Replies: 52 Comments
on Monday, March 3rd, walt said
Abby, I think we are of one spirit here. But I do consider the dialogue to be part of the whole. Yes, art first. But if I paint something that is a question don't I expect an answer? And if I paint something that is an answer isn't it in response to a question? I personally do not think we make paintings to put in a closet. But that one of the main reasons is to dialogue. Self entertainment isn't really enough to my mind.
Now don't get me wrong Abby. I really don't disagree with you and I certainly don't write to chastise or put anyone else down. But I often think we get caught up in this retreat from dealing with some of the important issues leaving it to others who do not have our best interests at heart.
on Monday, March 3rd, Abby said
Of course, a discourse on the art market is the next natural step. I was simply pointing out that that can not be the purpose of the artist. The marketing of a work ought not to be the primary inspiration to paint. It is a natural step that follows the creation of a work, but that is not the first step... i.e. creative expression. You had mentioned the logos on the art or that people create works with the viewer in mind first and foremost. That ought not to be the case. First and foremost the artist must of necessity create the art independent of the cultural demands, because the cultural demands represented by the market now (given the current state of the art market, as you describe it) will always be one step behind the actual pulse of a culture. The real pulse lies in what is being created now in studios around the world.
Of course, a discourse on art including criticism and competition and marketing will follow the creation. It is human nature to want to stand out among others else you and I would not be having a discourse right now. The point even now of our discourse is that we are here not out of necessity, but because we are artists and it is fun for artist's to discuss art in all its facets. In short this is fun... so is painting... art enlivens the soul... as it should. There may be tougher competition right now, but the cream will hopefully rise to the top once again as so many struggling artist's throughout history have done. If it weren't for the struggle the art wouldn't be what it is. I can't wait to see what new art comes from our struggles today and in the future.
on Monday, March 3rd, walt said
Note the typo correction in the last few lines from my previous post:
"And that is not why democracies are set up. They are set up soley to limit power and the powerful...to open possibilities. "
on Monday, March 3rd, walt said
Abby, you said "That is not to say that galleries don't sell quality works, of course they do... else they wouldn't still be in business, but they are a business and as such a bottom line exists and must be reached."
It is an interesting comment. Especially if one has read some of the other blogs up at the moment. Nick's blog which mentions the 'Pricasso' painter sums it up for me. I think we are nearing the bottom line that a business must reach there. Or the post in Nick's blog by Brad about the artist in Hungary who tied a dog up in a gallery and let it die from starvation while attendees did nothing.
You also wrote this "Artists ought to paint because they are artists... nature demands it." I agree. Have dedicated my life to it. However this does not exclude the dialog of showing ones work, publishing it so to speak, so others might respond to it both privately and in public. It is part and parcel with the other. It is the other half of the natural need. So much so that today we find a disconnect between those who show and those who do not (not particularly because they don't want to). And as Nick's blog suggested there are some pretty ridiculous reasons some are shown and discussed. What bothers me is that I find fewer and fewer works exhibited and discussed that seem to have the meaning ascribed to them.
It seems that galleries have split primarily into two types...those who show compitency but nothing of spirit and those who race to the bottom line whether it shocks or frightens or insults to get attention.
I cannot any longer rely on short easy answers. It has become a very long question. And I'm not sure the internet is the answer. The internet has its place and function. But it is not the answer.
Nor am I sure that democratic selection is an answer. That takes away the leadership artists have traditionally had in relation to the arts and becomes a race to that bottom line you spoke of. It assumes the people are always right. And that is not why democracies are set up. They are set up soley to keep limit power and the powerful...to open possibilities.
on Sunday, March 2nd, Abby said
Thank god for change. That is the natural cycle of the universe. I agree that in the wake of the internet the true integrity of art sales and quality vs. quantity has really changed. Maybe it is time for a new forum, like the internet to put us all back at the start and have to scramble up again. After all, artist display the greatest works under social pressures or spiritual movements. I say, let the new golden age of rebirth in all industries and especially art wash over everything and cleanse it of the things you speak of.
The difficulty of getting gallery representation. The problem of knowing what is good art and not what is just simply hyped is whether or not it strikes a cord with you as viewer. It ought to have nothing to do with hype or what others are saying about the works. Of course we don't live in this ideal society where people go with their gut always. Most people buy art because a gallery with a reputation told them that it was good regardless of the actual quality of the work. That is not to say that galleries don't sell quality works, of course they do... else they wouldn't still be in business, but they are a business and as such a bottom line exists and must be reached.
We can only hope that by changing the way things are... because all things change, by including new media forms to reach more people.
Perhaps the true problem with the internet is that there is such a greater viewer base then ever before that the people's range of opinions on art is broader and thus harder to discern where the true talent and credibility lie. The more people that view your works, the larger the range of emotion about it there will be. It is inherent. The trick is to know who's opinion to value, and that is a time honored tradition of study, research, and networking on behalf of the artist.
In comment to the idea of painting or creating art that represents what the viewer wants; the person who does this will always fail as an artist. They will always be a step behind the pulse of their culture. An artist ought to paint because they have a need to visually express their ideas and emotions about their environment... i.e. nature. If one does this then the art will always represent the culture and experience of the people, because the true artist is part of the people and not excluded from it like the artist you spoke of who made appearances and were the epitome of elitist.
Concerning logos from corporate sponsor's in paintings or works of art. If it is done by virtue of inspiration of the artist... say to show how corporate America has taken over the arts... ooooooh, good idea... then it is appropriate. However, if done solely for the money and no artist merit would have been found otherwise, then I say that person is a "sell-out" hmmm I've heard that before during the punk movement in music. It applies here to.
Finally, do we really blog about art, post our portfolio's on the web, and push our works just to get into Sothebies or the Soho districe? Do we really? If you say yes, no matter what the clause, then you are not an artist, but a man standing waiting for your ship to come in. Artists ought to paint because they are artists... nature demands it. Oh, there are plenty that are playing at being artists... go with your gut to find the true artist.
on Monday, February 11th, walt said
Mark,
and certainly it is easier to talk about media, technique even basic skills than it is to talk about those higher issues--emotion, content, what is or isn't relavent to the times. It is those higher issues that often get confused with the more primary skills when someone is being critiqued.
A good dialog does by necessity require lots of verbiage...lots of back and forth. My original stream of conscious theme about the speed and direction things are moving is, as usual, just another trigger for this sort of discussion.
on Monday, February 11th, Mark said
Much of what you write about I do not think of as art, at least not in the physical sense but rather if you will an 'art of an idea' and this does not fully explaine it, nor do I think most of it is even worth while. Expression, yes art, no. In my humble opinion. Not all expression is art, and maybe that is where the distiction should be made. Trouble is not all art is expression, at least not all well executed art, as a work can seem flawless yet have no spark or life. I think the world envelope has been pushed about as far as it can be (excluding the computer and what it can do, which is way out of my knowledge so I will make no judgement on it)and that it is now a time to push one's own envelope. If you think about it, the times have come to some degree full circle. Not as it was a hundred years ago or more with a stricter world view of art but in that so much has been done now that if one works in any various traditional media that they can only push themselves and not tying to think of what can I do that has never been done before, 'cus there aint much left. I think that is what brings about quality and excellence. Sure there is and will be crap but those who push will gain and I think in time will be seen as those who excelled, even among all the junk. The key is to learn what one can about the execution of your choosen medium(s) but to also learn what you can about yourself and how you can say something with what you create. Excellence in technique will only carry one so far, excellence in emotion will take you all the way. I feel the emotional aspect tho is far harder to achieve then the technique.
on Monday, February 11th, walt said
You know I think I did a blog a while ago, or maybe it was on the forum before the blogs kicked in, about some of the criteria for great art. A goodly number of people contributed some fairly concrete (as concrete as can be spoken about with words) criteria. So I suppose I tend to talk about it in more general terms.
"Should we go backward to a time when the guidelines where very rigid?"
I don't know. There is a theory I have after looking at those times when new ideas, really solid, exciting and positive new ideas rather than the kind of rehashed watered down variations on the new ideas that previously thrilled us, came about. Many of those times were in fact those supposedly rigid periods.
Seems to me that having those supposedly rigid rules caused first some really great art. Not that it was always what we today might think of as inovative. But for its time it was both inovative and qualitative. People could follow the process of progress cause it was directional. And at certain points really explosive revolutions occured. I refer to these metaphorically as moments when artists felt ready to push off from the side of the pool into deep water. In comparison, or contrast perhaps, at this moment in time I see the world of art as kinda sloshing around in the shallow end. The side of the pool gave structure enough so that artists could get a grip on what was going on enough to take courage with knowledge about where the deep end was. Not sure who today has a clue.
I talk to students who, as you probably are familiar with, have a similar relaxed attitude toward any kind of disciplined thinking as our anything goes mind set. I explain it in somewhat ecological allegories-- something they seem familiar with.
Think of a marsh or a swamp. They can be very beautiful places. They are extremely fertile. All sorts of flora and fauna grow there in abundance. But you can't drink the water. It just isn't safe. Lots of growth but that growth stays in one place, dies, rots and eventually stinks. But if you want clear water to drink what do you have to do? You can boil it. Or you can dig a trench with a downward grade so gravity will begin pulling water from the swamp. The trench gives structure to the flow of water directing it through a variety of filtering bottom structures. Start with larger rocks and stones that filter out the larger particulates, then finer and finer gravel and finally sand and certain kinds of reeds to filter out the finer particles. Eventually you purify the water enough that it is very nearly drinkable. I ask them to think about their art in this fashion. They can either make art that has a few beautiful moments but is generally muddy and stinks up the place...or they can learn to work in the marsh for a time to find new ideas then dig the trench, set up the parameters and limits with which to purify their ideas, cull the crap and focus the beauty or poignancy of their vision.
It isn't the specifics that I am really attacking at the moment. After all it is true that anything can be art. Not that anything is but it could be. So it is this attitude laziness that bothers me.
And it depends on how you define dark ages. What if absolute freedom without knowledge is really a darker realm than some disciplined structure with an occasional but truly poignant depth of progress? Progress that actually takes us forward rather than just becoming a momentary fashion. Periods where artists work out the kinks and it looks somewhat similar don't bother me if it leads to that aha moment when someone hits on a truly extroardinary idea.
You know it has only been 100 years since the biggest changes occurred in the world of art. The Impressionists (who had a leg in both the 1800's and the 1900's) were a bit of both worlds. OK. So if you include the Impressionists it's been 150 years of extroardinary changes in the art world. After the 50's it began to slow in some respects with the last 25 years more or less petering out or perhaps a better term is dissapating. Spreading out into such a thin spray that it had little forward momentum. The last 10 years have been dismal. We talk about blurring boundaries but do not seem often enough to venture beyond boundries... blending word sayings with real time body movement, collections of everyday objects to talk about ideas in our culture, all this has been done before...nothing really new except to those who have no depth of knowledge in the arts... copying older modernist artists and calling it by new names (deconstruction, post modernism), cutting up animals, using human body parts to make sculpture...What's next? Human sacrifice? Oh yeah, some of that was done in the late 70's and 80's. There were two instances that touched on this where a guy sliced off pieces of his member each day like it was a piece of bologna, and another who had himself shot-- both a form of performance art. Desperate cries for attention as I saw it at the time. Certainly we can see these as a form of self expression, can't we? But on a tack in this general direction how long before we get to true human sacrifice or blood sport in general? Should we as a culture set guidelines on this or do we as artists fall into line and just follow the trend screaming censureship when the general public cry out and politicians enact rediculous laws that ultimately do more harm than good?
It seems to me that rational minds can do something more constructive.
on Monday, February 11th, Mark said
I agree with most of what you say Walt. We do need quality and excelence and there is criteria to help us (artists) make that judgment. Yes many think they are artists and thay they produce great art, even tho they don't, I agree 'weak is weak' even when they say it was done intentionaly. I too critique students work all the time, first thing I tell them is that if you plan to show, better have a thick skin. Feedback is important and we all need it coming from many different angles, even from the guy off the street (but do we know what he knows?). As to a 'Dark Age' it aint that bad. I see that as bit reactionary, perhaps, or maybe you are just trying to bring across a point.
I only ask the question because much of what you have been saying, tho right, has been more a case of many words but of little meat (politicians do that very well, no offence Walt). It is easy to ask or demand but then solutions need to be presented as well. Such as what now will determine quality or excellence? History? Fasion? Who will determine it? Artists (my choice)? Art instructors? Critics? Curators or gallery owners? Should we go backward to a time when the guidelines where very rigid? Or do we work in a more open and free age?. Where yes, many will claim to be artists and most of them will fall to the wayside as will most of us, even if we strive for quality and excellence, but where people can express themselves as they wish. There realy is no easy answer.
Once again, we may not like the competition ,if you will, against bad art, but it is a way of life and only the strength of the artist and the artist's conviction will bring them to the top. I would rather live in a society that has open arms even to bad art, then one which is overly rigid in its ideas. But that is just me. I feel that those who demand and follow rigid religious beliefs do so because they are afraid to think for themselves and life is easier if they follow the rules, black and white is better then the many grays of real life. In all forms of living the same can be true. Now living like that is the 'Dark Ages'.
Andrew, one of a kind or versitile, yes great ways to survive, and I think many try to do this, most fail. Why? Usually because of a lack of personal exceptance as to who they are, sometimes too you have to fight against the tide. what you said also pertains to all else that has been said here and is the basis for my point, because ultimatly it is all about survival. That regardless of the lack of quality and excellence, regardless of the confusion as who determines quality and excellence, it is up to the artist to find thier center. To create what they create, influenced or not by fashion or history or the politics of art, even when we seem covered in political correctness. Many may say your art is not art, many may critique with empty words, and many may be right. I think we worry a bit to much about the bad stuff out there, the good in time will rise to the top. I do not like looking over my shoulder, I would rather look a head, over those who think nothing of quality or excellence. Besides all those bad artists out there could care less what any of us think, they would not follow rules of quality or excellence and would still create crap. Even if quality and excellence could be determined by law it would change nothing. Lets get over worring about it and just get to work. We all need improvement.
on Monday, February 11th, BradMM said
This was a very enjoyable blog to follow. I don't even remember when I made my comment - I don't even understand it now in the context of the storyline. However, I am glad we do not live in the Dark Ages… When I imagine it - I think I can appreciate the hardships of being an ant - never knowing when you are going to be stepped upon. As an artist, the longer I'm at it, the better I can explain it – or, at least, understand why I quest. In this way I grasp what might possibly make the difference between a good politician and a bad one - it's knowing a good answer to every reasoning that is baited before me... That is an easier task if I sincerely believe in what I say I represent, or what my artwork aims for, per say. If I am are lazy as an artist – I will eventually give it up. Doing something 35 years does provide attrition to old foes, and it soon becomes a walk to see who is the last one standing. It seems most of the great artists I remember studying never quit their pursuits whilst they were alive and in reasonable health. That, in part, is another gauge in how we measure their work. Eventually I will know every worthwhile debate and its end. I can see how, in these days, everyone thinks they can be an artist. We are so fooled by technology and the proliferation of the digital age. Now there is a printer that - unlike an inkjet printer spitting inks and dyes, can translate a digital file into an actual oil painting - how interesting and shameful at the same time. It is good for us to debate the issues of politics and art, politicians and artists. Come the end of the day, the final word or opinion over what we are, or think about ourselves, and our aims, will still be left till tomorrow - where someone else will hold the weights and measures. I shall never know the final tally of anyone else's convictions but my own. Meanwhile, I need to depend on others to point to my art’s weaknesses. If I can’t take crits – it means I have learned nothing. I want to learn as much as I want to live long and in good health. As long as I live, I promise myself I’ll become better at what I do – I just must look, listen, and keep up the practice of trying to surprise myself in the work that I do. Thanks for your insightfulness, Walt
on Sunday, February 10th, walt said
Yes, thank you Andrew for getting us back to the original theme. It is always easy to get a bit sidetracked. I haven't read it yet. But it is an interesting title given the discussion below mentioning the dark ages. In those days survival was the only theme. One had not only to duck the black death but the marauding knights loosed from their fuedal lords as well.
on Sunday, February 10th, Andrew said
There's a book out that adresses some of these issues, and defines the changes in the business world at least, that are affecting anyone who works. It's called 'The World is Flat' by Thomas Friedman. The secret to not having your job outsourced away from you, he says, is in being the only one who does the kind of thing you do, or in being so versatile that as times and other people's needs change, you can adapt and continue to give them exactly what they want. Apply that not to just any job, but to being an artist. I think most of us are aware of artists who are one, the other, or both kinds (of survivors).
on Sunday, February 10th, walt said
OK. Let's see if I can answer this one. Two aspects the answer. 1st one:
When we say "it's all just politics" aren't we giving it a negative or pejorative slant? Not like when we say it's all art in an open and inviting posture.
In a sense I thought I was answering part of the question in this statement. So I guess I should say it more clearly. We should either find a way to say this differently or not say it at all. Again there is a pejorative meaning when we say it about politicians that doesn't exist when we say it about art. What if we said something like not all art is good art. Or not all art is excellent. It still calls it art but suggests that the possibility that there are higher goals is possible.
What if we said, "well the figure is drawn well but the color is somewhat insipid, weak, lacklustre or not well organized. Or the color is exciting but the composition seems unorganized in that it disturbs the spatial possibilities. The artist could work on the drawing. It doesn't look like a drawing that uses perspective in a way that distorts for either perceptual or expressionist reasons. It just looks like the person can't draw.
Yes...the artist upon hearing such criticism's will rationalize by saying "I meant it to be that way."
So what? Weak is weak. I say this to curators all the time. "Why put that piece in the show. It is the weakest link. Goodbye."
I am paid to criticize students all the time. I hear every excuse in the world why they don't want to work any harder for their art. They want it to be easy, they want to feel like they are geniouses because they made a spontaneous mark, or had an idea. I tell them ideas are a dime a dozen and spontaneity is more relavant to bodily fluids. I usually get a laugh out of that one. I still tell students the work sucks when it does. (They call it lame when it sucks...funny thing they know it sucks too!)The point is if art is in the eye of the beholder then I have as much right to criticize that art as the artist does to make it. Free expression is a two way street. And while an artist may discount such a remark made by the guy on the street who has no background to back up their opinion to hear such a comment from someone who does have the chops should mean something. And it does mean something no matter how much we justify and rationalize and try to set up traps to keep ourselves from actually calling for excellence.
I respect the right of anyone to make art. Anyone. And don't we all want feedback? We say we do. But we're intimidated by it at the same time. If we keep going this way history will look back at our time period and say it was a dark age. We can blame the times or politics or the economy or our parents or anything we want. But really it was us who allowed it to happen by picking up the politically correct mantra that everything can be art and everyone is an artist and who are we to decide. In fact we, the artists, are the very ones who decide. only artist can call each other to it it. And that is the only real answer to the subjectivism. It is as I have been saying a dialog. And it is first and foremost a dialogue between artists. It can get dicey for sure. And we'll all have to learn to do it carefully with some grace and trepidation, with goodwill and deference. It will require that we all begin to educate ourselves as to the really good stuff in each genre or at least to know our biases and not delve into genre we know little about so as not to show our ignorance. I often say "you know I'm not into that sort of thing myself so I can't say a lot about it. But if I were to comment on it from my own biased background in painting I would say there is a problem with the composition of shapes," or, ego aside, ask questions about the aspects I don't like to find out if the rationalization does in fact make some sense. Sometimes I get the education and my eyes are opened. Sometimes I just walk away thinking I've been hornswaggled. But at least I made some attempt to call for excellence. And even after another artist or juror or curator has rationalized I often find they begin thinking about my comments and ask themselves the same questions again and again. Sometimes they even come back to me later and let me know that my comments were helpful.
But one way or another we have to stop allowing ourselves to accept less rather than more.
on Sunday, February 10th, Mark said
I don't think we should throw in the towel, nor should we except bad stuff, and there is plenty of bad stuff out there too. But again who makes that judgement call? The reality of life is that we live in a 'Its all good' society, I don't like it, but what can be done is that each artist reach for the highest level of quality possible for that artist. Trouble is I may be doing that and you may think I am not. How do you judge that? Sure we know bad stuff when we see it but someone else may think it the best they have see. I see stuff all the time in museums (big museums) and galleries (big galleries) that I think is crap and in no way reaches a level of quality or excellence (unless your thinking a three year old did it). Those who can make those judgments say it is good so it must be good? I giuess when you call for high quality and excellence you are making a very broad and far reaching request. If you can explaine just how to make those judgments in detail it might help those who feel as you do so they can at least reach or strive for what you think of as quality and excellence. It is easy to call for such but much harder to quantify.
on Sunday, February 10th, walt said
I know Mark. But while anyone has the right to say I'm an artist I just wonder if we aren't throwing in the towel by taking up the mantra that everything or anything is art and in the eye of the beholder. When you focus on just that aspect it is like saying..."sure, go on and make the worst stuff out there. I'll still consider it great!" I can't do that. And I'm wondering why artists who should know better continue to do it. don't we complain about our poiticians who flip flop and waffle on issues? Those who can't make a strong stance on principle are booed as much by artists as by anyone else. When we say "it's all just politics" aren't we giving it a negative or pejorative slant? Not like when we say it's all art in an open and inviting posture.
on Thursday, February 7th, Mark said
Never said there are no standards only that defining standards are hard because so much changes and so many (us for example) express our own ideas of what the standars are or should be. There are priciples in art, basic things as the nuts and bolts of making something which holds a criteria for a level of work. These are good things in the beginning and fairly easy to define only as an artist evolves and matures the defining lines grow thinner and are harder to define, becuase of numerous reasons. Like it or not even some artists who have reached a high level of quality and excellence will say, 'It's all art to me.' That may not make it right but it shows the difficulty of setting standards that go beyond what might be expected from those at the beginning of thier artistic life. Will some be convinced by words that a particular artist is quality, even if they are not? Yes. This has been the case for, well probably nearly forever, one needs to except that fact and move on. Once more it realy boils down to the personal conviction of the artists and what they want from thier own work. There is a place for us all, we may not like who we have to sit next to but the right to be there is a right to all. Artist also have to find thier own convictions and grow with that, finding one's center to weather it all and to continue. Besides an artist can be of high quality and ecellence and still be looked down upon by those who profess to know, teach, and practice the same.
Not to brag but I have had the honor of being called an 'Artists Artist."
on Thursday, February 7th, walt said
Mark, I agree and I don't. All of what you say is somewhat true. But how do some folks figure it out? So I disagree in that there are no standards. The conundrum comes in the fact that when a person begins to understand some of those principles they also understand that they use them in their own way. So, and here I agree, it is hard for the masses who don't look that hard to see the connections between one artist and another or even one art form and another. Doesn't mean they aren't there and that some eyes see it.
Another aspect of the conundrum is that it is hard to put visual ideas into words. For all the visuals we are bombarded with today we are a verbal rather than a visual culture. Ever notice that the words in a statement very often don't seem to have any connection to what the art looks like? This disconnect allows the non-art world to follow the expanation without ever really getting the language of the art. They read the wall plaques rather then the work to grasp the intent. So the gap allows for artists who are perhaps not making strong work but who write well and convince their audience of the message that may not actually come through the art itself, while artists who have strong work but don't write well are neglected. But artists get it. Hence the term "Artists' Artist." These artists's artists tend to be among the best of the generation but are often neglected until quite late in life or perhaps until the next generation. Hans Hoffman was an example of an artists' artist. Another would be Arthur Dove whose work was so forward looking yet underated for so long. We've replaced the artists' artist with the critics' darlings. A bit of a different beast. For instance Kenneth Noland was one of Greenberg's misguided darlings for quite some time. Look at him today. He's little more than a footnote. In fact Pollock is perhaps one of the few of Greenberg's darlings who has had any staying power but that because he also became a media maven and died a mythical death.
Yes, much of what can be said about the principles sound like generalizations to most folk. But they do define a fairly firm set of criteria to work from. Otherwise I couldn't teach anyone a damn thing. Especially since I primarily use those generalizations. Admittedly it is more precise in the beginning of the education. It gets more advanced and sketchier much like physics once you get past what has already been proven and accepted. But one has to truly think and express themselve in higher math to do so. But that doesn't mean you can't get from point A to point B, R to the sixth power and somewhere beyond points X,Y,Z eventually because in math an integer can be assigned any value. And no one shrugs their shoulders and says it can't be done because math is so relative. And only non-mathematicians say math is in the eye of the beholder. Greeks and those who speak Greek never say "its all Greek to me." But artists seem to be saying something like "It's all art to me."
on Thursday, February 7th, Mark said
Walt, I do agree there should be a call for excellence by the artists and it is the indivual artist that must strive for it, go beyond and push themselves. Trouble is those overused statements of 'in the eye of the beholder' 'art is subjective' so on and so on, do and can hold back excellence. Yet there can be no real difinitive rules for excelence. Sure when can rely on history but that will not work, one can use taste (yuch) that will not work, one can base it on artists who have an exceptance of excellence but that will not work either, there is no true way of judging what is quality or excellence. Many artist do strive for excellence that may not be aparent to those looking on, often what seems to be little change or growth in ones work can seem little to the on looker but great to the artist. So like it or not.... I hate to say this but....It is in the 'eye of the beholder.' Be right back need... to take a quick shower... I feel so dirty now.
As for the young heeding the old, I do not think that happens that often, at least not right away. The young often hear us but then go thier way thinking they know best till they reach an age and suddenly what they were once told becomes thier idea or they think, 'Gee why didn't I listen when I was young' but experiance can only come from living and living will only make for a better artist.
It is not a tough call to strive for excellence tho the act of striving is. We as artists must try to reach a level of excellence. Like it or not tho the level of excellence for each artist is different and hard to gage, and there will always be those who stopped reaching, those who are content at the level they are at, and those who just don't give a damn.
on Thursday, February 7th, marjan said
Jose!;)
Yes heard of him, but I haven't read any of his work, but Daniel Barenboim is a 'fan' of his regarding noise pollution (i.e. musak etc.), which means that I'm a fan! 'Will take your advice and read it.
Walty, (I can't do a Jose -y! He got away with it.)
I read something about schizo etc. being an inherited zinc deficiency or some such.
I suppose, I've just been coughing away most of the time....But then some might have heard a giggle.
on Thursday, February 7th, jose said
Marjan, Walt have you ever read António Damásio's books on the subject - Descartes' Error; The Feeling of What Happens? Some amazing insights for us artists if you have an interest in that field.
on Wednesday, February 6th, walty said
Marjan, sometime back, I believe it was in the 60's, Gregory Bateson wrote a book on...you know I don't remember the name or the actual subject. He had that odd ability to cover a lot of ground while writing on subjects I might not have actually been interested in like the Double Bind Theory and Schizophrenia as an Inherited Syndrome or some such. I'll have to do some research. But he talked about some experiments in visual perception that confronted and challenged his entire idea of reality. He wrote a gorgeously short paragraph describing reality (more precisely its perception) as a kind of smoke ring form in which our perceptions slowly swirl within and without in front of and behind the ring until it eventually dissipates or someone coughs and disturbs its fragile existence.
Try as we may to communicate sometimes all we gotta do is cough.
on Wednesday, February 6th, marjan said
Addendum.
At first I got a little perturbed, finding out that neurologists are starting to muck around with visual perceptions e.g. Professor Ramachandram's lectures on the brain and 'art', but now, I'm beginning to be fascinated, because they tend to reconfirm the necessity of age-old premises and also finding new connections in visual perception. Perhaps neurologists will be able to set more defining patterns of excellence and methodology and squeeze out the fakes. All very exciting.
on Wednesday, February 6th, marjan said
Ah , Walty!
I'm allowed to do a girlie at my age.;)
Interesting about your copyright investigations. I've just listened to the Swedish Pirate Party's talk, which might interest you. (What they propose 'litle people' do is to use the technology for marketing the real product....) I think you might like them fighting the big boys, with quite a youth following.
So pleased that you wrote those phrases that really annoy me. 'Its subjective' etc., or that other dreadful one, Verdi was writing the musical s of his time, blah blah blah. I usually just get annoyed and then switch off - no use arguing with someone tone-deaf.
Those who allege a snobism are in fact by far more insulting by dumbing everything down with the 'buzzword' 'accessibility'. I find it really irritating, because I want to improve by aspiring to and being inspired by quality, not by being subjected to the bland puss of repetitive oh-so-controversial twists .
Well done , Walty, for getting me out of the woodworks, but beware (I know myself...)! ;)
on Wednesday, February 6th, walt said
Aw Mark, but it's good to be the King. On the other hand I haven't been called Walty often in my life. I remember an Englishman in Wichita Kansas during my first attempt at grad school calling me Wallens and Wooly by an old red neck ironworker I once worked for.
What I would like is for everyone to call stridently for excellence and quality. But all I hear these days when someone makes that call is "Everything is art", "Art is subjective", "Define excellence and quality", "In the eye of the beholder", "Who gets to decide?" Of course all of the above are truisms and who gets to decide is certainly an area of concern. But if you notice in each of these responses there is a deflection of the original call. It seems to me that a lot of people 'settle' for what they do rather than pushing themselves beyond their own limitations. Students with only a year or two of intensive experience will tell me 'I can't change my style' yet I don't see any style. And I don't even think about style until I begin to see it immerge. I only think about universal skills, principles and qualities.
I would argue that not everything is art, but everything could become art. Art is subjective and hard to define but there are qualities that can be loosely accepted and usually ARE loosely accepted by a large majority of artists and the art world...so much so that we are constantly trying to push them further by stretching the envelope, and use terms like cutting edge and blurring the bounderies. And I would argue that in the hands of a really skilled and intelligent artist every quality could be reversed or challenged without actually disallowing those qualities but rather expanding their potential.
The eye of the beholder gets educated as they look harder and harder at art and begin to mature. What I liked when I was 15 is not what I liked when I was 30. And what I liked when I was 30 is not what I like at 55. However, interestingly the larger body of what I liked at 15 and 30 I still hold high at 55. I think there are some universal qualities that will, as they say, hold the center.
As to who decides? I agree that as many voices as possible join the dialog. Anyone can like anything they actually like. But, you know, as in all other things in life, those who have been at it a long time with either the experience or who have an education will be listened to with more care than those who are younger and less experienced. Doesn't mean they're wrong. Just that wisdom has its value. Now what happens is that the young who actually begin to understand more of that body of accepted wisdom begin to challenge it they actually might have something new to add. And eventually those new ideas grow on the even the oldest of us whether we will admit it or not. (There are always a few exceptions of course... hold outs who will never budge an inch. But such is the way of competition.) It is a culture at work. And again, if art is only the expression of an individual it is a one man rock fight. Ultimately art becomes the expression of a culture, even those who only participate vicariously.
on Tuesday, February 5th, Mark said
I just realised that King is your last name Walt. So in reffering to the 'king' i did not mean you. Sorry.
on Tuesday, February 5th, Mark said
When you let others, other then the artist, make the call on excellence and quality about the individual artist's work, you then are letting the king decide. Right? No? Who then should make the call? A critic, a proffesor of art, a commitee, you Walt or perhaps Marjan? Who? I for one do not see a call for excellence and quality as an anfront on demacratic rights or a Bush agenda (maybe Bush should make the call? OH God not him! :) but a call for the artist themselves. I think many artists do this but you can not control what others put out there as art, even if you think it not art. You can not stop others from mass producing art either (so long it is done legally). Yes, I do think artists need protection for thier work and the internet (innernet as Bush says) has opened up problems never thought of before, and it all needs work. The artists need to work at this and not the 'desider' of what is excellence and quality. If it is best to let the, say, health care industry bring down cost and make for quality and excellent health care, as some sugest,(Yea right) then is it not so for the artists as well? So who decides what is quality and excellence in art?
on Tuesday, February 5th, Walty said
Thanks Marjan, that's what I was after. Well and I agree pretty much down the line. It's very hard to discuss quality here or anywhere these days because folks assume you are trying to undo their democratic rights or something of the sort. Anyone who calls for excellence or quality or any suggestion that someone should make that call other than the artist in the studio is somehow part of the Bush administration. So I've turned to asking pertinent questions to see who's actually paying attention out there.
And I'm fairly aware of some of the copyright issues as I've been involved with an organization call the Illustrators Partnership who began bringing this issue to the attention of illustrators gee, I don't know, it's been three almost four conferences ago so what about 8 years. I invited the co-founders, one of which is our current chair, to come for a roundtable to tryout their issues publicly for perhaps the first time before the first national illustrators conference in Santa Fe almost 9 plus years ago. It's a mine field out there. The applied arts tend to feel these things first. But it will affect fine artists more and more as intellectual property ownership reverts more and more to the old days when the king would give rights to the publishers and not the author or artist. Shakespear (or Marlow?) never had copyright protection. So once he sold a play to the theater producers and it was published it was fair game for anyone and he never saw another cent. If he couldn't negotiate a high price then he'd have to take a day job bussing stables perhaps or keeping books at the local house of ill repute. Hence he had to immediately write another with very little time to recoup his expenses. Congress seems bent on restoring that attitude in this time of corporate oligarchy.
So glad you joined the discussion.
on Tuesday, February 5th, marjan said
Walty, thanks for explaining that bit about the Constitution. The reason I asked is that copyright is more and more of an issue because of the new technology.
I rather enjoy the new technology, mainly because of the fast ability to communicate and share information, e.g. wonderful lectures in science, which I don't understand, but feel,unlike at school, I'm allowed to attend too.
I don't have a problem with change at all. What I do have a problem with is change for the worse, that the past 3 decades have produced more rubbish than ever before,i.e. the misuse of technological advances. The food industry is a good example of what I mean: tomatoes grown without soil, pumped with what is thought the right nutrients, chickens fed bits of fish etc., mass production of quantity with very little value, if any and pseudo-individuality in the form of one's name on a Starbucks mass-produced papercup. It's very similar to the art market. There is however a great light, just as with the food market, people are fed up with being fed rubbish (organic, small farms are sprouting and people support real food and there is The Slow Food Movement). Basically, I don't bother with the big boys anymore (including sponsors grants etc., who all have the same silly one-dimensional nonsense of identity-politics), because they are essentially oppressive and depress me, and I stick to those groups and people who connect via the internet and use the technology to contact people in the widening market across the globe. Software, Schmalzware. Most of the recent ones are a waste of time for people who like fiddling all day. (I do do the courses though, to see what's cooking and save time, water and chemicals by scanning instead of printing) But even in the software business, there is Opensource and some useful programmes that make e.g.perspective easier for graphics.....May be the little people can get ahead more, because giants have a habit of not seeing what is happening below.
Is this deep enough, Walty, or have I saved my life? ;)
on Sunday, February 3rd, walt said
Sorry Marjan, my mistake on the gender flip. Yours is a name I'm not familiar with. You are as welcome as a she as much as if you were a he, or even a he/she, she/he, or a talking rabbit or horse for that matter. But I was inviting you to elaborate on what you must admit was a rather cryptic 1st comment. And I still invite a deeper discussion.
Besides freedom of speech (most recently translated as expression in any form) the Constitution also provides for copyrights, trademarks and patents as administered by Congress so that those with the creative chops will have an incentive to pursue ideas of value. The creators are then on their own to figure out how to bring it to market (or not) as profitably as they can with the hopes that in fact their temporarily protected creations will have a life span in which to come to fuition and succeed. Anyone may create, publish and profit from their ideas-- not that everyone can. However, the policy doesn't guarantee value or that the idea is a good one or that the best ideas will succeed. It is relatively non-judgemental in theory. Although of late there have been some judgements and changes in the current law (the law itself is separate from the congressional commission prescribed by the constitution)that might question the non-judgmental intent. But this is another discussion entirely.
So in what way did I suggest that ideas didn't belong to society at large? And isn't questioning one step nearer the beginning of understanding? I'm questioning all this because like everyone else I'm gonna have to participate whether I like it or not. I don't participate in anything without some questions. And I'm going to have to figure out like the rest of us where I am in the food chain. I'm publishing because I hope others will question as well. The deeper the dialog the better the chance of more and perhaps better ideas. In fact dialog is about nothing if it isn't about ideas. Which again is why I asked for something deeper than your first comment. Please enter in. We might all be crucified by you. Who knows? I offer you palms up.
Thanks for the vote of confidence Mark and the further comments Jose.
on Sunday, February 3rd, jose said
Mark, i agree, change is welcome. it's the adapting that is going to require a good deal of hard work, but i welcome that too. rivetting times, no doubt about that.
on Sunday, February 3rd, Mark said
Jose, I think you are right that there are uncertain times ahead, but uncertain does not mean bad (not sugesting you ment it that way either) but differnt. I often approuch the new in a garded way, change does not come easy to me tho I try to embrace it, except as a fact of life. What I try not to do is fear it (not always easy) for fear is counter productive, in art and in life. A little suspicion, aprehension tho can be good, keeps us on our toes.
on Sunday, February 3rd, jose said
Walt, it's the speed at which all these things you talk about gather even more momentum that I think leaves us all feeling a bit unsettled. We are assaulted with technological advances at a rate we cannot handle and in disproportionate measure with the real and more pressing concerns we should be dealing with. I'm speaking only of those well-off parts of the world of course - those others who still struggle probably find it even harder to digest all that is going on these days.
I think we are facing something new [at least in scale] in the history of Mankind: on the one hand [in the comfortable, cosy, westernized parts] there is a growing realization that Man - all men, all women - is inherently creative [something society and lack of conditions thwarted or made more difficult to accept and embrace in the past - and still does to this day in those less developed parts we insist on forgetting]; on the other hand there are now swifter and more efficient ways to proclaim all that creativity to the world.
The result is overload. Some of it we like, some of it we loath – I know I do. It makes it all the more difficult to digest and to discern what is good and what is short of good. Hell, there’s a lot of stuff out there [in galleries, on TV, on the net, in museums…] that gives me the creeps. But I have to stop myself sometimes and ask if this isn’t part of the global process all this development we are generating will be putting us through in the times ahead: that increasingly more and more people will be tapping into their creative selves and desiring to share it with the world – a legitimate aspiration if you ask me.
Perhaps, what we are witnessing is the onslaught of the next revolution after the electronic revolution. And perhaps we artists must start to learn how to live with the fact that maybe, just maybe, we won’t be as unique as we wished to believe we were [and could afford to] until quite recently. Maybe this will be the way towards discovering humility, and who knows what kind of Art we will achieve once we have cast arrogance aside and done away with so much of the superficiality and irrelevance that escapes into our work through our belief or aspiration to be greater.
Walt, thanks for a great blog and making us think, and thanks for being there ‘beyond’ the text to comment and keep this thing alive.
on Sunday, February 3rd, Mark said
I know Walt.
I respect him, voted for him. Just lighting things up a bit.
on Sunday, February 3rd, marjan said
He? I'm a wanna-be menopausal, deeply-superficial female! And about to be crucified in front of a global chain store! Crikey! I'm lost for words. (wink)
Wasn't there something in the US Constitution that ideas (science and art) belong to the whole of society? (Is that deeply leading to an abyss, Walt?;)) I'm sticking to my day job.
on Saturday, February 2nd, walt said
Mark, exactly the reason I didn't want anyone thinking I was taking credit for anything. But he did have something to do with opening the way for the internet to become what it is today and he pressed the issue to help coax it along. He may not have coined the term information superhighway but I don't think anyone said it more than he did back in the early 90's when hardly anyone even knew what surfing the net meant.
on Saturday, February 2nd, Mark said
An interesting professional history Walt. I think Al Gore invented the internet. LOL, LOL
on Saturday, February 2nd, walt said
Mark, I couldn't find my pics of a friends work who, for a time, was cropping corporate logos and presenting the partial shapes and colors as large museum sized minimalist paintings. It was a surprise the first time you recognised where those colorful shapes were coming from. He was not of course getting corporate sponsorship for said paintings. His was more on the level of social commentary. By combining the logo shapes with the idea of minimalism he was showing how the two ideas become synomymous-- like a Richard Serra in front of a corporate headquarters. Corporate collections became one of the leading collectors by the 60's championing the then new movement in pure abstraction making the prices soar which helped transform the face of art and the nature of collecting in America and around the world.
I agree that change opens new doors. I'm not sure I'm complaining here so much, as I said at the beginning of my blog, trying to wrap my arms around the whole phenomena of the current phase--and perhaps a little too late. In a sense I, most of us, have been tackling these changes in one form or another for a number of years. While I'm sure I'm not out in front by any means, the very fact that I allowed the good folks here at absolutearts to talk me into putting my work up on their site back in 2001 and again when they asked me to write the first blog on the front page a few years back. They're the ones who brought me kicking and fighting into this discussion.
As chair of my departement for 7 years I had to make sure my students were up to date on digital technology. I saw it then in two ways: a black hole to throw thousands and thousands of dollars into as each new technology was replaced within a couple of years as it developed and the beginning of the future to which our students would eventually owe the beginning of their careers. And even though I knew little about it at the time I knew who did and we got their advice and got our students introduced. You know the students were already more computer saavy than I but we needed the equipment and the faculty who were knowledgeable who could move them into the specific directions, software programs and skill sets and creative trends that would allow them to be creative and help make them employable. Even though I found much of these new technologies boring as art I'm no dummy.
I saw the writing on the wall back in the early to mid 80's, back before I was teaching, when I worked as an illustrator and designer. I first designed a piece that used a computer graphics company to translate one of my designs into a digitized image to be made into a billboard. It was extremely expensive and I saw absolutely no productive use for the technology at that time. I could have done the same thing for a quarter of the price. For the price of that one slide conversion I can now buy the technology to make as many as I want. In fact the image was useless and I had to re-do the whole thing by hand back then. The agency ate the cost of the experiment my boss asked me to conduct.
A couple years later I worked for DC Heath publishers who had, only a few years before, established a digital education department for whom I worked as a freelancer back in graduate school. Yes, I was a painting major working for a digital publisher back when this whole phenomena was really taking root. But it was so foriegn to the arts at the time that I did discount it. Again I was often asked to make images that mimicked digital images because the technology was still slow, expensive and not very aesthetic in quality. So I was hired to illustrate the results instead of using screen captures.
During the mid 90's, around the time Markus from absolutearts was beginning to develop this web site I was hired by a company doing co-op advertising for Apple to do humorous illustrations for Apple product dealers to teach them to present their product to folks who were not terribly educated in digital tech. The illustrations were part of a how to marketing book showing them that they had to tone down the tech-talk so normal people would understand them.
I even helped with ads for the Apple Graphics and Sound computer that really had a hand in starting the whole graphics and sound trend that eventually made a site like this one possible. My job then was similar to what I'm doing now. Then I was hired to make light hearted fun of the language and concepts. Now I'm questioning the direction toward which it is all moving. I still have a pretty good sense of humor about the whole thing. Then it was a really new idea and there were many obvious questions about how slow the programs worked, how limited they were and to what applications could one actually put them to work. But now it is quite evident that it is not going back to what it was before.
I'm not trying to say I was instrumental to the internet or anything...really I was simply being swept along, like most of us, with the new technology even if I didn't see it then as contributing much of value to the world of art. Markus on the other hand had his finger on the pulse of things.
Brad, hope I didn't insult Marjan. I was perhaps a bit short with the comment. I was hoping he would elaborate a bit more as the topic already pointed to his conclusion to a large degree.
Marjan, if you're out there, please come back and give us your thoughts. Perhaps Brad is correct and you ARE the new technological marketing messiah.
on Saturday, February 2nd, Mark said
A few points.
Maybe we should sell space in our work. You know a still life with a Coke can, a landscape with a Ford, maybe an abstract with with a lawyers name in the work. Make some extra bucks and they advertise. Product placement has worked for movies and TV. JUST KIDDING PEOPLE!!!
Dealers and galleries are not the most perfect thing and they do not, in my opinion, work as they once did, but they serve a purpose, just as the internet does and many other venues out there. I think an artist today just needs to deversify how they present themselves. Important tho is to not let those who will, take over. Such as the artist working for the dealer. My deal with the gallery that I am in and the dealer I work with is that I paint what I want, they show it, sell it or not. Yes I may have to take a hit at times but it is the only way 'I' can work. It is a partnership, I paint the best paintings I can and they sell them to the best of thier ability. Simplistic, maybe, but I find it better then some alternitives.
Everything is changing, and all we can do is to try to work the best we can, not always just within the system, sometimes one needs to buck the system, and certainly when we can, we can try to change the system. But beating one's head against the wall does no good either, so we need to learn a bit of exceptance as well. If you are doing the same thing over and over and getting the same results over and over and you are unhappy with the results, maybe it is time to change tactics. In this day and age one needs to keep a very open mind (difficult for me at times) and to remember that as bad as things often look, it looked just as bad to those living a hundred years ago when changes came for them. Most people fear change (I used to fight change) but change happens if we want it to or not.
on Saturday, February 2nd, Brad Michael Moore said
Walt - you added a new kid to the mix - what if it is the new Messiah? Kind'a makes all of our new efforts pale in comparison... You'll likely get the first commission, and I'll have to be a greeter at Wal-Mat for the rest of my days (I am sure it is a good job - they don't send them from overseas - you know...
on Friday, February 1st, walt said
Marjan, nice comment. But one liners really do not get to the actuality of what is possible. And what is possible is happening all around us while we sit in our studios and wonder why things are as they are. How is that sentiment working for you? Anything deeper to add?
on Friday, February 1st, marjan said
Oh Walter Walter Walter.
"Beauty is in the eye of the shareholder"
on Thursday, January 31st, walt said
Yeah, Chris, I know. Isn't it funny how the internet has diminished writing to a few short lines? I still think like I'm writing an essay or a short story. It would be less daunting if there were a page or two to turn.
on Thursday, January 31st, C said
That which does not kill me makes me stronger. Looking at all that writing made me fear death. I couldn't read it.
on Thursday, January 31st, Ellen said
I'm a member of the grandparents club with a 31/2-year-old too! I have the same feelings as you guys: she is pure delight! Happily, my daughter is replicating many of the experiences that we shared when she was little AND including ME so I can live it all again! Bronx & Central Park Zoo classes, movies, museums, etc... AND on Tuesday night my son took me to a sports bar with 7 other late 20s/early 30s guys. How much BETTER can life get: we played (the whole bar participates) triva & won!! Now if the art were easier to deal with.....or at least comprehensible...Hey: wouldn't it be great if, like Oz, the canvass came alive with energy as one approached it...great blog!
on Thursday, January 31st, Mark said
Walt, congrats on the grandchild. My grandson, (only grandchild at present) now three and a half, is a great joy, he is the perfect human being. I tell my daughter and son-in-law, like a good start on a painting, don't mess it up. Strangely, because there is a different conection between a grandchild then one may have with your own child, he has opened up a whole different and more positive world for me.
on Thursday, January 31st, walt said
Yeah, I remember seeing it in color for the first time as well. Oh yeah...I'm pretty much a dork. Getting to be an old dork now.
on Thursday, January 31st, Mark said
Off the subject but gotta say this.
When I was watching the 'Wizard of OZ' with my girlfriend (now wife) I can not tell how happily suprised I was when after the tornado and Dorthy opens the door of the house and there is color in OZ, WOW! We didn't have a color TV and of course I had seen color TV at friends but all those years I never knew OZ had color. The hard part was to keep cool, didn't want that pretty girl beside me to think I was a dork. I was a dork, but didn't want her to know that.
on Thursday, January 31st, Walt said
Mark, yes, I actually do have a few vague memories of the ice man hauling a big block of ice up the stairs to my parents apartment from his truck for, what did we call it? An "Ice Box"!I also remember watching TV for the first time in color. The first two shows I saw were Lawrence Welk and then the Walt Disney hour. That was in the mid to late 50's. My how the world has changed since.
on Thursday, January 31st, walt said
Mark, Ellen, I know. I said it was a bit of a rant...my attempt to begin to get my arms around it all. I'm watching the next generation of young artists who will be zigging and zagging their way through the maze. Many of them will do well. Quite well. They are extremely talented. If they can muster the business saavy they'll be alright. But remember...Raphael died in his early years. It all took its toll on him. DA Vinci sold himself to the highest bidder and Michelangelo fought with the Pope just to get paid-- even ran away from him a couple of times to dodge the Papal bullit. And many of the rest of the next generation of Renaissance artists were one step ahead of the inquisition their entire lives. As I said...this game ain't for the faint of heart. But now is the time when new ideas...real ideas have the best chance of prevailing...of finding a chink in the wall. It'll take brilliance and courage though. Everyone else? Don't quit your day jobs.
on Thursday, January 31st, Mark said
I used to get ice from the milk man, (no refrigerated trucks then, my Mom would get made thinking it was dirty ice, maybe, but it didn't kill me.
on Thursday, January 31st, Ellen said
Walt- All of your concerns have touched so many of us. What are the rules now? The line from Alice in Wonderland comes to mind: "It takes all my energy to keep running in the same place." The more things change in the art world (and as you said, with the digital world in the mix, they are changing in seconds), I guess we either try to keep up or do our own thing and hope for the best. I try to strike a balance. The masters whom I admire evolved with their times as well....just more slowly. Degas used the relatively new photography to help his work. Raephel used a "new type" of perspective. I once took a watercolor work shop with a lovely woman who was a very capable watercolorist. She had used the same formulas for 40 years. Her work showed it. One piece was lovely, the body of work stagnant. Walt: The answer is blowin in the wind. PS I like heavy cream.
on Thursday, January 31st, Mark said
WOW! A lot to take in Walt and way to much to respond to, at least for me. But your right. A confusing, light speed world is what we live in with no easy answers. Who knows what the future will bring and the future of change is happening as we speak. Some of the technologies you spoke of probably became out dated by the time I finished reading your blog or befor you even wrote your blog. I guess all we can do is what we can do. Change happens, we may not like it, or we may, but it still happens. Theere will be many ideas when others pespond to your blog, some will be good ideas some may be bad and others silly. But no idea will be the silver bullit as there is none. I do not think we should be to scared, to intimidated, or let it get us down. We need to just keep on going trying what we can the best way we can. Things change, today it may look bad for the arts of all types, tomorrow a whole new world might open up that the arts above all else will benifit from. Who knows?
Very interesting blog and it deserves another reading.
