SHARE THIS SHOW:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
Ballet fans cheered when the Oregon Ballet Theatre raised the $750,000 it needed to dance another year. But OBT isn't out of the woods by any means. And it's not the only large arts organization feeling the pain of the down economy. How important are these larger cultural institutions in the greater arts scene in Oregon? Do we need "world class" arts organizations in order for arts as a whole to thrive?
Are you an artist, dancer or musician? Do you attend arts events? Have you cut back, or increased, your donations to major arts organizations during the recession? What would your experience be like if Oregon didn't have as many large-scale arts organizations?
GUESTS:
- Christopher Stowell: Artistic director of Oregon Ballet Theatre
- George Thorn: Director of Arts Action Research
- Jessica Jarratt: Executive director of Creative Advocacy Network
- MK Guth: A multidisciplinary visual and performing artist and chair of the Masters of Fine Arts program at Pacific Northwest College of Art
Photo credit: Oregon Ballet Theater's principal dancers Yuka Iino and Ronnie Underwood in Christopher Stowell's Swan Lake. Photo by Ben Kerns.
-
Scott, in terms of the market (your premise), art in America is already dead. To 99% of Americans, art is packaged and delivered by the Entertainment Industry, which doesn't deal in art only celebrity.
As for the quaint window dressing we call the arts - seriously all one can call it in a nation which budgets more for military bands than for the NEA - neither is it immune from the cult of celebrity.
So-called arts management career bureaucrats will hands-down fund big players and their celebrity guests (e.g. OBT, OSO, etc.) over lesser-known local, yet very solid artists, who create competitively on a fraction of the big players' budgets - pure politics - nail in the coffin!
-
blogdog,
How else does one decide what to fund, when it is based on aesthetic opinion. There are no reasonable methods of evaluating what is 'important' and what is isn't. Most artists seem to think their work is the best thing going. Most artists that are successful, are largely successful because of determination and persistence---which certainly doesn't make them the best (whatever that may be).
-
This discussion is skewed. Arts are a fundamental measurement of education and culture. I sincerely doubt that you would host a discussion about the value of reading for our population. Art speaks to all parts of of human development. The arts community does just about everything on a a voluntary basis to improve its communities. When will the educational establishment reintegrate arts into its curriculum? Art is equivalent to the value of water in a watershed.
-
Even if you could establish that art was an inherent measurement of culture---there is nothing to say that funding art is. Much of the art we use to speak about cultures of the past wasn't funded.
-
I am an independent musician who attends a lot of theater events, and I benefit socially, professionally and financially from arts organizations that bring art into the schools (such as Young Audiences of Oregon & SW Washington).
The Regional Arts and Culture Council also offers substantial project grants for musicians, which I also hope to benefit from in the future.
If you care to, hear my band at www.myspace.com/renegademinstrels
-
The ARTS are the vocabulary of human culture: an essential language for diverse interaction, dialogue and memory. How could we expect Oregon, much less any human community, to abandon or suspend such a core necessary experience?
As an essential human language, the ARTS also have a way of surviving and even thriving in a host of 'seasonal' threats and devaluations, in proportions that often seem overwhelming. As a theatre artist myself - now employed to teach as well as practice my art locally and nationally - I know from experience that it takes BOTH large institutional support as well as individual artistry to advocate, protect and innovate our contemporary cultural vocabulary.
-
The loss of any arts organisation in Portland - be it large or small - makes us poorer as a community. While I would not suggest that large organisations are more 'important' than some others which operate on a small scale and budget it tends to be the more substantial performing arts groups that can afford to display a high standard of artistic product and I believe performances of a high professional level tend to be the ones that stimulate philanthropy in the wealthy and inspiration in the young as well as giving the rest of us a sense of heightened pleasure.
Furthermore there is such a degree of cross-pollination between the various large arts organisations here in Portland that the loss of any one affects the others. I am referring to such things as Portland Opera working with BodyVox and singers performing with Oregon Symphony. You can't remove one significant working part from the whole and expect all of the others to work as well as they did.
-
People exposed to art throughout their lives are more likely to support art such that continual state and corporate support isn't necessary.
Currently we produce people to work in corporations by giving them a minimal education based on reading, writing and arithmetic. People are not trained to think effectively for themselves and thus they are more easily subjugated and controlled. Our society prizes "materiality" and conformity while our heros break rules and solve problems in unique ways.
Children and adults require exposure to art so they can develop their intuitive, spiritual and abstract capabilities as well as their logical and practical skills. Well-rounded and multi-faceted people will allow art to thrive and our society will improve as a result.
-
I agree totally. Unless we provide exposure to the arts in our schools and in the general community, it will be a tough sell to provide public funding for the arts. We are creating a culturally illitirate society as our schools eliminate the arts. Now more than ever you have to have money to experience art, dance, and music. Public funding for the arts will not happen unless it provides art experiences to the schools and free cultural experiences to those who could otherwise not afford them.
-
The challenge facing all arts organizations in Portland – big or small, “world class” or “local class” – is the lack of adequate capitalization. A successful restaurant that wants to expand or improve needs capital to do that. The owners need to draw from cash reserves, take out a loan or secure investors. They take a risk that the change will increase patronage and be sustainable. In all likelihood the restaurant will lose money at first, thus needing even more capital. When an art organization decides to expand or improve its programming, it has the same need for capital. The challenge is that it does not have the same access to loans or investors as a private venture—it must rely on the “investment” made by the community. Its investors include foundations, individuals, businesses and, yes, government. In recent years, many arts organizations took what seemed to be reasonable risks at the time. They improved their programming in the expectation that the community would invest in that vision and patronage would grow. Then the economy went sour. Like lots of private sector businesses, they are struggling to survive as a result. We shouldn’t be singling the arts out as examples of bad management or as unsustainable entities just because the economy has walloped them. This is a time when community leaders and philanthropists should be asking, "What do we need to do to sustain these organizations?" rather than asking "Can we afford so many?"
-
I think the underlying issue is wealth inequality. When only the tinyiest few people in the country have most of the money, and all our small state has is Phil Knight, all that gets built is basketball arenas. Most people don't have much of a budget for tickets or donations right now.
-
Looking forward to this discussion both on the radio and online--and to hearing from the new exec dir of CAN. I work with the written word--writing, reviewing, editing, acquiring--so I'm particularly interested in how that art is being included in this discussion and advocacy. Thanks!
-
The "big" art organizations are the keystones in the city's cultural foundation. It can be said that the entire cultural edifice of Portland, or any city, is built upon them. The diverse smaller organizations and consequently the diversity of the city's culture are under sprung by the mainstays and their health is directly related. I think that it may be justly said also, that inasmuch as a city wants or needs a top level professional sports team (or two) for its civic development that same is true for major arts organizations such as ballet, opera, symphony, theater, and museum. Thus, both culture and civic development are served by the existence and quality of these organizations. The sacrifice of even one could cause great sections of Portland’s arts scene to crumble and fall.
-
In business and organizations, creativity in problem solving is highly valued. Arts are one way to develop and nurture that creativity in children and adults because aesthetics are expansive and art engages that space through many senses.
A broad spectrum of quality arts groups is a factor in recruiting new businesses to our city because those businesses need to compete to attract creative employees, any one of which might be interested in the symphony, the museum or the ballet. The large institutions are known and an easy point of entry to art. They can do more to promote individual artists and small groups.
The facets of culture we term art can and must do a better job at understanding and meeting the authentic desires of their customers. Call it marketing if you like. It is a challenge for large organizations and individual artists. -
I actually somewhat sadly agree with the view that art should not receive funding from the state. Because I can't think of any logical reason why it should. It becomes very complicated to create a justification for funding art. Particularly when the alleged value or importance of art is largely determined by economics and the superficial opinions of wealthy collectors and critics. I find our reverence for art somewhat odd, it almost takes on a metaphysical quality and becomes a religion of sorts. I don't see what is inherently valuable about art, even though I largely support it and enjoy it. This 'sacredness' of art (even held by some seemingly intelligent people) above other fields is rather disappointing and un-modern.
I should add (if it matters) that I am not a neophyte in regards to art, I enjoy extremely esoteric and conceptual work. I just can't make a case for it being any more important then many other things. -
pertinent to OBT's cutting live music
some small local dance companies offer live music almost every time out - more often the OBT and with first rate regional musicians, but get little recognition for doing so - pure politics
-
When I give money to the art museum for my membership and then get big, ritzy, multicolor pamphlets announcing the exhibits, I just wonder where my $60 has gone. For all that I know, it wasn't enough to pay for the mailings. It is discouraging.
I also wonder how small groups are faring outside of Portland. There is really no easy reason for the folks in Bend or The Dalles or K Falls to contribute to Portland organizations, unless they get some benefit from them. The symphony travels a bit, or did, but does the art museum or the opera or the ballet?
-
Our public schools need support in integrating the arts into the mainstream curriculum. We owe our children a heritage of beauty and fail them if we do not provide opportunities for their creative spirits to emerge. The Oregon Arts Commission Declaration of Creative Rights provides a beautiful vision to pursue.
-
The only way to create the next generation of arts donors and arts patrons is to expose and educate children.
The Declaraction of Creative Rights (written by poet Kim Stafford) is part of a larger effort to create sustainable improvement to Oregon's K-12 systems so that the arts play a key role in the education of every child.
With the suport of arts organizations, school districts, teachers and parents, our state can continue to strive towards a strong system or arts education for our kids--which leads to a strong support system for our arts organizations.
-
Tobin Tax - tax on financial transactions - buying and selling stocks bonds - all financial instruments - who better positioned to pay?
-
As a long time subscriber and supporter of Oregon Ballet - as well as other Arts organizations within Portland, I fervently believe that Oregon Ballet is absolutely supportable, and that Portland IS fully capable of supporting the Arts community. The brutal economic downturn caught everyone off guard. I would be a strong advocate for a local (city, county, state... open to debate) tax, dedicated to supporting the arts community, as the Arts, in all their forms, are a critical underpinning to free expression - and democracy. Look at history; in virtually every dictatorship, the first thing that is curtailed is free expression, and the arts.
-
I think it is hard to fund art in Oregon, because people are rather intelligent (compared to many places). Sometimes with intelligence comes cynicism. Everyone thinks they are 'in the know' in Portland and it is hard to pry money from allegedly expert hands. This could be a good or bad thing. It could show that economics of demand should drive art. And it could follow that perhaps funding art isn't that important to an intelligent community. It could also be that because of the cynicism, Oregonians are jaded about funding art.
Art is funded in many other big cities, not because of consumer savvy, but because it is bling 'thing' to do. In Oregon there isn't much bling and sleaze, so you can't pressure people on those grounds---they are again too cynical to buy into it. -
Why does portland have such a hard time funding arts organizations? Because everyone here is an artist. Everyone I know is an artist, Everyone I know works menial jobs to support their art and we have little extra income left over for contributions. As someone who has been employed in the arts in Portland for almost ten years I would absolutely support a tax to help sustain the arts in Portland. I would like to be able to choose which arts organizations my money is going to.
-
I support the Arts in general. I go to the theater when I have the opporunity. However, as a resident of The Dalles, I get to the theater once a year, at most.
I do not support a tax on all of the citizens of Oregon in order to support a benefit that would only be available to residents of Portland. If there is to be a tax, it needs to on just residents of Portland that will be able to visit the art that it funds, or the benefit needs to be spread throughout the state.
For instance, I would support a property tax on the residents of Multnomah, as those residents would be able to benefit directly. Or, I would support a general Oregon tax that went to help small community theater in my city.
But I will vote against a tax that taxes me, but builds a resource that practically only serves the residents of Portland. Even though I enjoy the Arts.
-
It seems critical to acknowledge that art is not necessarily a commodity. In our commercial culture, we have established means for art of all kinds to be bought and sold - however this tends to favor commercial or traditional/classical forms of art and performance leaving the more risky and evolving art forms without "funding".
I am a dancer and my carreer began as training at Reed College and Downtown Portland in the early 80's. Discovering contemporary dance felt like discovering who I was and where my passion lived. Like many, I moved to NYC to develop my training and eventually my carreer. I am now back in Portland and happy to see all that is brewing (TBA festival, etc) and saddened also to see that there is not a more thriving contemporary dance community.
State funding will DEFINITELY support contemporary and evolving arts that are not served by the false value for artistic survival in the public market.
Arts education of all kinds is equally valuable for state funding. Not only does art education expand one's experience of life but it provides the capability to appreciate, seek out, and explore art experiences, developing a culture that supports art in general.
Thanks for the discussion!
-
Many of these conversations about arts organizations leave out the kids! I urge people who say arts funding isn't important to think about a world where children don't have theater for youth, classical musical concerts made just for their young ears.
If all they get is a steady stream of Disney and Cartoon Network what kind of people will they grow up to be? Will they be tolerant and open minded? Will they learn to appreciate the small beauties in their lives?
-
i could not agree more. Studies have shown that not only do children who have access to the arts do better in school, but access to the arts creates equal opportunity across socio-economic inequities. Unfortunately, the arts are being cut from schools and early childhood programs.
-
Hi Emily,
The real issue that's being ignored here is that the fine arts, while we feel that we should value them as an important part of our culture, have a rapidly shrinking audience, especially here in Portland where altnerative arts (especially the DIY arts) are thriving.
The Ballet and the Symphony aren't having budget problems because of the economy. They have chronic budget problems and are routinely bailed out by foundations and generous individuals. These large orgs like the ballet (or the Art Museum!) are simply not sustainable in their current model - and they haven't been for some time. Their audiences are growing older and dying, and the new generation - especially in pdx - isn't, and won't start, going to the Opera. In fact, there is serious antagonism against such fiscally irresponsible and out of touch organizations amongst the young generation of artists.
The Ballet et al needs to seriously rethink not only their business model but their mission and their future.
-
While we can debate sustainability, I must beg to contradict you on the facts. Audiences for both organisations you cite are growing; in the case of the Ballet markedly so. In fact the audiance for ballet has been growing steadily for 300 years and more.
Also, I must point out that many who could make no sense of Opera or the like at one point in life have beome regular audience members at another. The current taste of any individual is not always a good predictor of later taste. It could happen to you.
-
Another factor in the difficult funding landscape for the arts in Oregon is that there are so few foundations and corporations focusing their giving on the arts. These organizations prefer to fund social services, not realizing the social and educational as well as cultural benefits of supporting artists and arts organizations.
I'd also suggest that for whatever reason (perhaps uncertain financial climate) the larger performing arts organizations seem loath to partner with smaller organizations. This siloing behavior weakens the entire fabric of our arts community, and keeps smaller organizations at the bottom of the food chain. Sometimes it feels almost impossible to grow in this climate, and I don't see those organizations with more resources reaching out to others.
-
Okay . . . I love the arts and understand their contribution to a city's culture like Portland. However, here's my difficulty:
At what price does such a heavy emphasisi on the arts cost?
If our economy is based largely on the arts, how does Portland survivice financially during difficult financial times like these when there are very few donors available?
Should not the basis of our economy be science and industry not the arts? Flash and show do not a good business model make (see Enron).
So much is being made of the arts opportunities in public educatiuon, but what about science? Where is the support for the true rudiments of an economically sound city?
-from a concerned, arts based listerner
-
Studies have shown that a dollar invested in the arts generates at least seven more in the local economy.
Arts do not usually have savings accounts. They circulate grants immediately. When I was an active choreographer, I wrote checks to printers, flyer distributors, fabric stores, costumers, lighting designers, rental companies, janitors, tech crew, art supplies stores, and much more, as well as to the artists I collaborated with.
My audiences paid for baby sitters, had dinner and drinks perhaps, paid for parking, maybe shopped in a local boutique. Some came especially to see the show, counting as tourist dollars. Some of our international guests here in Portland are here for the nature and shopping AND for the lively cultural scene.
- Katja
By the way, while my login is inner dancer, it is because I used to make my living as an artist -- and now work with inner life as a therapist.
-
Your guest Jessica Jarratt is a cliched pompous neighborhoody bigot. Oh yes only edgy people live in SE and NE. Jessica's thought is the equivalent of the way evangelicals don't think, no logic, no self-criticism, just complete moral superiority.
-
If public funding is used to support the arts, the money must go to established organizations, not to individuals. In addition, organizations must give something back to the broader community such as working with students in schools, providing performances, demonstrations and so on for people of lower income. The money cannot simply support events for people who have the means to afford them.
-
Why not tax Strip Clubs?
With Portland being the strip club capitol of the country, there is a huge untapped resource, and they claim to be dancers.
Using tobacco tax for heath care, and lotto for education, it is not much of a stretch to use strip clubs to help fund performance art.
-
So you are saying that strip clubs deserve to be taxed on moral grounds, because I can't imagine what other grounds you would use to single them out.
And, no, I don't frequent strip clubs.
And, yes, it is a huge stretch to lump strip clubs with tobacco et al.
-
Another great discussion; I commend Emily and the TOL staff and thank the guests, callers and commenters. I would especially like to thank Jessica Jarrat for taking on this great task.
The guest (caller Steven) as 'Opera man' in the comment blog finally makes the point after 45 minutes into the discussion that was not being made earlier.
The sheer importance of getting people interested in the arts. We must approach this first from the bottom up. Art is not a product; it is a process that we all engage in. That needs to be taught in the schools and education systems or we will remain lost in this as only a fashionable business that is mired in large government controlled factions.
As a local born and raised Portlander, I have been producing art since I was a child. I did not know that I was to become an award winning artist in my adult life whose astronomy art and photography art is now seen in OMSI calendars, NASA web sites, CD covers in London, famous national radio sites such as George Noory's Coast to Coast AM, awarded in international astronomy art forums, seen for years on coffee house and restaurant walls, in a gallery in the Pearl some years ago. I have been invited to lecture at schools and universities with my art as it has inspired students.
When I began to receive emails from around the world from people that want to buy it, I had to demur and tell them is it not really for sale because I am not set up to mass produce it. Of course I have received some small compensation for these past accolades, but not to make a living at it. Many thought I was nuts when I told them I do it for fun because there is really no money in making a living as an artist. As demand increases it may become a second side job but serious artists never start with the approach of doing art to make money. It is an innate natural inborn instinct that we all have. We need to approach it with that interest first. Then move on to the funding for it. Incidentally, tomorrow is 1st Thursday. GO, enjoy and learn!
Mark Seibold
Artist-Astronomy Teacher
-
In Oregon, citizens have the unique opportunity to fund culture themselves by participating in the Oregon Cultural Trust's fundraising program. Match your membership in OPB, the Columbia Center for the Arts or the Southern Oregon Historical Society, or your cash donations to Eugene Ballet Company, Third Rail Repertory Company or Bend's Nature of Words with a donation to the Trust and your ENTIRE Trust donation returns to you as an Oregon tax credit. You give twice but it only costs you once. Donations to the Oregon Culture Trust benefit 1,200 arts, heritage and humanities nonprofits in all of Oregon's 36 counties.
The Oregon Cultural Trust is a brilliant program, very much in the DIY spirit, that's been compared to the bottle bill and vote by mail as among Oregon's most forward-thinking public policy measues. www.culturaltrust.org
-
Art is fundamental to our lives because it is how we collectively address the question "How shall we live?" Art creates public spaces to negotiate our values and identities as a complex and interconnected collection of subcultures. We cannot maintain a functional human culture without these negotiations. It is a part of all of our lives because it is where all cultural conversations begin.
-
Religion also addresses "how shall we live"---so does philosophy. There is nothing like pointing out that if art was so integral to our lives, then it would be---it would be obvious, we wouldn't be having this discussion. 'These arts' are relevant to some peoples lives, but quite frankly the art of popular culture, largely called entertainment, is what will be used by future historians to talk about "us." Not the esoteric work of people we like to think of as the 'real artists.' I'm a big fan of elitism---I love it---but I can also be realistic about the value of things.
-
As a theater artist directing and performing on an amateur level in Albany and Corvallis, far outside the Portland Metro area, I value the PDX arts organizations - large and small - for both philosophical and practical reasons. Philosophically, they provide inspiration and role models for other artists all over the state. Practically, their success keeps art in the public eye, and that has a direct impact on local arts revenues. When people in the mid-Valley hear about - or travel to see - theater in the Portland area, their interest in theater in general goes, and they tend to patronize small theaters closer to home. I can't count how many local theater patrons who've told me, "Oh, I saw [that play] in Portland; I couldn't wait to see how you do it!"
-
I would like to respond to the caller who said that art should be a hobby. Does she think that professional dancers could do what they do if they had to have another job? How about orchestral musicians? Could they just rehearse Tuesday and Thursday evenings and still be a top-notch orchestra? Could opera singers work 9-5 and still sing at the level required? Of course not. If art is just a hobby, then the level of the art will be amateurish. I am a professional singer, but I'm sure the same goes for visual artists. Honing your craft to the highest level requires a full-time commitment.
I would also add that great civilizations have valued art and supported it with public funds--or the closest thing to it, depending on the particular characteristics of a given society--for thousands of years. In most cases, it is the most enduring product of a civilization, and the one that tells us the most about it. Great civilizations have all produced great art. Are we going to be the first to turn our backs on it?
Think of any music that you love. It doesn't have to be classical, it can be rock, pop, jazz, whatever. How much time to you spend hearing it? Probably a lot. Most of us have a "soundtrack of our lives." We are surrounded by music: in stores, on TV, in movies, on the iPod, everywhere. Who do you think produces it? Some of it is commercially viable--it makes enough money to pay for itself--and some isn't. But keep in mind that even highly-paid pop stars whose music sells in the millions were once young and poor, just learning about music. How did they learn? Music in the schools? Takes money. Concerts in the park? Take money. Those dancers on MTV probably had lots of ballet training, among other things, at schools with public subsidies. Public money spent on art impacts everyone's life, we just don't always know it.
The choice between art and health care, education, etc is a false one. We could afford all of it if we would just stop trying to police the world. A week of Iraqi occupation could fund arts at a high level for a year.
-
the arts are a source of meaning and beauty for our community, as well as their draw for recruiting businesses to the city (and nearby cities). but the fine arts can't compete with the economically sustainable pop culture entertainment people dutifully crave, being beaten over the head by the media all their lives to find this kind of thing interesting, entertaining, and yes, maybe even meaningful.
so we have to find creative ways to support creativity.
traditional arts and the institutions that uphold them, incidentally, tend to be somewhat exclusionary and elitist. becoming an involved audience member requires education and previous experience with the form, whether it's poetry, ballet, or performance art. a populace that has only been educated to understand and enjoy television, YouTube, and hey, blog comments like these ones, can't just jump into a symphony concert and get much out of it.
by the way -- does anyone have any statistics about how much the government spends on sports, such as building stadiums?
-
and -- how much do NPR and OPB receive from governmental sources, not to mention fundraising drives like the recent one OBT did?
-
Beauty feeds the human spirit, sensitizes us to the world. It affects the experience even of people who don't formally pay attention to it. Where trees are planted, crime goes down. Classical music played in a New York subway discourages muggings. Art circulating in a car factory in Sweden ups productivity. And when I was a kid, art drew me to school (yes, there was art in the schools then) even when I had a math test, too.
Creative artists feed commercial art and industrial design. The better the influence, the better our lived environment. And design does affect you. Think of the interactions Pioneer Courthouse Square makes possible. How you feel in a cathedral vs a big box store.
Someone below commented that the art of past cultures usually wasn't subsidized. But most of the memorable great art was. The Italian Renaissance happened because of patronage. Temporal and religious leaders commissioned masterpieces. Talent was richly rewarded, and able to thrive.
A government grant organization usually won't fund an arts organization that doesn't demonstrate private donations and audience. But the grants are necessary -- even if an opera sells every ticket -- and some of them aren't cheap -- it has only met half the expense of putting on the show. Unless tickets soar to where only Phil Knight can afford to see the work, the arts need subsidies.
- Katja Biesanz, MA
-
While beauty might be important to humanity, it is hard to make the case that the beauty of art is what is important. Beauty is everywhere. Art is really an attempt at manufactured beauty. I still have not heard a justification about what it is about art that somehow sets it apart, makes it more worthwhile then any other endeavor and why we hold it on the pedestal that we seem to. In certain circles the artist is really the ultimate celebrity, the ultimate profession, the ultimate god. Why? What is it about art? Is it correct? Is this just tradition? Unless you/we can answer these questions, then it is hard to make a case for why art should remain on such a pedestal. Artists themselves often seem to have the ego of gods. Do they deserve it?
Design. Ah yes. Art with function. Design is perhaps just as beautiful, just as important as fine art---yet we view design differently. We don't take at as seriously, it doesn't generally have the reverence that art does.My view is that art is perhaps so revered, because it lacks any real function and because of this it has a mystical quality or a mysterious quality. It almost acts like a religion of sorts. You can't put your finger on it. Art is really an illusion, a gimmick if you will. Something to worship. A chair is a chair. A bowl is a bowl. Objects with function have no mystery. Art deceives us, it is just there, we can't use it, we can't do anything with it, we often don't know what to make of it, and that is how it tricks us into thinking it's design is more powerful then the design of everyday objects. I argue that design or other art forms (with a more clear function) are as powerful and perhaps have a greater impact on our lives, then the virtues of art. The easiest way to see this comparison is with the graphic arts, because as soon as you place a companies name on a work, it is no longer art, it now has a clear function, the mystery is gone and it is simply graphic design.
-
Comments are now closed.
Does Oregon need art?
Yes, but not funded by the State of Oregon.
Mainstream thought is that art needs state funding to survive.
The truth is that if art should survive, it will.
If nobody wants art enough to pay for it voluntarily, then art will die a valid death.