William: As I listen to returns this Tuesday night and read your email, I
have concluded that almost any generalization about your country will be
wrong> Nevertheless, I understand that there is a strong and persisting
belief that anyone can be successful if they just work hard enough. Although
...I doubt that there will be any more presidents born in log
cabins/originating in humble origins (given the importance of money raised
by the Harvard graduate).
North of the border, we've just re-elected a prime minister who blundered in
Quebec by belittling how much Canadians care about art. I understand that he
counted grants to sports activities among government support for the arts.
We are accustomed to much more substantial government support for the arts
than is true in your country (direct support for national radio and
television networks). But that probably reflects little more than the rather
more liberal values we have here in general. We tend to be (relatively)
godless and skeptical; we are getting our own rust belt.
Sounds like you're going to get a more liberal leader - I'll be interested
to learn if there is a difference that artists would notice. (Something
beyond having the Beach Boys perform at the White House.)
Geoff C
From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Appreciating art
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 15:19:29 -0800 (PST)
I guess that art did not become a campaign subject because it is ranked as
entertainment for so many, as all arts are in the popular media. And there
was no entertainemt in the campaign until Palin and Joe were brought to the
fore. At least they provided a few laughs admidst the tears and misery.
But there are many ways where serious art does have a role in government
albeit not as much nowadays as in the 70s and earlier in the days of the
New Deal. We've had decades of increasingly conservative government in
America and that has stymied all sorts of "public interest" support. But
even in this narrowed enviornment public art is still mandated through law
when publicly funded building projects are built,like airports and the
like. Sometimes really good art does get made for the public arena.
Furthermore, along being regarded as entertainment, like movies and rock
concerts, art is popularly thought of as a mode of "escape" from the
seriousness and
routine of everyday life. And political campaigns are serious, not
escapist, at least with respect to intent.
Look, I'm easily persuaded that America is a land of shallow ideas and dumb
stereotypes that actually many folks aspire to and take as something good.
I'm always quoting my favorite Tocqueville line, "America is the land of
religious insanity (he had the Great Awakenings in mind, then emerging
again in 1830s America).
One of my favorite stories is about the day I sat in conversation with the
owner of an impressive mansion on the shore of the Detroit River in
Windsor, Ontario. She owned the right wing Windsor Star Newspaper. She
ridiculed America, the "demonstrators" and especially the decadence of
Detroit (it was the late 1960s) which one could see through her huge
windows. I happened to know that in Windsor at that time the unemployment
rate was 18% and while the town shared the same geographical features as
Detroit, it had never developed a good economy of its own. I told her that
as we were speaking, hundreds of millions of dollars were being traded
across the river in Detroit, despite its growing social problems, whereas
Windsor was in an unending recession.
Yep, America is screwed up, full of tin-headed dopes and bad taste but it
is also a longstanding hotbed of creativity in all fields, even the arts.
Meanwhile, Windsor now looks a bit prettier with casino money spent by
Americans from Detroit. (at least until the new security rules).
The point is nothing is off the table here. Anyone can move up or down the
scale regarding taste, class, etc., except some minorities who still suffer
from the aftershock of an earlier American European style classism, racism,
and anarchist style exploitation. Maybe that is changing now, finally.
Maybe the tipping point is here. Maybe today!
WC
--- On Tue, 11/4/08, GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Appreciating art
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Tuesday, November 4, 2008, 4:27 PM
> William: You asserted that "anyone can learn to
> appreciate art". I claim
> that however many can, few do. For example (and getting
> into other
> territory) can it be that either McCain or Obama ever spoke
> publicly about
> art or any aspect of art? I would presume it was avoided,
> as something which
> would stir up controversy and deter some voters - a
> president who enjoyed
> ballet, or Henry Moore, or Henry Miller or ?.... Joe the
> Plumber presumably
> has no place for art in his life.
> It was ever thus?
> Geoff C
>
>
> >From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: [email protected]
> >To: [email protected]
> >Subject: Re: Comment?
> >Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 13:09:58 -0800 (PST)
> >
> >Geoff:
> >
> >Yes, I suppose you are right in general terms. But
> it's so fluid. Anyone,
> >no matter what his/her station in life, can learn to
> appreciate art, high
> >art. Who asks for pedigrees at the museum door? (In my
> youth the museums
> >were all free). For years I taught at a college where
> most students were
> >"first generation", meaning the first of
> their families to obtain higher
> >education. They flocked to art appreciation and art
> history and even art
> >studio courses. Maybe they aspired to acquire
> "class" traits but they were
> >sincere nonetheless. The tropes of the common man
> squirming in a tuxedo at
> >the opera or fumbling with the salad fork or pretending
> to be engaged in
> >front of the abstract painting (a famous Rockwell
> illustration shows that
> >very scene) are funny partly because they are true. No
> one is out-of-hand
> >excluded from the ranks of one's
> "betters".
> >
> >But to reinforce your point, or the drift of your
> argument, we can turn to
> >Albrecht Durer whose Handbook of The Artist begins with
> a claim that
> >becoming an artist can enable one to move up the social
> ranks. Also, not
> >very many artists who achieve some success can afford
> to buy their own
> >work. Maybe that's always been true among those
> who live by their "craft".
> > What cabinet maker can afford the $1,000 a foot price
> for custom
> >cabinets. And what about the yacht builder? What boat
> carpenter can
> >afford a one-of-a-kind yacht? Etc.
> >
> >Just a few minutes ago I was flipping through the
> latest art materials
> >catalog to arrive in my mail. The annual artist
> materials market is in the
> >billions of dollars. How much money does that generate
> in the form of art
> >product sold? If the market made sense it would be
> many times the value of
> >the materials. But in fact, the art product sold from
> the materials is
> >very tiny. Shall we guess less than 1%? It's a
> backwards market. That's
> >why the art materials market is essentially and end use
> consumer market and
> >that's why artists pay retail for their "raw
> materials" instead of
> >wholesale like other makers, like that cabinet maker or
> yacht builder. So,
> >whatever the concept about art and class, there's
> this goofy situation in
> >which even the raw materials of art are not indicators
> of art-making as an
> >economic strata, and thus they lack class
> categorization.
> >
