Art Biz Blog

Artist-inventors have changed the world

As if being an artist weren't enough. As if it's not enough to create beautiful things, question the status quo, and make the rest of us look at the world differently. Apparently, artists have been inventing incredibly useful (and profitable!) stuff for centuries.

A blog post on Psychology Today questions the wisdom of cutting funding for the arts: "Let's see what happens when we start throwing out all the science and technology that the arts have made possible."

The authors then go on to credit artists for everything from electronic screens to surgical stitches to bridge design. They conclude:

Bottom line: Successful scientists and inventors are artistic people. Hobble the arts and you hobble innovation. It's a lesson our legislators need to learn. So feel free to cut and paste this column into a letter to your senators and congressmen, as well as your school representatives, or simply send them a link to this column. One way or another, if we as a society wish to cultivate creativity, the arts MUST be part of the equation!

I'm not telling you anything you don't know. I am saying that we need to be better advocates for the arts. It starts locally.

Do we need a Secretary of the Arts?

I know a petition has been going around asking for President-elect Obama to give culture a cabinet-level position: Secretary of the Arts.

NPR did a nice story on it this morning if you want to hear the pros and cons.

I love the thought of giving the arts a more prominent profile, but I admit to fearing too much government dabbling in art and culture.

On another note

Andrew Wyeth (1917-2009) RIP

Deep Thought Thursday: Granting panels

Today's Deep Thought comes from the book I'm (finally!) almost finished reading, The $12 Million Stuffed Shark: The Curious Economics of Contemporary Art by Don Thompson--page 180.

Regarding grants to artists from governments . . .

     If there are to be grants [from governmental agencies to artists], who chooses the recipients?

The public?
An elected elite? (politicians)
Arts administrators?
Critics?
Art historians?
Gallery owners?
Collectors?

Why my business is purple

I have definite opinions about politics. And I’m pretty politically aware. Heck, I used to work in the U.S. Senate! I may be lean to one side, but my business is purple.

In a country where divisions between blue and red are often so deeply felt, I can’t see that anything good would come of my bringing politics into my business. I don't take sides and I don't join political groups on Facebook. You won't find pictures of me at political rallies on my Facebook page either.

The boss I worked for in the Senate was one of the key proponents of bipartisanship--working together to solve problems. I, too, believe it’s possible to find common ground. But we have to listen. We have to really hear and understand the other side. If we're constantly yelling and degrading the other side, we can’t hear. I do enough yelling at the television. I like to think of this as an oasis. It's where I can just meet and hang out with artists--regardless of their political stripes. It's a place where we all speak the same language or at least understand the building blocks of that language.

The older and wiser I get, the more I believe that we’re all cut from the same cloth. Deep, deep down inside, we are one--whether we want to admit it or not. We come from the same place and we’re connected on a highly mystical and spiritual plane.

I want ALL of my readers to know that I love and support them for the artists they are and the artists they are becoming. If my blog bled red or blue, many of my readers would feel unwelcome. My business is neither red nor blue. It will remain purple.

This blog is about the business of art. Sometimes politics will creep into the artworld (okay, it happens a lot) and I will take a stance, but that is the only time I can think of that I’ll bring politics into the fold. I’ll always side with free expression and public funding for art and art education.

Click on “continue reading” for the text of a newsletter I wrote before the 2004 election, which gives you two sides to the debate as to whether or not you should mix art and politics.

Deep Thought Thursday: The arts today

Inspired by last week's Deep Thought about art and politics.

The arts used to be considered an indicator of a society's advancement and standing in the world.

Are they still? If they are, how so? And is it just artists that think this?

If they aren't, why not? What has replaced art and how did it happen?

Deep Thought Thursday: Art and politics

Well, we're to the end of the political conventions here in the U.S. and, Surprise!, we haven't yet heard a stump speech mentioning art. Or did I miss that one?

Should art have a place in the political debate? If so, what size is our chair at the table? How much air time should we get? What art-related topics should be discussed?

A survey of artists

The National Endowment for the Arts has released a new survey of artists working in the U.S. See where you fit in. Among the findings:

Demographic trends

• Between 1970 and 1990, the number of artists more than doubled, from 737,000 to 1.7 million – a much larger percentage gain than for the labor force as a whole. Between 1990 and 2005, the growth of artists slowed to a 16 percent rate, about the same as for the overall labor force.

Geographic distribution

• Opportunities for artistic employment are greater in metropolitan areas. More than one-fifth of all U.S. artists live in Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Washington, and Boston. Half of all artists live in 30 metropolitan areas.
• Unique regional concentrations emerge. New Mexico has the highest share of fine artists, Vermont has the highest proportion of writers, and Tennessee, the highest proportion of musicians.

Employment and income      

• Artists are entrepreneurial – 3.5 times more likely to be self-employed.

Education level    

• Artists are more educated.  Artists are twice as likely to have a college degree as other U.S. workers.

Questions about art and policy for our candidates

Following up on Thursday’s post about U.S. leaders who remain a Washington Mall’s distance from art . . . What questions about art do you think candidates should have to respond to?

Here are some to get you started:

• To what degree should arts be taught in our schools and why?
• What role do you think art plays in a healthy republic?
• What is the ideal level of NEA funding?
• Who should decide what is purchased for public art?
• Who should decide which art programs are funded?

Your turn.

Are presidents afraid of art?

Ever wonder why you don’t see our leaders in Washington at the opera or walking through the National Gallery of Art?

L.A. art critic Edward Goldman (KCRW) has a theory that has to do with cultural elitism. Listen to or read “A Presidential Fear of Art.”

A snippet . . .

I find it difficult to understand this fear of the arts in this country, where most of the people claim to be religious. After all, the spirit of a nation, its hopes and inspirations, are best reflected in the works of its poets, artists, writers, and musicians. Why don't we ask presidential candidates about their knowledge and experience of art and culture?

What do you think?

Yes, I realize they're also very busy governing and responding to constituents. Remember, I served time working in the U.S. Senate myself. I know they're busy! It's still an interesting theory.

Thanks to Jennifer D. Anderson for the heads up.

Image (c) Jennifer D. Anderson, What I'm Made Of (detail).

Dana Gioia's commencement speech at Stanford

I've heard him speak just once, but it was memorable. From what I know of him, I've been impressed with Dana Gioia since he took over as head of the National Endowment for the Arts. He always has good language that helps those of us seeking to support the arts in our communities. I invite you to read his Stanford graduation speech and use some of his language if it works for you.