CCI's Barry Blog - November 26, 2007
Hello everyone.
"And the beat goes on…………………"
HEALTH CARE UPDATE: The Assembly and Senate leaders, Fabien Nunez and Don Perata, introduced a new bill, AB X1 1, in response to Governor Schwarzenegger’s criticism of their initial bill, (AB 8). AB X1 1 expands public health care programs and publicly subsidized coverage to include individuals up to 450% of the poverty level and as such benefits a portion of the artist community. Unfortunately, the new wording eliminates the language that allowed self-employed individuals to join the statewide purchasing pool, and that will negatively impact many artists.
Artists can find information about available insurance options in California and more information on ABX1 1, by going to the Artists United for Healthcare website - www.artistsunitedforhealthcare.org
Here are two other links on health care issues:
www.calhealthreform.org
www.itsourhealthcare.org
I. OPTIMISM IN THE RANKS OF ARTISTS:
This month’s issue comes to us from Claire Peeps, Executive Director of The Durfee Foundation in Los Angeles, and the current President of the Board of Directors of Grantmakers in the Arts – the national association of foundations and other funders active in the arts & culture sector.
Claire poses the following question for your consideration:
“Does optimism matter in the arts?
If artists feel optimistic about opportunities available to them, do they produce more art, or better art?
I ask because “fostering a climate of optimism in the arts in Los Angeles” is one of the goals of the Durfee ARC grant program (Artists’ Resource for Completion). Eight years into the program, I’m curious.
We articulated that goal for ARC because of the negative feedback we got to a former, larger grant program that Durfee operated. For a few years, we made three grants of $25,000 each to Los Angeles artists. The artists were selected through a nominations process.
We got a lot of complaints from the arts community that it was great for the three artists who were selected each year, but dispiriting for everyone else. They asked, how can we get in your line of vision? What are the odds that I’ll ever receive one of those awards? In an arid landscape that offered little support to individual artists, several said they might as well buy tickets for California Lotto.
So we changed course. We discontinued the larger awards program and redirected that money into the ARC program. Now we make 60-70 smaller grants each year to artists in L.A. We thought the new strategy might bring hope to the L.A. arts scene, that it might stimulate forward movement, be an incentive to productivity.
Has it worked? Do artists in L.A. feel any more optimistic about the arts climate today than, say, five years ago? Is that reflected in the art being made here? Should funders – or anybody – be concerned about artists’ attitudes towards their work environment? Besides grants, what else fosters optimism in the arts?”
We asked several California working artists to respond to Claire’s inquiry, including:
- MARK ALLEN – multimedia artist and the Director of The Machine Project in Los Angeles
- Hip Hop Artist GEOFF GALLEGOS - DOUBLE G -is a musician living in Los Angeles, and director of the DaKah Hip Hop Orchestra
- New Mexico based Photographer TONY GLEATON
- Los Angeles based musician RASHEED ALI
- Architect, designer and environmental artist FRITZ HAEG
- Multimedia artist and Director of LA Freeways ANNE BRAY
- Los Angeles-based writer and the director of the Alpert Awards in the Arts - IRENE BORGER
- Los Angeles based multimedia artist DANIAL NORD
- LIONEL POPKIN – a Los Angeles based choreographer
HERE ARE THEIR INITIAL RESPONSES. (Claire, Cora Mirikitani at the Center for Cultural Innovation, and I would like to know what you think, and invite your comments, thoughts and ideas. Please scroll down to the bottom of this blog and enter your comment.)
MARK ALLEN:
I can only answer in terms of my own experience, so this is machine-centric, hopefully still useful?
I think that optimism is an interesting idea to talk about and to try and foster. For me the thing that I find most sustaining is feeling like I'm part of a community, and that there is an audience for the work. A really big part for me with Machine is to provide a place that supports sincere enthusiasm on the part of the audience towards the performers and the performers towards the audience. I think people in ones field are often the most intense audience, and what we do is emphasize that constantly shifting position between being a teacher, an artist and a fan (sometimes over the course of one evening). I think having a place and community which one feels connected to is incredibly important to sustaining a creative life.
I think the role of money in art communities can be incredible complicated. Obviously, everyone can't (and shouldn't) reach the same levels of economic and cultural success, and it can be difficult for people when the status positions shift among peers. I agree that multiple smaller grants is healthier for a community than fewer large grants, especially since once people get into the position of acquiring enough cultural capital to look good to a grantor, they most likely need the money less anyway.
GEOFF GALLEGOS (DOUBLE G):
There’s nothing as optimistic as a deadline for a gig. It seems very easy to fall into a despondent mindset when it feels like my stuff won’t reach completion. The nature of inertia in and of itself is motion. When I’m in motion, I don’t have time to set into a negative mindset about something that isn’t happening. Whether or not my art is perceived as “better” is irrelevant, because without a sense of optimism, my art would be “nonexistent”.
As a participant in both programs, I can say that both have been of great help at different times. The Artist Award kept my dream alive. My project (daKAH Hip Hop Orchestra) was pretty much dead in the water when the artist award came in 2002. The “Unfinished Symphony” CD saved the ensemble. If that CD hadn’t come out when it did, the musicians would have most likely started to discount the success potential for daKAH, and gradually drifted away. In addition to that bailout, on two other occasions, ARC rescued daKAH’s ass. In 2002, we needed a music copyist, and some other production assistance for a Grand Performances California Plaza show. In 2007, we needed a rehearsal for a USC Spectrum Bovard Concert Hall show. Both of these steps kept us from completely humiliating ourselves onstage.
To specifically answer the question, each artist has different needs for different budgets depending on the project. Is there a way to incorporate a program that would live in between? Like a large-project ARC-type entity, where the project is underway, and needs more than $3,500.00 to seal the deal, but doesn’t need a Lotto ticket. I think the decision to cultivate a stronger ARC program was the right move. There is a way to stretch $3,500.00 when you’re at the end of a project. The 99 Cent Store does work in production. More individuals receiving a boost would logically create a lighter spirit amongst the artists, not to mention more exhibitions to attend.
To address the sushi discussion, I love the ideas that were circulating about the artist database that can be unified through Durfee. That step, in and of itself, has the potential of generating forward motion, by simply creating an active audience of artists that support each other’s endeavors.
TONY GLEATON:
I'm ambivalent about your question about fomenting a climate of optimism , I don't think I believe in optimism.
I'm 59 now and I'm not sure what if anything makes a difference or if it should? We produce art because it is a calling. A way to talk to god. Not to get laid or become wealthy or to lord something over a peer. I believe that this should be our intention. You aren't an artist because of who you are you are one because of what you do. The ranks thin quickly after art school. Does society owe me something, no. DO I owe society, yes.
I grew up in a middle class home with little or no connection to the art aside from the occasional field trip with classmates to the museum of fine arts. latter in life I became an artist, or at least Josine Starles explained to me that I was an artist and had me read Shaw's, Man and Superman.
There is little or no irony in my work, I don't produce work that is edgy or provocative and I don't feel part of any community, this maybe more out of habit and dysfunction rather than choice.
My job is not to do work. My job is to find a way to do work. Everything sets up against sustained excellent artist achievement. Without embracing hubris or folly I struggle with ideas and my own mind. In the end I try to produce work that comments thoughtfully and at times tenderly on the things that concern me
RASHEED ALI:
Optimism is a prerequisite for all great endeavors of the heart. All humans feel great energy from the perception that there is "forward movement" in their lives. Whether such movement is an illusion is debatable for sure. What cannot be questioned is that "hope springs eternal" when there is just the slightest bit of optimism for an artist.
Does optimism promote artistic energy? Without a doubt! Do artist require more optimism than the 'average' (non-artistic) person?
I would say that the path of an artist is so filled with obstacles that just the slightest bit of optimism is channeled and utilized to create new works. I suppose that we artists are akin to that rare species of flower that can survive on air alone! So, I am saying that a little bit can go along way with the emotional frugalities that artist must operate with. Economy of enthusiasm is the watchword for every mature artist who must make their way through the middle course of a career without devastating emotional lows or exuberant highs. Like some hyper-active and hyper-sensitive race horse, we artists are attuned to a certain manic-depressive pathology that is difficult to escape.
What is the cure?
Art is indeed a strange pursuit. Many times artist must spend long periods of solitude to achieve conception, thus taking them out of the 'public limelight'. This leads to a feeling among some artists that only those who are best at self-promotion can 'attract' the attention of funders & critics alike! This may be the truth but if it is, then I would say that it is 'a sad truth' indeed!
The solution is; there must exist grants or opportunities for artist to be rewarded for "coming out of the woodshed" with a great work. Surely, I have sat on the ARC grant panel and also been a recipient of this grant that doesn’t require an artistic sample but we need some grants for those artist who “exit the cave” or “come from the mountain top with the stone tablet!”
I really do think that there are many great works out there that are being ignored for lack of such a reward. I’m sure that there are many artists without an imminent invitation to present who have a great work “up their sleeves”. I would love to sit on a panel and earmark new funds for some great movie, play, dance, book, music that I just experienced from out of the wilderness.
Yes, I do think there is an element of ‘wilderness’ to the art landscape of Los Angeles, after all it’s a very big place. Certain kinds of arts are more ‘centralized’ than others and they can benefit, others are not and therefore they are subjected to neglect. When I sat on panels I felt that certain events, like ‘Red Cat’ (I think that’s what it’s called), helped to centralize attention. I could only lament that my pursuit (music) didn’t seem to have anything similar since music festivals are more driven by “the known” rather than the unknown entity. This is where real optimism could exist for artists; in the feeling that there are venues & avenues for access for those new works when they are ready. Opportunity creates optimism.
FRITZ HAEG:
Based on my own experiences, I can’t say that feelings of optimism have directly lead to more or better art. But I imagine it must be true on some level, because it is hard to imagine art of any value growing out of a pure state of pessimism. These are impossible things to measure, but they are important to consider.
I believe that the current Durfee grant system of many small grants has been an effective way to have a broad positive affect on the Los Angeles arts community. I think it makes sense to spread the support around, and see how those early and strategic infusions of support can be a catalyst to greater work at critical moments.
However, giving out grants all at the same level may lead to a monotony of project types & scales. Perhaps it might make sense to establish a few levels of escalating support over time. A young first time applicant might be qualified to apply for $2000 or less, perhaps with a few categories above that, with one or two grants at $10,000 or $15,000. This diversity of support levels might complement each other. The lower grants would provide small strategic help early on in the career, and the larger grants would be a more prestigious sign of accomplishment, allowing the honoree to be ambitious with their work well beyond what they would ever have the means to do otherwise.
Of course a Durfee grant is not just financial support, it is also a sigh of validation & encouragement. It says that the work you that you are doing is important and valued. These messages of support are infrequent for artists in Los Angeles. So, yes, I believe that Durfee has contributed to some sense of optimism among the artists that they have supported over the years.
Since those that identify themselves as artists are supposed to be the most creative individuals in our society, I believe in their capacity to do whatever is needed to make their work. In fact it is often with resistance and oppression that great work is made. The really great artist will always find a way, but it is the less sure and skilled ones that will always complain that they don’t have what they need to do their work.
I firmly believe that connectedness, community & communication (not money) is the most vital requirement for a great and fertile arts community. This is one reason why Los Angeles is so challenged, but in an interesting way. Artists are finding their way around the isolation of the city by making their own spaces of connection, making their own culture, not waiting for the big institutions to provide what is needed. There are a few vital institutions like Machine Project that are supporting (and creating an amazing level of optimism for) hundreds of artists just by providing a place to be inspired, and to connect with others of like mind.
ANNE BRAY:
from USA United States Artists Selection Panels 2007
“We must use all the skills at our disposal: our voices, our bodies, our spirits, even our blood, to create the vehicles that will carry our words, our dreams, our imagined places into the consciousness of the world, often against great odds and at great peril to all we hold dear.”
–Thomas Allen Harris
Media - By Thomas Allen Harris
“Oh, blessed Mother, please forgive them, for they know not what they do.
We, your children, toil in the forgotten places, among the memories of a time before they came. We are the keepers of the ancestral fire; we stoke the hearths that once gave succor to those voices whose stories still whisper in our hearts and flow with the blood in our veins. We are the truths that will not be silenced and the testament to all that mankind does in your name, for good and for ill. We rise with the brilliance of a thousand stars in the dark night and burn with the steadfastness of Ra in pursuit of a destiny that is of our own making, blessed with your patrimony, honored to carry your flame.
(Artists are) the consummate outsider. Outside of convention, outside of mainstream culture, outside of the convenient boundaries that mark the hallowed ground of popular acceptance, Hollywood success, steady paychecks, and stultifying homogenization that also equates to spiritual death. We are driven by the necessity to speak from a reality that is based in its very “otherness,” in the fact that we have been marginalized and overlooked after having been enslaved, used, consumed, and then discarded. Once they have moved on, we are left to pick up the pieces and make sense of who we are now, who we once were, and how we have come to be in this place, at this time. We cannot go backward, so we have no choice but to push onward, we who are given the task of telling the stories that help to heal our people and inform those who thought they knew us. We must use all the skills at our disposal: our voices, our bodies, our spirits, even our blood, to create the vehicles that will carry our words, our dreams, our imagined places into the consciousness of the world, often against great odds and at great peril to all we hold dear.
But through it all we persevere. For as outsiders we have developed incalculable strength of will and power of conviction to surmount every challenge that confronts us. And because we have been tested by fire, the work we make is of a singular nature: vital, compelling, alive, daring, complex, yes, even tortured, yet also filled with a lightness of spirit, absolution, and grace. We forgive through our art, yet we do not forget. And it is the remembrance of who we are, who we have been, and who we are meant to be that teases our art into the realms of the universal and allows all who view it to share in the celebration of the simple act of being human in an inhumane age.
We artists stand at the crossroads, prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice so that those who come after us will be able to partake of a divine sacrament, united by that which is most enduring within our hearts, our unflinching love and devotion to Truth.”
DANIAL NORD:
I do believe that optimism can help to foster and sustain creativity.
Grant-making organizations can contribute to a sense of optimism in a community, provided that they are sensitive to the needs of the working artists whom they aim to support. Depending on the specifics... Grants that are given through a secret nomination and selection process can generate a certain excitement, but can also, perhaps inadvertently, create a sense of cynicism and negativism among the majority of artists. Thoughts like “I’ll never be chosen because I’m not connected to the right people, It’s a racket…” however true or untrue, can constrict hope and damage the collective psyche of the community.
Grants that have arduous and complicated and expensive application processes can be intimidating and generate negativism. Furthermore, orgs that offer general support on a statewide or nationwide basis and then select (predominately) people form their own city, can generate cynicism and do a disservice to the population at large.
Ideally, grant-makers should consider the broader ramifications of their procedures.
Grants that offer assistance to a wider range of artists, with a relatively simple application process, tend to spread goodwill and optimism.
Grant organizations that offer feedback to artists, to help them understand why they may not have been selected, do a great service by constructively building on the effort that the artist has made with her or his application. They foster hope by showing that the effort was a step in a process, rather than another ‘waste of time’ and money.
The most sensitive and useful funders are concerned with the needs of working artists, and understand the challenges and the creative process. A little love and support goes a long way, and really does mean a lot to most of us.
Beyond grants, I think most artists need places to exhibit their work and generate a dialogue with peers and a critical audience. Los Angeles with its assortment of smaller galleries and alternative venues is, in my opinion one of the best places to be right now.
Another component of successful creative life is access to affordable space. Artists who can afford a place to work and the time to think and indulge in their practice, can have a positive experience. Inaccessibility to these basic needs can surely squelch creativity.
In general, I think that artists benefit from a sense of optimism and support, and thoughtfully constructed grant programs can surely contribute to this. Of course, ultimately, it’s up to the individual to sustain the effort, to connect with the creative community, to maintain a healthy attitude, and generate a workable means to proceed with the myriad of challenges that we face.
IRENE BORGER:
Over the long haul, here in Los Angeles two things have (and had) seemed central to fostering both optimism and generativity: (1) conversation and (2) support from the California Arts Council. Given the bust-up of the later, which I'll get back to in a minute, the first remains even more critical.
This means one-on-one conversation as much as informal and formal dialogue, this means places where people run into one another, hear and look at work together. In a sense it's a samizdat mentality, so that even as public support waxes and wanes, (mostly wanes) an underground network thrives. And it does. Is this outside of the market economy? Of course.
What about younger artists and writers, people who may and will not have had access to being supported by the CAC (not to mention NEA…) and have not had the years and conversations? Where can the encouragement - and encouragement made manifest - come from? What IS encouragement? I'm remembering a line from a poem by Adrienne Rich “not as a leap but as…each step making the next one possible…”
So, rather than an answer, here's an exercise: make a list of 10 tiny things which would encourage your optimism re: your creative life, your work.
And then this, a question to you, Claire: what do you think would have to be done to restore funding to the CAC? What are the ways those of us reading this blog, and the dozens of people we communicate with, could have impact?
LIONEL POPKIN:
This is a hell of a question!! Does optimism help me as an artist? Getting support certainly helps me feel more optimistic, and that in turn helps my work more closely resemble my intention. This is a good thing. Before I continue though, I have to be honest and say that optimism is not in my genes. My father used to say that every silver lining has a cloud. I have, for better or for worse, inherited that sensibility.
As someone who has been supported by the Durfee ARC program, I can say without a doubt that it has helped my projects, and how I feel about my work. The thing I value about the ARC is that the project is happening anyway. As a grant, it just helps the project be better, which as an artist makes me feel better (more optimistic?) about the project. On the other hand, the ARC helps you when you already have something to be optimistic about. The glass was half full, and the ARC just made it 75% full. The application is focused on the artist who already has a great opportunity and is looking for extra help.
I was not in LA five years ago, so I cannot comment on whether or not there has been a shift in the emotional terrain here. I am not even sure if I can say that I am optimistic about the current mood right now or not. I am working, many of the people I know are working. As long as we can keep doing so, I would say that the prognosis is positive.
Claire, you ask, “what else besides grants fosters optimism”- I would say opportunities. Long-term commitments and long-term goals help to create a sense of purpose from a group of working artists/funders/presenters. I enjoy it when I have a sense of what is happening over a larger block of time than just the next cycle. You also ask if “funders should be concerned about artists’ attitudes toward their work environment”? I would say that if funders want to have the greatest impact to spur the strongest artistic work, then the concern doesn’t really need to be on the work environment, but more on access to resources that allow the artist to work. If that foundation becomes solid, then I would think that the environment takes care of itself. Since I work in the performing arts, I always say that time and space are the key ingredients. Artists need a place to work, and time to be in that space. Anything that helps that would be positive. Beyond that, I don’t know.
All curated events have some sort of winnowing process, and if one is chosen then optimism is more readily available. I don’t think it is possible for everyone to be completely optimistic (remember the silver lining’s companion), because there are limitations on resources. I’m not even sure that the optimism itself is what is needed, but it might be a beneficial by-product of the more elemental needs being fulfilled. So then my question is how do we fill those elemental needs? I’m not sure yet, but thanks for starting the conversation Claire.
We have decided to keep this discussion open to your comments until 5:00 pm this Friday (November 30th). Please scroll down and click on 'comments' to enter your comment and to read the comments of others.
Thank you.
CORA MIRIKITANI: This has been such a rich and interesting conversatioin - my thanks to Barry and Claire for posing the question, and to everyone who posted comments and observations. If optimism is thinking the glass is half full, rather than half empty, and believing that the work of artists is critical to reflecting a diverse and open society, then you can also count me in among the ranks of those who are "optimistic" about the arts.
I'm looking forward to having the Center for Cultural Innovation sponsor more dialogues like this for artists, about artists and their work, and invite all of you to contact Barry or me at CCI with your suggestions and idea for future topics.
Thanks again to everyone, and have a Happy Holiday season!
BARRY: I would like to echo Cora's thanks to everyone for participating in this online discussion. It would seem that the instinct to create trumps pessimism, and while one would hope we can consciously contribute to the environment and eco-system that favors and nurtures creativity and the optimism that comes with it, even still, artists will make art, and that fact makes me optimistic about what might be accomplished.
CLAIRE PEEPS: Thanks to all of you who have so generously jumped into this conversation. I'm glad to see that Barry is right -- optimism generally trumps pessimism!
While I'm grateful for the thoughtul comments about Durfee (and will take them back to our board for further exploration) I'm most interested in your broad comments about the needs of artists in the field, and what best supports a fertile environment for creativity.
To Irene: What will it take to restore the CAC? No easy answer. But let's start with a electing a candidate who is an advocate for the arts. When we had a Kennedy, we had an NEA. Thanks to Arts for LA for engaging and tracking local candidates' positions on the arts.
My list of (not so tiny but maybe achievable) things to encourage optimism -- and through my lens as a current funder and former nonprofit leader/artist/grantseeker:
1) clearer funding guidelines (to minimize too many applying for too few dollars)
2) simpler funding applications with quicker turnaround times
3) funder feedback available to artists who've been declined
4) artist input into grantmaking/ decision making process
5) regular inclusion of live art at non-arts conferences
6) better tracking of arts giving, so all the players can better see the whole picture (for better and worse, both gains and gaps)
7) better tracking of artists' data (the Urban Institute and Ann Markusen studies were a good start -- we need more ongoing, consistent data about artist's economies. The Surdna Foundation's research on art school alumni will add substantially to our knowledge.)
8) live and online marketplaces for artists
9) celebrations of elder artists
10) poetry at the start of all board meetings (try it! -- it really quiet and focuses the attention of a group) -- and art by local artists in our offices!
.... and of course the not tiny, but still achievable things -- growing the pie (deliberate strategies to bring new donors into the arts), artists' input into cultural policy, (the creation of cultural policy!), artists' integration into campaigns for affordable housing, health care, education, and putting the arts on the agenda for political candidates.
Happy holidays to all!
Claire
Happy Holidays
And Don't Quit!
Barry