Barry's Blog @ CCI: CCI's Barry Blog

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

Comments

When I am not incredibly depressed from having trouble making rent, I consider myself an optimistic person! Or at least too stubborn to stop making work.

As an independent dance artist, the main challenge and need is sufficient time and space to investigate movement ideas. Dance studio spaces (large open space, wood floors) are incredibly expensive to rent by the hour; and a long-term lease is out of financial reach.

I see so many empty buildings in Los Angeles... how can that resource - already there - be translated into SUBSIDIZED studio space for independent choreographers?

Even temporary spaces would be helpful, something like the Phantom Galleries project that installs art in empty storefronts until they are rented out.

I love the Durfee for providing completion funds. But I would love to see subsidized studios for development of work over time.

Posted by: Meg | November 27, 2007 12:22 AM

That someone or some organization is supporting 60 to 70 artists a year is a great thing. However, like a previous writer, I think the idea of varying the kinds of awards is also a good idea. I am in Sacramento but will comment since someone sent this to me.

I am writer of music and literature as well as a jazz/Gospel/R&B singer with my own jazz band. I am also a long time civil/human rights activist who has focused on education and employment equity for women, minorities, disadvantaged whites, disabled & seniors and have worked as an education administrator/teacher in K-12, community college, university and community education programs. I have also worked as a police officer and private investigator. I have a BA in Education and English, MA in English/Creative Writing, and have finished all but my dissertations for 2 doctorates--in adult education and in educational leadership and change. I am multi-lingual and have traved to most of the states in the US and more than a dozen other countries.

I have spent nearly 40 years working in myriad community organizations and currently serve as the CEO for the International Association for Women of Color Day and Diversity, the only organization of its kind in the world--based on studies by the Ford Foundation in 1987 and 1991.

More than once, I have sacrificed by jobs to stand up for people who were victimized by terrible kinds of discrimination and in the process lost my home, retirement and other benefits, not to mention the terrible personal experiences of threats, lies, and denial of employement and degrees as punishment for speaking truth to power.

I am the most educated member of my family. I come from a background of poverty and many kinds of abuse and have achieved as an exceptional student in every institution I attended. I have never been a drug user and do not smoke or drink or engage in any dysfunctional behaviors. I have founded or co-founded many organizations and have mentored many youth and adults. I am an experienced grant writer, who also serves as a grant evaluator for some federal agencies periodically and an I entrepreneur.

I am an optimistic person as a means of survival. With a very small number of individuals and organizations which have ever helped, I persist because choose life. To focus on the dismal realities of racism, sexism, cronyism and now age-ism, would lead to immobilizing depression. However, I realize that I am not winning this battle and that like so many other women and some men who come from such backgrounds and spend our lives working on behalf of others, that in the end we will likely be back to the poverty and abuse of our origins.

Here are some examples of the basis of my thinking: After 2 years of research and outreach to the US State Department, US Embassy to Uruguay, Congressional Representative Doris Matsui and Senator Dianne Feinstein, I still have no access to apply for cultural exchange funds to take my multi-ethnic, muli-generational band of men and women to perform for the community groups which want to see us perform but lack the resources nor help to perform in the Punta del Este Jazz Festival. I should note that my band members are also exceptional both in music and in their other careers which range from lawyer to veterinarian--the kind of people one would think would serve as the best kinds of examples of this country. These awards are overwhelmingly given to men. This includes other appointments like the band hired to the permanent US mission to UNESCO in Paris without a single woman in the group.

The cronyism that exists in Sacramento where the Sacramento Chamber of Commerce, which hosts 50 to 70 events with music yearly, will not give information to me about the process of getting any of these gigs, despite my payment of $500 a year for dues and donations of CDs and time for activities to be a "team player." When I persisted in inquiries about their many gigs, which hire the same people who dominate the Sacramento Jazz Festival, locals in the California State Fair and other government supported event, I was told that maybe I should join something else.

There is an ongoing barrier here to new artists, no matter how productive, talented, etc.--new meaning anyone not in the inner circle of those in control. Those interested in supporting artists need to consider the road not taken--examining the barriers which many of us are confronting daily and throughout our lives. It's great to provide grants and other support, but unless there is a willingness to address these other barriers, then those who are assisted will never include those who have additional barriers to overcome and who may be among the most talented. The fact that we struggle against injustice is a sign of optimism but is also a recognition that no one is coming to save us and that it is better to resist injustice than to simply lie down in front of it coming at us like a runaway truck. But it is discouraging that so many seemingly nice and intelligent people live their lives without ever recognizing, let alone helping with these problems.

This is not about society owing anyone anything. It is about recognizing that some people receive exclusive privileges based on gender, ethnicity, family connections, cultural alliances, political associations and financial arrangements which are not available to everyone and that our exclusion is not our failing but the failing of those who access those benefits without a thought to being the beneficiaries (even if unintentionally) of injustice. Justice divided is justice denied. This includes the arts as much as other endeavors. But worst of all, the lack of equitable access to resources for many artists robs the entire global society of the arts and visions which could have made the world a better place for all.

Posted by: Suzanne Brooks | November 27, 2007 12:49 AM

Hello all. I understand Claire's point directly as a participating Durfee Master Musician fellow for 2006-2007. I feel, the following points will enlighten all policy makers and other funding agency experts towards a direction--where from one can understand the MAJOR issue of "What happens to an Artist, when that person's work is appreciated by means of getting the due funding to further one's Artistic work and career"
A) I am grateful, that my Art has brought me LAURELS, without even having to ask around and "Sell myself or my Art"...this is the biggest change in every Artist' attitude once we do get a Fellowship or a Grant exceeding an amount of 20, 000 for the whole funding period. It is a very BIG thing to even include in an Artist's portfolio/ resume.
B) Grants and Funding opportunities when they fall into our waiting baskets,Artists do feel "Very Complete" in one segment of their art making, if not everywhere. The scope for improvement is always at the back of each Artist. Ask around, no Artist who plays Indian classical music at my level will ever say "I am completely satisfied with my Artistic presentation"---even if it is a Pandit Ravishankar ji, playing at the Carnegie Hall.
C) Recognition of my Art as a specialty by Durfee has helped me in several ways. So, yes more such funding must happen to all Artists, I have started to take risks I would never have done before.
D) By nature Artists are people who are very engrossed in "Art making itself" Unfortunately we are not like basketball Players or other Sports personnel who either get picked up from School or college--directly by the Corporate sector or by an Angelic Investor, for them to practice ONLY.
An Artist has to practice his Art for several hours everyday and not miss out even a single day.

It feels GREAT to travel Business class, stay in a Sheraton with Zakir Hussein these days. Thats a huge change I have faced after these Awards like LA Treasures (even though the amount is only 1000, it means a lot to me)

I hope other Artists also feel the same way, whether they clinch the awards the first time or not, I would never be discouraged by any Awards not falling into my lap ever.
Namaste
Jagan Ramamoorthy
Los Angeles
www.fiddlemaestro.com

Posted by: Jagan Ramamoorthy | November 27, 2007 12:50 AM

As a born-again Optimist, it's hard to disagree with the notion that optimism does matter - in the arts and just about everything else. Without hope all is lost. Hope gives us a reason to keep moving forward. Optimism provides a kernel of hope - it makes for happier artists, and probably, more art.

But does optimism produce "better art"? We all know how many great works of art were born out of despair and depression. Neither optimism nor despair guarantee good or bad art. However, some strategies are more likely to lead to success than others, and optimism is one of these strategies. It's not a goal in-and-of itself, but rather a mechanism - just one of many tools to help foster a healthy ecology for artists.

In the community cultural planning work I've been doing recently in Sacramento and in Napa, artists have told us that grant support is only one of the things they need - what they find even more important are things like: more opportunities to exhibit and sell their work; more chances to network with one-another; more training opportunities in the business aspects of their work; more artist-friendly local government policies and regulations; affordable housing; more chances to partner with their community, especially the business sector. I'm optimistic that ARC can help with these things as well.

Posted by: Morrie Warshawski | November 27, 2007 01:14 AM

No. Optimism is a noun - an abstraction without form, shape or color. Art is dependent upon verbs - dancing, acting, painting, writing, crying, laughing, smiling, loving - words that have, are, and create life.
We don't need happy artists with wide eyes and goofy smiles. We need seraphs crying in heaven, martyrs moaning in mud, heroines sleeping in hell.
But about that grant... they bestow confidence, credibility, and acceptance, the measure of which should not be dependent upon the monetary size. An acorn for a squirrel is equal to a banana for a monkey.

Posted by: Toby | November 27, 2007 01:28 AM

Without the enthusiasm of volunteers and members and contributors—in other words without optimism—there would be no Levantine Cultural Center. It is the very sunshine on which we depend to continue building this Middle Eastern cultural arts center. Personally, I can attest to how my spirits are buoyed each time someone responds enthusiastically to what we do, whether it is positive audience feedback to a public program, or someone telling me in person how much they appreciate the work of Levantine Cultural Center.

Ultimately it's all about endurance, staying in the game, as author James Baldwin once insisted (see our interview in the Paris Review) when I asked him about the significance of talent. "I know a whole lot of talented ruins," he said. Talent, or in the case of this nonprofit organization, our mission, is of course essential; yet without strong-hearted volunteers willing to labor in the trenches, we would be nowhere.

I have the optimism that our pan-cultural vision, our multidisciplinary approach, our core progressive values, will sooner or later bring us the angels and the foundation support I'm certain we deserve, after six years of programs and service to the community. Optimism is not just hope, however; it means taking action, making things happen, being in the step-by-step process.

I appreciate how the Durfee Foundation supports artists and wish there were more visionary foundations and donors out there. We live in a very wealthy state where arts and cultural encounters should thrive.

Jordan Elgrably, artistic director
Levantine Cultural Center

Posted by: Jordan Elgrably | November 27, 2007 02:43 AM

Well, I've heard it said that the Reagan era fostered Madonna, while Clinton brought us Britney Spears... which goes along with my wondering whether the spirit of optimism or resistance is most conducive to creativity. It makes perfect business sense to divide the loaves among the crowd- that seems to be a given. Artists love resources and community. They like their tools outlined on the pegboard (whether they know it or not). They want a sharp pencil in the caddy. Imagining their way through a 9-5 can be a badge of honor, or a drudgery. It depends on the artist. Small grants are good. Big grants don't last any longer. If an artist cares about pushing the work forward, they will find a way, and make up their own reward system, outside of any cultural support, or lack thereof.

Posted by: GMH | November 27, 2007 08:25 AM

I must wholeheartedly agree with Rasheed and can not echo it much better. As an artist that has won the ARC grant from the Durfee twice (as well as failing to win a handful of times too), it has become evidence of optimism for me and all the artists in the LA community. I think the opportunity being there, with its structure, prerequisite and focus, is a means for artists to hone in on their plans and get more productive. The application process alone is a great way to achieve clarity on what we are trying to do along our creative paths. There isn't a more fair funding opportunity in town, if there are any at all. The granting cycles come often, are quick, and consider the ratio of artists to opportunities. It's fully optimistic as far as foundations that aid the creative endeavor.

Personally, I thrive on optimism. I would die without it. Being an artist is not an easy road. It takes endurance and bravery, and given the fact that many artists are highly sensitive to the world around them and are often withdrawn into their creative process, it's not always so golden having to deal with competition, rejection, poverty, condescension, and criticism. I live on hope, even before medication.

Artists need support. They need a network of other artists, people who believe in them - especially on days they don't believe in themselves. Who doesn't desire acknowledgement and encouragement? This is not to say that we are a bunch of insecure attention seekers. I think it's just human nature, especially when facing obstacles. I see optimism as the fuel for more art, better work, and strength in confidence. It is the balance that levels off the challenges, and I think BOTH are necessary in building character.

Posted by: carol es | November 27, 2007 07:06 PM

A lot can happen in five years. During the past five years I have known artists at different stages of their development and periods of their lives, some happier and/or more successful than others—things that don’t always go together. Foundations help a lot, but are limited: the money runs out; sense of purpose and/or opportunity is not there. Among the many foundations that aim to assist artists, the ARC award is a blessing for its limitedness. Large foundation grants, like Guggenheim or MAP, require long-term planning and coordination, and are, by their very nature, exclusive. Regardless of the amount of preparation—which we habitually do, success is not assured. Of course, neither is it with the ARC grant. After receiving one award, my second request was not funded. However, its straight-forward mandate and its process are honest with applicants: ARC aims to help artists regardless of their artistic stage or period of life. An award helps smooth the work, but the denial of an award is not rejection. This is optimistic.

Posted by: D. Rothman | November 27, 2007 08:52 PM

I'd have to say that despite the part of me that wants to snub the word “optimism” and rant on about how artistic life is not something we choose to do but something we can't get away from doing, as much as this may be true, paradoxically it is also true that artistic talents and sensitivities certainly DO benefit from nurturing and resources. For me, optimism is not irrelevant to art-making, if only because the opposite, dire pessimism, while it may serve to spit out the odd poetic nugget, is not a sustainable energy source.
I’d like to express what happens to an artist who is supported as opposed to what happens to an artist who is exploited. For me the worse arts-related pessimism I have ever experienced came as a direct result of being ripped off by a faux community arts organization in San Antonio Texas to the tune of $15,000, as lead artist for the Ford's "Animating Democracy" project. As fate would have it, this artistic survival life-lesson culminated the same week as the Twin Towers fell on 9-11. Penniless and violated, I had lost all ‘optimism’ when I found myself living through a political and personal let alone artistic paradigm shift of a magnitude I had never imagined possible. (Has anyone figured out how many artists nearly became roadkill as a result of 9-11 in conjunction with thieving greedy presenters who milk and butcher artists to keep their art changarros (tex-mex for ‘businesses’) functioning and their own salaries and benefits paid??) Optimism? No. Caught in the net of fear, at the time I wanted to get a job at the nearest Post Office, join the Mafia and boil in oil the rip-off presenters who had done me wrong. . .Enter the unexpected gift and kindness of strangers. . . At about the same time, I was anonymously recommended for an unexpected 3 month arts residency at the Headlands Center for the Arts. If I hadn’t had that opportunity, I'm not so sure where I'd be today as a human being, let alone as an artist. I was gifted a lifeline of full support for 3 months in a beautiful nature preserve in the Bay Area in the company of other artists without any expectation that I should produce anything at all. I have no doubt that this humanitarian respite at the Headlands allowed me to survive and to continue making art. This one act of anonymous artistic support allowed me the safe harbor from which to make a clear decision about how to continue making art without ever again putting myself in the hands of corrupt presenters, or at the service of artistic concepts that are not born of my own impulse and desire. My sense of ‘optimism’ became even more poignant in the validation I felt at subsequently receiving a $25,000 award from Anonymous Was a Woman Foundation after the Headlands residency. Optimism? Yes, both of these generous gifts helped me to survive the wolves and the long cold night, and I will be forever grateful and hope that these sources will continue to support other artists in the same way as I was supported during such a difficult time. This is my truth.

Posted by: Maria Elena Gaitan 'Chola Con Cello' | November 28, 2007 03:11 AM

I write this as an almost-lifelong resident of Los Angeles now living in Canada. I cannot really address the specific issues of California or SoCal funding issues, nor the political/social landscape in LA at the moment, but optimism does interest me. Two years ago I was fortunate enough to spend a little time with Bruce Mau. At on point he made the simple yet terribly relevant observation that optimism is much harder than pessimism or its related cousins; pessimism (or lesser versions of it) are so simple, so easy, it seems to me to be almost lazy. After having worked in higher education for a very long time, I see this as a major issue with that field as well as the arts. In so many cases there is an abundance of pessimism about so many things, it can actually become distracting from our work. Optimism, Bruce tells us, is incredibly complex and difficult, because it isn't always easy to see possibility in the face of more immediate barriers. And yet, as I think about my own work, it can become so seductive to adopt a more cynical stance. Really, if not for optimism, why would any of us, in any field of endeavor, do anything but roll up in a blanket and stay home? Bruce wrote an article on optimism that appeared in the Canadian publication Walrus...if you can, check it out. Best regards to all.

Posted by: Lance Carlson | November 28, 2007 04:44 PM

I think the question is funny!
optimism for reward is an odd concept! My work is usually optimistic, and I am optimistic, but not toward a thing or event... but, I'm sure the question is not about semantics.

SO...

I am appreciative of every dollar that finds it's way to an artist. I am optimistic that those with piles of excess dollar stacks will occasionally give a stack here and there to artists.
so... giving out 250 grants of $100 each could be a nice little thing...
giving out 5 grants of $5000 each could be significant,
AND 1 grant of $25,000 could make a huge difference in the life of that artist.
ALL of them are important.
the grants from $100-$1000 for the neophyte
the grants from $1000 - $10,000 for the middles
and grants over $10,000 for artists with a proven track record and continued commitment to their craft.

I think what is best for the artistic and grant winning landscape is to have all of these various levels... the grasses, and the shrubs and the big tall trees.

It makes me feel optimistic that someday I will be a big tall tree.
It gives me something to strive for - and I will continue to apply.
because I am optimistic.

Posted by: Tom Walker | November 28, 2007 08:12 PM

Optimism in the ranks of artists

Though I live north of beautiful San Francisco, during my career I have shown in L.A. many times and have been represented by not only galleries but also in major collections through out the area. The majority of my work of the past 47 years as full time working artist has been upbeat and extremely optimistic.
After several years of extremely introspective works in different media’s which dealt with the search of personal identity and boarded on soul search venues, the work radically changed. It became light, airy, and intensely colorful, creating great enthusiasm, joy and happiness.
As a result of looking at, feeling, and in some cases touching the work, “Optimism” was created in my self and in others. Thus the viewing audience and my own self were now united as one patron and the work was now a unit, ritualistically a tribe / community of soul and spirit!

Posted by: Zak Zaikine | November 28, 2007 10:45 PM

Am I optimistic about being an artist today? Hardly. It is not the state of the arts alone that concerns me, although that intimately affects my life every day, it is the state of the state or society at large that I'm more concerned with.

I believe we are in the last throes of a counter revolution against FDR and the Founding Fathers, which has profound repercussions for all Americans, and that those engaged in non-profit or pro-societal missions like artists are the canaries in the mine, the first to feel the toxic effects. But all of us are being swept up in the poisonous cloud -- the latest example being the sub-prime mortgage meltdown -- and will feel its effect for years to come.

Arts organizations understand a mission statement. The Preamble to the Constitution is the mission statement for our country: "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…" A beautiful and eloquent statement of intent, this mission statement for America has been profoundly undermined by the principles of what has been termed "the Reagan Revolution" of lower taxes and limited government to the point where a new, permanent aristocracy (very like to that the Colonists overthrew) is a short step from being assured.

To understand this it's necessary to take a brief history tour. During the second World War, taxes on the wealthiest Americans soared to 99.36% for income over one million dollars. After the war, taxes on the wealthiest Americans remained at 91% until the early 1960s, when Kennedy reduced the top rate to 70%. Between 1945 and 1976 the country invested in itself: the middle class expanded at a phenomenal rate, the then free University of California and the Cal State systems became the envy of the world and the interstate highway system was built. The Reagan (Counter) Revolution really began with Prop 13 in 1976. It's purpose was most clearly stated by Grover Norquist, who said, "We will shrink the government to the point where we can drown it in the bathtub." (He left out waterboarding.)

Since then taxes on the rich have fallen so far that after-tax income for those who earn over a million dollars per year has risen by over 1000% after inflation while middle class incomes have remained stagnant, fees for higher education in California now approach private universities, bridges and highways are literally falling into the Mississippi River and government agencies -- like FEMA -- starved of resources, can't protect Americans from dying in New Orleans, and lack the competency to rebuild even when the means are made available because the infrastructure of government -- the people and equipment that make it function -- has been so badly starved they can't be refreshed.

What does this have to do with the arts? There was a second purpose to the Reagan Revolution which Ronald Reagan famously stated in his A Shining City On The Hill Speech. "In recent years we have been treated to a rash of noble-sounding phrases. Some of them sound good, but they don't hold up under close analysis. Take for instance the slogan so frequently uttered by the young senator from Massachusetts, 'The greatest good for the greatest number.' Certainly under that slogan, no modern day Captain Ingraham would risk even the smallest craft and crew for a single citizen. Every dictator who ever lived has justified the enslavement of his people on the theory of what was good for the majority." (He leaves out the Preamble's dual missions of "insur(ing) domestic tranquility" and "promote the general welfare".)

So, instead of government attempting to do what was best for the many, we were treated to the sanctity of the individual or the privatization of government to the enormous benefit of a very few. The first victim in this crusade: the National Endowment for the Arts. Even with recent increases in funding the NEA still is 50% below its funding levels in the 80s after inflation. But the California Arts Council is even worse. From a high in 2002 of almost $1 per resident, funding last year was 3 cents per person in the state, the lowest in the nation. Although funding was supposed to rise again this year, the new (and improved!) state fiscal problem will probably doom that in spite of the best efforts of the new California Arts Advocacy group and local organizations such as Arts for LA. (In the interest of full disclosure, I am on the Board of Director for both California Arts Advocates and its sister 501 c 3 organization, Californians for the Arts. Those interested in finding out about our efforts to PERMANENTLY restore funding for the CAC should contact me by email: john@theatrewest.org.)

These policies have an especially great impact on the arts and other non profit endeavors. When taxes go down, not only do state subsidies disappear, but private philanthrophy also dries up. If capital gains and taxes on dividends are at 15% what is the incentive to give to the arts? What was previously a pro societal decision directed by self interest becomes a voluntary act of largesse that appears to be against self interest. If estate taxes (now marketed as 'death taxes' by the counter revolutionaries) are only 15% why leave money to the arts or medicine or universities instead of your heirs? Only the most enlightened ala Warren Buffett recognize that the health of the society is being destroyed by this obsession with private wealth, and the privatization of public wealth reflected in the exploitation of resources.

Again, the arts lead the way. Our theaters are now encouraged to align themselves with corporate marketing campaigns to receive funds instead of appealing to the good citizenship of companies. Like sport stadiums we sell 'naming rights'.

What is the purpose of making art? I believe it is to ask questions. To dance with the question, flirt with it, sing with it, sleep with it and through that process of engagment bring the audience to an epiphany -- not an answer -- regarding the same questions in their lives. "To be or not to be?" asked Hamlet. But can one ask that question while sucking up to a corporation that might not like the answer?

And what has been the effect on our economy of these actions by the counter revolutionaries? We now have a debt that is seven times as high as it was before Reagan assumed the Presidencey. Our economy is entering a recession that might verge on a depression. 1/2 of 1 percent of the population now control 25% of the wealth of the country, even higher than in the 1920s, and when 95% of the wealth is controlled by 5% of the population, the middle class is an endangered species. Artists have almost no chance at health care coverage, even as formerly non profit hospitals have been converted into ATM machines for private investors, while insurers refuse to give citizens the PIN numbers they need to pay their bills.

I believe we can change this, but it will be a difficult struggle that must begin now. As with climate change, a societal ecosystem reaches a point where it cannot recover. We are close to that point now. Just one example: the President signed an 'agreement' this week to obligates us to keep tens and possibly hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq for many years to come. Although the Iraqi government's parliament must confirm the 'agreement', the administration is contending this is not a treaty and does not have to be ratified by the Senate or the Congress. And that no Congress can amend or change it. If they get away with this and can start and continue wars on their own without any checks and balances, their counter revolution will be complete. We will have a new King George without a shot being fired on Bunker Hill.

I am optimistic by nature. As I said at the top, I believe we are in the last throes of this counter revolution, and that the next election will bring about resounding change. I continue to run a non profit arts organization and fight to renew our system. But even with our best efforts I think we are in for a long, cold, dark night for the arts and our society before we will see sunny days again.

Posted by: John Gallogly | November 29, 2007 06:31 PM

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!

Posted by: Claire Peeps | November 30, 2007 08:21 PM

First I want to applaud the Durfee Foundation for creating and sustaining the ARC grant program. No doubt it has added to the landscape one kind of opportunity needed by Los artists to catch some optimism. Nonetheless, so many other strategic needs must be envisioned:
More realistic training of artists,
Stronger networks,
Better jobs with commensurate benefits,
More financing (grants, awards, loans, multi-year investments…),
Suitable live/work spaces,
and of course, wider and deeper validation.

I have neither received a Durfee ARC grant, nor served as a Durfee panelist. Many years ago my primary identity was as an artist. Today I spend more time as a concerned college art history professor. Moreover, I am currently Director of Cultural Grant Programs for the City of LA Department of Cultural Affairs (DCA), where I facilitate several grant-making systems for the arts. I firmly agree that accessible, easy and responsive grants are fundamental for aspiration and confidence.

Thanks to the other bloggers for spiraling out the concept of “art-faith” -- Marcus for mentioning “sincere enthusiasm,” Double G for testifying about timely assistance, Tony and the voice of Thomas (reflected by Anne) for juxtaposing choice against expectations, Rasheed for emphasizing balance, Fritz for highlighting connectedness, Lionel for expanding Fritz’ suggestion about longer-term investments, and Daniel for expressing the context of needs beyond grants. As my participation, I thought I would attempt Irene’s proposal for a list of activities to increased optimistic creativity in Los Angeles. I will not attempt to define 10 opportunities, or to propose undemanding concepts.

I hope other readers will find these ideas inspirational:
1) Develop a constellation of live/work cooperative buildings with storefront spaces, where artists can reside in group context and take turns managing profitable storefront shops
2) For fine artists who want to crossover with commercial projects, we need to provide market research tools and systems to test money-making dreams.
3) Develop several powerful national enterprises like the Art Matters catalog (with local managers), to develop markets and propel the sale of interesting merchandise by breakthrough artists, respected artists, and avant-garde masters.
4) From an interesting array of art journalists, commission 1000 annual reviews, interviews or essays about 1000 Los Angeles art-makers whose artistic value is higher than the monetary rewards they have received. Post the names and articles on the web as “The Promise of LA”
5) Promote e-voting each December to crown honors on 100 of the 1000 artists portrayed in #4. Proclaim them the 100 most interesting LA artists to watch in the following year.
6) Pay 125 poets so that each year LA can have 2 poets-in- residence at every City Branch Library. Perhaps this collection of writers would be willing to lead community workshops and develop new work for an annual poetry festival in City Hall to celebrate National Poetry Month?
7) Designate a new American holiday called My Creativity Day when everyone is encouraged to hand-make items for their friends and relatives. Artists will be out in-force the week prior, to teach numerous practices. Buying manufactured products is strictly shunned!
8) Normalize business planning for artists so that they can maximize their time and energy on four critical areas: research, self-expression, contracted/commissioned productions and profitable enterprises.

that's all for now.
js

Posted by: Joe Smoke | November 30, 2007 10:40 PM

CCI's Barry Blog - November 26, 2007

Comments

Tell A Friend

Post a Comment