the number of supporters, participants, and successful programs.

   Just as there are political advantages to participating, there are political disadvantages to not participating, as is described by Ivey. The politics of participation are that you maneuver yourself or your organization into a position that will be beneficial at the bargaining table that creates public policy, but if you are absent from that table, policy will be created that negatively affects you or does not represent your interests as well as it could. It is imperative that artists and cultural organizations participate in politics so that artist and community interests are fulfilled, but must do so wisely to build and maintain affluence. If, however, the arts are controlled by an oppressive state as described by Becker, then it ultimately may be creativity and discreetness that determine the sharing of art.

   The intersection of power and social practice is a delicate balance. Arts and cultural organizations are held responsible to whichever mechanism for funding and support they rely upon the most. It isn’t just the government or state holding the power that can dismantle an organization by pulling funding, it can also be the community that turns against an organization, leading to its demise. One such case is the Corcoran Gallery of Art in Washington, DC, that is now on its last breath, not only because of poor management and board decisions, but because it betrayed its community when it agreed to show and then canceled an exhibition of Robert Mapplethorpe’s photography in 1989 (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/01/arts/crowd-at-corcoran-protests-mapplethorpe-cancellation.html). This was the turning point in its historical tenure in the District demonstrating that the Gallery was beholden to the wrong source of power. Its decision to appease one party’s reservations regarding Mapplethorpe’s work as pornography betrayed the integrity of the arts community it was meant to serve.

   Transmedia expedites grassroots involvement in the art world and makes it more difficult for censorship to take hold (unless the internet is controlled by a repressive regime). I would imagine, today, the refusal to show Mapplethorpe’s work would spawn an electronic/transmedia show of support in addition to the rally and projection of his work, antagonizing the Corcoran in front of a much broader audience. Power can be distributed differently by transmedia, garnering participation from around the globe even, and can bring in many different constituencies that would not have had the opportunity to participate with immediacy 24 years ago.

7. My personal definition of art encompasses a broad spectrum of practices, genres, and aesthetic representations. I view art as an all encompassing medium, therefore, it is not difficult for me to recognize that art infiltrates every sector of our lives. Not everyone believes art has the power to impact social practices in tolerance, education, economics, civic engagement, and therapy. However, working in the arts field will most undoubtedly lead an individual to one thing…taking on the role of arts advocate. The very support systems adopted by artists and arts organizations over the last five decades are now being recognized as potential contributors to the struggle for validation among arts fueled establishments. Bill Ivey’s, A Cultural Bill of Rights, presents us with a new perspective on how we can work diplomatically to ensure a positive and successful approach towards promoting open creativity and cultural preservation in America. Ivey’s Cultural Bill asserts the rights of artists and arts consumers in a society that was built on values of free speech, open expression and personal choice. In a country where nonprofit arts organizations are merely kept afloat by government subsidies and for-profits revel in the chance to define taste and quality, we need to think critically about how these cultural policies intersect with realities of art (Ivey, 2008). Our social practices are changing and if we want to effectively keep up with revolutions of thought and participation our managing methods must also change in reflection of these. The American Assembly reading addresses the broad role of arts in American life, suggesting that while our society maintains a “fully functioning, flexible arts sector” this sector is not valued at the same level of importance to that of other sectors such as science, health, transportation and education (American Assembly, 2000). This conundrum exists because we have failed to permeate the disbelief of individuals uninterested in the arts. The arts create avenues in which citizens are able to define identity, raise their quality of life and develop social awareness; these avenues are shaped by the politics of participation whether arts organizations like it or not. It is interesting that both of the readings previously mentioned noted issues aligned with intellectual property disputes, a topic that stems directly from the intersect of power and social practice. To what extent are recording artists sacrificing opportunities for exposure in their efforts to protect and manage their work?

   The boundaries of social practice are tested through power disputes. Transmedia environments provide a interesting opportunity for ‘the average citizen’ to voice concerns over power struggles. The internet is an influential tool in social practice today in that it gives anyone and everyone the power to readily engage like-minded individuals, or even better – those that are rooted in opposition. It is wise to be skeptical of the input provided on these virtual platforms, for there may always remain the issue of fabricated identity or false pretenses. Since the introduction of social media, we have become obsessed with publishing practices. How often is an individual activist or group successful in taking their cause to the next level of engagement – real action in real time? When something out of the ordinary happens in public, people often fall victim to the recording capabilities of cell phones and tablets. We are constantly being urged to question the apparent reality of a captured situation. Although this presentation of knowledge can prove a powerful instigator in transmedia environments, one should remain weary of the seductive techniques of advertising and self-righteous activists. Power and social practice can intersect in dangerous and unpredictable ways. On the other hand, power can be utilized in healthy, productive ways such as fostering open forums for thought and idea exchange at a lecture, extending invites for input on social practice reform through a blog, and nurturing the potential of audience contributions via text voting.

8. In “Art and the State,” Becker discusses politics as a means of regulating artwork as well as the process of creating art. The government has established various ways of controlling aspects of an art world, one of which includes managing the financial provisions to artists in order to maintain the integrity of the nation’s identity and social wellbeing (p. 181). I found this section particularly interesting as it positions the government, even with its ability to set policies, on an equal level with organizations and private donors as possible sources of funding (p. 184). They are not the sole means of aiding artists in producing art, and as Becker mentions, “the manipulation of support is thus the least coercive method of governmental control of the arts” (185).

   The American Assembly supports Becker’s discussion of governance by further explaining the relationship between the arts and reaffirming the nation’s identity and, especially, social betterment. In particular, The American Assembly suggests that the arts maintains a sense of “who we are and what we stand for” (p. 66) as well as provides opportunities for learning and self-efficacy (p. 67). Regardless of the government’s ability to support these benefits of the arts, particularly with education and individual improvement, I believe these aspects are integral to social practice and empowering individuals. James Catterall compiled research findings in “Doing Well and Doing Good by Doing Art,” which thoroughly outlines the cognitive benefits of the arts, as mentioned by The American Assembly, as it relates to academic success. Catterall (2009) highlights the improvements in standardized test scores as correlated with participation in the arts, especially among students of low-socioeconomic status. (Other research articles supporting these findings can be found here: http://www.artsedsearch.org/).

   In relation, Stern and Seifert discuss the purpose of arts and cultural institutions as an agent to revitalize and diversify neighborhoods. The research, conducted through data sources, revealed that economic and ethnic diverse neighborhoods housed more arts and cultural organizations than homogenous neighborhoods (p. 294). According to Stern and Seifert, this finding is important because “high levels of cultural engagement are often the engine of economic revitalization” (288). Although the authors delve into the connection between diversity and organizations, I find this reading to leave out important aspects of understanding communities and neighborhoods, which include understanding the breakdown of the economic and ethnic groups that do participate in cultural institutions. Do these shed light on what subgroups actually attend arts and culture organizations? Is it dependent on income and ethnicity? Given this, does the cultural institutions within these diverse neighborhoods provide the same level of empowerment and revitalization to all members of that neighborhood?

9. Regarding the readings for Module 2, I am most inspired by and encouraged by Bill Ivey. “A Cultural Bill of Rights” offers an insightful and compact guideline as a way to move into a future that is not caught in the bloated non-profit/for-profit dichotomy that seems to “generate depressed levels of compensation.” As Ivey states, in America Needs a New System for Supporting the Arts, when speaking with arts administrators, whether they work in the commercial, non-profit, or public sector, “there just wasn’t much difference” regarding intentions fueling decision making; essentially, selling tickets, upholding artistic excellence, and offering the audience something new were paramount regardless if the arts organization for was “for-“ or “not-for” profit. So, why do we see a steady decline in participation throughout the arts field? If art administrators work to develop “nurturing and gatekeeping” strategies that support communities, heritage, identity, and artistic excellence there should be a growing number of attendees, tickets sold, memberships bought, and seats filled; however, that is sadly not the case. My inquires reveal that the answer is multifaceted, in many ways the consolidated powers behind Clear Channel, the FCC, Time/Warner Cable, Comcast, and other corporate-political bed-mates are one root of the problem, another foundational problem is the cultural position non-profits hold: simultaneously singular, dependent, and exclusive.

   I will first unpack the strange positions of non-profits in American culture: being a non-profit provides special tax-exempt status, it also stands as a signifier of equanimity, or working for the betterment of the underserved. Non-profits are inherently dependent on grants and volunteers; the exclusivity lie’s both in the need for volunteers, and the programming offered. As Ivey states, the non-profit arts organization was the dominant source of fine-arts in American culture for many decades, exchange “fine-art” with “high art” and a more revealing picture develops. Being a volunteer is a form of cultural exclusivity: volunteers have the time and the money to work for free, the average working-class single mom does not have this luxury, hence, non-profits have a tendency to carry an air of status and cultural clout. While Ivey offers some very useful suggestions on topics to focus on to change this trend, I want to offer yet another solution.

   Much of what undermines attendance and participation in arts organizations can also offer salvation: the internet. In this day, people–particularly individuals participating in youth culture–can access almost any information, media, and art via the internet. Open source and free avenues abound, and piracy, streaming, and file sharing are common place. The grey market is alive and well, and it is called the internet. In this climate, when sites like Pirate Bay and the Silk Road are common topics of conversation it is hard to convince people to pay $15 to go to the local museum. Resistance is, inherently, futile; acceptance and manipulation of the current climate and tools are essential for arts organizations, and, I would argue, this is not a bad thing. The numerous free, and easy to use, resources available online that can stimulate audience participation, and reshape arts programming, trump the annoyingly tired and old system of applying for grants. This topic is extensive and something I will be exploring throughout my studies in the AAd Program.

   I wanted to mention a couple of other things Module 2 readings encouraged me to consider: first, I find it interesting that we have yet to read anything about the Works Project Administration. I am an avid fan of the strange and sad history that is the WPA. I request that the WPA be a topic we look at, particularly regarding the politics of participation and the history of the intersection of Social Practice and Politics. I would like to discuss, particularly, the Federal Theater Project and the bizarre communist witch-hunt that occurred.

   As a final thought, Phaedra asked us today, in Cultural Administration, “as arts administrators—when considering program evaluations—how do we measure success?” If the end goal is financial, the value system will look very different than if the end goal is audience participation and satisfaction. I want to work for a well-established modern art museum, because my end goal is audience participation and satisfaction: I want to create, curate, and exhibit art that will inspire people to experience meaningful narratives; I want to invest my energy in programming that will draw in the largest number of people from the most diverse backgrounds because they are, simply, curious, and want to experience something new. As Ivey illustrated, there is little difference in motivation between for-profit and non-profit arts organizations, my focus is excellence, innovation, and audience engagement.

10. Power and social practice are in a constant push and pull relationship. It is easy to become disheartened at the many barriers and struggles that arts organizations, artists, community activists, and even local small businesses face when one considers their low rank on the power – totem pole. The American Assembly presents an optimistic outlook in their public mandate #3: “The arts form an educated and aware citizenry [by] promoting understanding in this diverse society… developing competencies in school and work… [and] advancing freedom of inquiry and an open exchange of ideas and values.” This idealistic assertion could be supported by the notion that a more educated and aware public would promote greater competency in innovation, progress, and problem solving in all difficult issues that affect our nation and the globe. Essentially, Knowledge Is Power. Unfortunately, however, money is often more powerful. The fact is that the arts are not valued or supported adequately by our current political and financial system. Institutions are struggling and arts programs are slashed from schools everywhere. Bill Ivey points out that while the non-profit sector has “grown bigger without getting richer.” The funding and grants available to non-profits have not grown with the industry, but rather have been spread more thin. Ivey encourages more celebration of commercial arts efforts but within the context of careful and thoughtful regulation. The merger of BMG and SONY raises concerns about public policy in regards to the ownership of a large chunk American musical and theatrical heritage. The deregulation by the FCC of who can own (and therefore control) the radio waves, led to a monopoly by companies like Clear Channel (yuck!) who play a rotation of only about 20 songs. The Radio, which could serve as a platform of musical exploration and meaningful “talk”, was reduced to one long giant commercial for mainstream record labels. Channel surfing becomes very frustrating when every station is playing the same terrible song (we can be thankful for the existence of public radio). Ivey asks an important question: “Do regulatory changes that shrink choice really serve the public interest?” I think policy makers would be wise to consider this with equal weight to economics and free market.

    Luckily, transmedia platforms enable artists to publish their work without depending on agents, managers, record labels, or radio stations. The ability to market and sell one’s own work inexpensively, quickly, and to a wide audience, effectively removes power from the mainstream outlets, and places it in the artists’ own hands. This transformation away from ‘business as usual’ is incredibly empowering to grass roots efforts of all kinds. I wonder if TLC would not have gone bankrupt if transmedia had been as developed and prevalent in the 90s.

11. Becker suggests that copyright is, “usually rationalized as the law of patents is, as a way of promoting invention or artistic creation by assuring the profits from the work to the worker by giving him a monopoly for a limited period” (169). Copyrights are intended to protect the artist, and serve as profit. However, in the case of fakes, copyright laws do not specify the rights of the artist clearly, and legal proceedings are necessary. Becker continues his discussion of copyright laws and then reveals that his insight to copyright laws is only applicable to capitalist societies. He acknowledges that what he discusses is “irrelevant to art worlds operating in countries which do not have a capitalist market economy” (172).

    This issue is becoming more relevant than Becker acknowledges as politics and power elevate in the international markets of Asia. Roughly one third of the worlds’ population exists in India and China. Both of these markets have loose copyright laws that are rarely enforced. With the growing wealth in BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) nations, the arts world has an increasing presence. With their political and power structure, much is left to be desired for protecting artists and their creations. This problem is further compounded with transmedia as there is an ever-increasing accessibility. As art forms become digitized and transmitted with a few key strokes against artist’s desires, stronger laws, with perhaps heavy penalties, will be required to protect the artist’s reputation. How can capitalist governments ensure stricter adherence to laws protecting artists by non- capitalist societies through treaties and trade agreements? How do we as Americans, who value individual artists and have the legal structure that allows them to retain control of their creations, influence a society in which the artist serves the state, and whose creations belong to the people and are used for their benefit?

12. Before I begin my response I want to define how I view power and politics.
    Power is the ability to do something in a commanding nature. It is important to also look at the adjectives I correlate with power; ability, potential and influence.
    Politics is the practice and theory of influencing others, from the greek definition the practices “of relating to citizens”.

    We have reached a tipping point in politics and participation. Malcolm Gladwell defines tipping point as “the moment of critical mass, the threshold, the boiling point” (Gladwell, pp. 12). Gladwell states “the success of any kind of social epidemic is heavily dependent on the involvement of people with a particular and rare set of social gifts”(Gladwell pp. 33) this quote defines the systems in which the law of few resides in, those with the “rare set of social gifts”, curators, artists, arts policy makers and institutions, with whom hold power as to how we participate in the arts. When the arts were first funded by the NEA it was power to be a nonprofit and define the social practices of cultural participation in the arts. But with any model of supply and demand there comes a time when the marketplace inflates and what you are supplying is no longer unique or easy to sell. The politics in which the nonprofit arts relaid their systems of participation in became a social practice epidemic. This developed alternative patterns of high engagement as Harry S Jenkins writes about in ethnically diverse areas who took power of their social practice in the arts and grew out of the Law of Few who tried to define their participation. Data backs this idea of growth up, as the “Art and Public Purpose” article stated in the “Survey of Public Participation in Arts” in 1992 58 percent created or produced art themselves and 43 percent experienced the arts in person. Compare that to the 2012 survey where, 49 percent experienced the arts in person, and 50 percent (half of the adult population) shared or created art. In comparing these the percentage of those who participated in the arts rose and those who created art dropped. It is also important though to take into account another percentage of the surveys, those who participated in the arts through media was 71 percent in 2012 and in 1992 was 65 percent. What does this mean? What it means is the politics of participation and the system of social practice are embracing alternative patterns of engagement and the system of a select few dictate how others consume the arts has reached a tipping point.

    Ivey asks “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?” The answer for me comes back to our politics of power and social practices tipping. America had become so swept up in creating systems of participation in the arts for communities that we forgot the artist and the individual identity itself. This has put us in a place of urban civic engagement as Mark J Stern stated in Re-presenting the city… that comes from the suppression of individuality rather then undercutting of the structures that forced that segregation upon us. We need to strengthen community engagement in communities of choice, we do so by stepping back from the powers that forced us to implement systems of social practice that defined culture and allow for our audience to engage the way that it chooses. In turn this will support the individual and eventually the artist. This means that the transmedia environment that we are engaging more in as the survey supports will serve as a cultural incubator for our social practices, language development and the aesthetics we define the arts with. Through transmedia we are finding new ways of thinking about our collective influence on the cultural marketplace. We are no longer adhering to the politics that once established such strong barriers between the executives approach to the arts and a nonprofits leader. We as an audience of individuals are causing institutions and policy makers to redesign the marketing and selling of art as a product to a consumer and the strategies in which they understand our participation in it.

    http://arts.gov/news/2013/national-endowment-arts-presents-highlights-2012-survey-public-participation-arts
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tipping_Point

13. Throughout the history of twentieth century, art and politics has always maintained a close relationship, which constitutes a significant twentieth century art features. From the early twentieth century Italian combine with fascism politics and arts are linked. Dadaism, Surrealism and the Nazi National Socialist art can be seen that. In particular, the success of the October Revolution in Russia, let the world into socialist and capitalist, art become a political struggle for ideological propaganda and an important weapon.

    Till today, the political in arts still is the key issues of artists’ concern. But I think there are two sides to one coin. We are opposed to political interference in the arts, but in fact, we rarely seen someone against political power support arts, or sponsor art. A typical example is the national policy support for local art. France limit the number of American cinema in order to protect the local film to maintain a certain degree of circulation, is not the art of politics helpful? In Taiwan, government sponsor domestic film shooting by give them money directly. Just like Becker illustrates that the government may regard the arts as a positive force of the national life.(pp.181).

    How do power and social practice intersect in transmedia environments? Williams proposed that culture is ordinary. Nowadays transmedia penetrate every aspect of our daily lives all around the world. Therefore, the ability to develop transmedia and understand it can be an advantage. Combining new technology, media, learning to become a practical audience, cultivate artistic social communication skills, Inspired by the art and society seen like the way it work in this environment.

14. When it comes to my understanding of power within my knowledge and experience of art, hierarchy is the word that comes to mind. And that is, because being an orchestral musician makes you aware of a huge and strict structure that, at least for the purposes this musical ensemble, works best. There are leaders, there are followers, and there are leaders for the leaders. An orchestra is not a democracy; you fulfill the wishes of the person with the stick, the majority’s opinion doesn’t count.. However, a big part of what makes this dynamic successful is that in order to lead within an orchestra, you have to prove yourself worthy of doing so. You have to prove that you play better than the rest of your section, and if you’re brave enough to stand on that podium, you better be ready to show the world that your level of expertise is able to pull that off.

    On the other hand, when I think of power outside of my music experience, a feeling of disappointment and disapproval take over. We think that whoever we choose are those that are the most prepared to take us forward, that, like in an orchestra, they must be ready to excel in order to convince us, but so many times they just take us backwards instead of making us progress. As an artist, I wish that the support we’re given was bigger, not only by those in power, but also the majority of society. But then, isn’t those in power chosen by the majority? Are those it power truly representing us, anyway?

15. As a person who is from a country that power and policy- the way that politicians want it to mean – has a strong impact on everyday life of residents, I have seen how policy and power can change the meaning and mission of art. Although there are some similarities between mission of art in developed and not developed countries which I believe rises from the nature of art but the differences are so huge that can not be neglected.

    As Becker says ” it -to me it refers to government- gives open support to some forms of art, and to some practitioners of those forms, when they appear to further national purposes”, it reminds me an Iranian governmental movie director who make poor rated soap operas with the support of government and has accused Asghar Farhadi (first Iranian director who has won Oscar last year) of endangering national purposes and jeopardizing Iran’s 34 year behavior toward west! National purposes are not defined by people! it is defined by “power” (governments) and of course artists have their own definition and this is the place that the “intervention” comes to spot light! In a country like Iran, arts main purpose is to make a better infrastructure for bringing democracy to exist, arts main purpose is to fight with the government in a healthy cultural way, without bloodshed, and in peace (which is not always possible! because right now Iran has many imprisoned artists). In this kind of situation, art is not for making money, it is for paying all you have to keep a nation alive and this is not always in benefit of “national purposes”, it is in benefit of “residents purposes” which sometimes contradicts with what government wants.

    I believe the problem rises when “someone” wants to “define and approve rights” and this someone is the one who is in power and politicians are those who want to dress up that “ugly decision” and convince the people to accept it as the best decision. As an examples, in Iran women are banned from solo singing by government, why? because Islam has said so! do we have women singers? of course, where do they sing so?! in embassies! because it is counted as “the soil of another country” and Iran’s law is not applicable there! This is the way artist live with power! they always go around it because artist is the one who wants freedom; from everything

16. Participation depends on where the art is located. If the art is in a museum, there are certain barriers in place that would maybe limit participation. We would hope that everyone has access to the museum but lets take a look at JSMA as an example. One barrier for participation is parking. There aren’t many places to park during the week that are free. Since the museum is on campus and it is usually very busy during the week, sometimes there aren’t places to park at all. This is just one barrier.

    When we experience art in a museum, we expect it to be high quality art. This affects our level of participation. Most people go to the museum to see art and have certain expectations. These expectations may encourage us to participate. Also, our education affects the way we see and participate in art. For example, one sees a Picasso and thinks my kid could do that. Another person, who has studied art history sees a Picasso and understands the art on a different level and sees it as a masterpiece.

    If art was on the street the participators are anyone who walks by. Participators may or may not be voluntarily experiencing the art, but rather forced to experience it by its placement and location. People who pass by may experience or participate with the art at different levels. Some may just see the art and continue on or ignore it while others will engage more. Since the street is such a casual location it gives participators the option.

    What about art seen on the internet? When we see art represented on the internet it does make it more accessible. However there is the issue that the artwork is reproduced in a lesser quality than the original. It is devaluing the art. So in one way it helps participation by making it more accessible. On the other hand, it is not being presented at its best quality.