Kevin Marshall's America
Over on the Arts Talk blog, Times Union Arts & Entertainment editor Michael Jainaro raises the question “Do Arts Matter Anymore?”
Firstly, I want to thank Michael (whose contributions to the TU I really should be highlighting more on this space) for writing his piece and Steve Barnes for launching the series of articles examining the state of the Arts scene locally. It’s a discussion that needs to occur.
I just hope we’re going to have the right one.
Prepare for a long-winded rant.
From the article:
The last few years have been terrible economically for nearly everyone, and Albany Mayor Jerry Jennings’ recent proposal to ax the entire $350,000 in city arts grants is but one indication of a general decline. I say general, because exceptions do exist in our area — such as the expanded programming at Proctors in Schenectady and the openings of new arts venues at Skidmore, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Saint Rose — that reflect new vitality.
Times Union reporters will be looking into these things and much more, changes that I think are part of larger shifts — demographic, economic and technological — in our civilization that call into question the place for arts in our society.
In terms of demographics, a National Endowment for the Arts study released earlier this year found that as arts patrons grow older, they are often unable to attend “benchmark” arts activities — jazz, classical music, opera, musical plays, plays, ballet or art museums — and instead rely on electronic means, such as radio and TV. Meanwhile, the next generation of arts consumers (people in their 40s and 50s who should be in their prime earning years) are attending fewer arts events. Together, this has created the situation in which arts attendance in general has declined.
…
Have you ever looked upon a Hudson River landscape and thought, “That’s just like a Thomas Cole painting”?
Here’s another question: what percentage of our population, throughout history, ever has?
This apocalyptic view towards the arts is rooted in what I believe are false arguments; first and foremost that fewer people appreciate the arts now than ever before. The sad fact is that the mainstream has never fully embraced the art world to the extent that they have embraced current trends in pop culture. Many carry a strange notion that our grandmothers and grandfathers lived in a world where everybody was an afficianado and clinked champagne glasses together at gallery openings every weekend.
The term “starving artist” is not a 21st Century idiom. Art – and by that I mean real, life-changing, radical art – has always been underappreciated in its time.
The other false argument – or perhaps it is more apt to call it a false foundation – is that we should continue to measure and define the local and national Arts scene by the replication of past works and forms/genres rather than the creation of new ones. That is to say, the Arts scene is performances of classical music, jazz, theater and other standards rather than the creation of new and exciting work.
Jazz is a perfect – and maddening – example. You know why fewer people go to jazz concerts these days? Because it’s a form of pop music whose mainstream relevance expired forty years ago. Yet we cling to it and deify the form as being superior to what current music artists are creating in studios around the world that does get greater exposure and appreciation. I know the jazz musicians in the area will loathe me for writing that, but it’s true. While I can and do appreciate jazz and what the form has done for music, we shouldn’t use dwindling attendance at concerts featuring a form of pop music whose time has passed as a barometer for our society as a whole.
Jazz still has its place as a niche genre of music, just like folk or rap or any other form you can come up with. But the idea that Jazz is an inherently superior form that demands you appreciate it or else society will crumble is, to be quite frank, a ridiculous notion rooted in arrogance and self-preservation.
The arts is not, and should not, simply be thought of as those events that hold a captive audience of seniors and bored bused-in High School students. There are plenty of great things going on in the local arts scene. Just go to First Night in Albany, or Troy Night Out, or Art Night in Schenectady, or see the groundbreaking stuff going on at places like EMPAC, the Foundry, or the many other galleries and spaces in our area. Sure, attendance could be better, but these events are by and large successful and display the wide array of exciting, groundbreaking stuff.
Do we have a troubled Arts scene? Most definitely. But I think the greatest enemy of the Arts scene isn’t lack of government funding or passing public interest, but an establishment within the Arts community itself that is stubbornly resistant to change and progress, despite its claims to the contrary. It is those that seek to define the Arts scene using outdated modes and mores; presenting the idea of art as performance of Baroque music and still life paintings of ducks in a pond. This attitude, which despite the good intentions of those carrying it is detrimental to the very idea and purpose of Art, is a disservice to the true scene of the region that, while not creating household names, does push and progress us as a society and brings us to a whole new level of creativity.
We need to redefine and rethink what we consider “the Arts.” If we’re serious about preserving it and more importantly engaging current and future generations, then we need to allow for newer and more avant garde genres and forms of expression to not simply be embraced, but emphasized.
Or, if you prefer, I can boil it down to a simple analogy – Beethoven didn’t simply reproduce the works of Mozart, and if we were alive today he wouldn’t be writing classical music at all.
So let’s acknowledge that we need to update and upgrade our idea of “the Arts” in this area before we determine its veracity and/or perform a post-mortem. Otherwise, we’re going to keep putting on concerts in empty halls and asking ourselves where the world went wrong.
Share it!
9 Responses to Do the Arts Matter Anymore? More Importantly, What IS the Arts Scene?
Leave a Reply to Em Cancel reply
STALK ME
Fewer people go to Jazz concerts because they go and end up having to listen to crappy hippie bands like Dumpstaphunk.
Applesauce I tell ya!
“if [Beethoven] were alive today he wouldn’t be writing classical music at all.”
a) How do we know this? and
b) Who cares if he would? If Shakespeare was alive, he wouldn’t write “Hamlet.” So what?
The whole tone of this article (Jazz died 40 years ago, no one listens to folk songs any more, Baroque music and still-life are dead forms,) it just piles up and piles up towards one basic argument:
Everything old is bad by virtue of being old, and everything new and “avant-garde” is necessarily interesting.
The evidence for this argument contradicts itself. You write that the decline of jazz audiences means its relevance “expired” some time circa 1970, while conceding that attendance “could be better” for “groundbreaking” works. It sounds like you consider Troy Night Out, First Friday etc. “by and large successful” because, um, you personally like them more than you like Duke Ellington. I see no other evidence presented here.
So I would like to know how you measure “relevance.” And is “relevance” in fact the primary goal of art? Should it be? Are there other considerations, such as the idea that certain art forms give meaning to their participants in the act of doing them (such as religious singing, folk song groups,) even if the size of the audience is limited?
I also don’t see any evidence for the argument that avant-garde genres “should be emphasized” because they inherently represent “progress…as a society” or a “whole new level of creativity.” The problem here is that “progress as a society” is just too normative a statement. Are you suggesting that the avant-garde is, by definition, more democratic than other art forms? What about Futurism, a movement with a complicated relationship to totalitarianism? Modernism? I’m not sure that preference for newer art forms necessarily requires or indicates the existence of expanded social toleration, democratic principles, or other signs of social progress. It may just mean the regime wants forms without historical baggage.
A lot of this article focuses on the need for new musical and visual arts forms. These don’t come from nowhere. Now time for radical oversimplifications to make a point: You can’t have Delta blues without African traditional song and European instrumentation. You can’t have Elvis without Delta blues. You can’t American pop rock without Elvis. (Radical oversimplification: Off.)
Now even if we love American pop rock, and it becomes the socially dominant cultural form, does that mean African traditional song and European instrumentation deserve less attention? If so, why?
Better example: Re-imaginings of Shakespeare. You may have seen on PBS, about 2 weeks ago there was this incredible presentation of MacBeth with Patrick Stewart. It was bloody, violent, darkly sexy, and set in a fascist aesthetic. It was very “avant-garde” compared to doing Shakespeare in collars and tights, and it was fantastic and compelling. Thing is, the dialogue itself is 400 years old. The language wasn’t re-worded, wasn’t simplified or stylized in any way. You can do MacBeth like this, you can set Richard III in Nazi Germany, or you can play Caliban as an anti-colonial metaphor, all because there is something in the centuries-old dialogue that lasts over time BETTER than 98% of what has been written since then. “Tommorow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow” is the same at it’s ever been.
While there may be “new levels of creativity” in the staging, the words are not significantly different than they were during some stuffy court presentation three centuries ago — and it is both because they are great that they last over centuries without change, and vice versa.
I just don’t accept the premise that new things are inherently interesting by virtue of being new, let alone that they should be embraced necessarily just for this reason.
/Soapbox off. Hoping to hear your thoughts!
a) How do we know this? and
b) Who cares if he would? If Shakespeare was alive, he wouldn’t write “Hamlet.” So what?
I can see this is where you and I are going to differ.
What made Beethoven and Shakespeare great wasn’t simply the quality of their works. Rather, it was the conventions they formed with their music by going in a different direction and formulating their own style. When you hear Beethoven in relation to other works of the time, or read Shakespeare in relation to other works presented in his time, it stands out.
And perhaps “relevance” is the wrong word. “Groundbreaking” may even be a bit of a stretch. But why wouldn’t we prefer something that stands out as unique, fascinating, and potentially changing its respective form?
Nononononono. You’re totally misconstruing my argument, which is understandable since I was a bit rushed in writing it.
Not everything old is bad by virtue of being old. I even concede the need and importance for recognition and continuation of these forms.
My issue, which I thought I made clear with the blog post, was specifically with the continued emphasis being put on these forms. Jazz is one thing. An emphasis and conveyance of the NEED for numerous jazz concerts being performed in the area, with the scene cannibalizing itself, doesn’t benefit or grow the Arts scene.
They’re by and large successful in relation to jazz concerts because more people are interested in, and showing continued interest in, these events than they do jazz and classical concerts in this area. While it could (or should) be better, the interest and enthusiasm for it is much better than it is for what we otherwise might consider the “Arts” scene in the region.
That was my point.
You’re also putting words in my mouth. It’s not that I prefer Troy Night Out and First Friday to Duke Ellington (which is a strange comparison). I do, however, prefer more attention and greater emphasis be put towards the creation of new works to the replication of old works.
Again, comparing local events to an old jazz artist in a discussion on the local Arts scene is a bit strange. But if you’re asking if I prefer that local artists creating new works be given greater emphasis and attention from patrons than somebody playing old Duke Ellington covers, then yes, absolutely.
An appreciation for what came before, but an emphasis on the new art that’s actually being done now. How is that not better for the local Arts scene?
They deserve attention, but they do not deserve sole and primary emphasis. This is because not much can be done other than replication of old works, simply to show that they exist. Which is fine; we need those reminders for perspective. But again – if you’re asking if I find more merit in somebody creating new work in a genre with roots to an old form of music, of course! Someone doing European instrumentation is nice, but what is it doing to advance it further?
Jazz, classical, etcetera: these are all forms that should be represented and brought to audiences…to an extent. However, they are not ALL that should be presented. Yet when many folks – including patrons and advocates – invoke the phrase “The Arts,” they are specifically referring to these performances.
Which is my point. When we talk about The Arts, the first thing that should come to mind is all the new and exciting work being done in the area. Yet that’s not the case. Which is why we need to re-shape and re-frame our discussion, so that we get to a point where when we say The Arts, we’re not just talking about classical and jazz and standard theatrical performances.
For a good time, re-read the blog add an “f” to the beginning of “art” every time it appears.
My favorite part of the newspaper is the FARTS AND ENTERTAINMENT section!
first of all, if Beethoven were alive today, he’d be like hundreds of years old…..
I think every kind of art should be available to whoever wants to see or hear it. I just don’t want my taxes paying for it. I spend my money on what I want to see and hear. Not to beat a dead horse, but it’s like the Robert Maplethorpe deal….I don’t want my taxes paying for this guy’s “art”..of course I don’t want it paying for that “modern art” crap at the empire state plaza either. Or paintings of cute puppies….
lastly…..what the hell kind of girls did Picasso date? They were some freaky looking chicks.
Interesting point. I work in the arts (non-profit organization) and have noticed that there’s a ton going on, particularly in visual arts, sort of off the grid. I guess what the “arts health” argumants are concerned with is whether or not people can earn livings producing art, or receive salaries for curating, etc. (And that’s ok!) Maybe Sondheim’s line from Sunday in the Park is true: “Work is what you do for others, liebshen. Art is what you do for yourself.”
In most of the arts, this is the difference between a neophyte and an expert: the former knows what he likes; the latter likes what he knows.
Okay I get it, we need to keep Art fresh and moving forward .That said, we also need to encourage and preserve what came before. Each new artist builds a little on what preceded their own works. They don’t create in a vacuum. Typically they dip their toes in many ponds taking a little away from each until they find their own calling. It will be a said day when there is no live Jazz to listen to or the only place we see “ducks in a pond” is in a book. If my tax dollars need to used to ensure the continued existence of well established art forms that the public no longer supports through the shear power of consumerism then that is what we should be doing.