Define Artist For Me

Good morning.

"And the beat goes on...................."

We talk a lot about artists.  Artists are, after all, at least one of the client groups we serve in the nonprofit arts - the other being the public.

But there is a dearth of any clear definition of what we mean by the term artist.  Philosophers and theorists have long considered and debated the question without any definitive answer.  And maybe that's both the logic and implausibility of attempting to deal with the question.  Maybe toiling over a definition is a perfidy of the purity of the concept.  Or maybe it's best left to the practitioner. to define.

When we use the term, do we mean, exclusively, or even principally, artists who work in the fine arts fields of music, visual art, dance, theater and more contemporary art forms such as film or media?  Do we include craftspeople?  Do we include amateurs?  Do we mean to imply that the term artist somehow embodies professionals, or those who make their living from their artistry?  Or do we include within the term anyone who creates any kind of art on any level, including both those who self-define as artists and those who, for whatever reasons, do not? Does the term refer to aspiration, success, occupation or otherwise?    Is excellence in execution a prerequisite to claim the title?

Are rock stars (or rock wannabes) and hip hop rappers artists?  And if they are, are they then included in our work, or, by default, do we limit our efforts to classical musicians, ballet dancers, and opera divas -- only certain artists?  Do some of us do that, and others of us not, thereby giving evidence to our multiple definitions of artist, at least as th same relates to our professional charge?

Is it the case that we have lots of definitions of what constitutes an artist, and is that because we haven't made any attempt to actually narrow down any definition of the term.  Is it somehow exclusive or is it purposefully all inclusive?    

Does it make any difference?  Do we even care what the definition is?  Do we develop policies based on some unspoken consensus definition of the term "artist", or is the very idea of any consensus on such a definition merely a convenient, but inaccurate, refusal to address the question?  Would a definition make any difference in how we did our jobs, what we funded, how we marketed, what programs we favored, or the more meaty issues of equity, public value and beyond?  Is the very term "artist" connected to the equity question?    

What does the public believe an artist is, and does their definition (if there is one) matter?  Why or why not?

Is the very definition of an artist so elusive a concept as to be impossible to categorize, or is it so pedestrian that its unnecessary to define it?  Is it, like pornography, of which Supreme Court Justice, Potter Stewart,  famously declared that he couldn't define it, but "I know it when I see it"?  Do each of us understand what is meant by the term artist as individuals? And if so, do those understandings and definitions vary greatly by and between each of us? And do we, for whatever reasons, pretend that we all agree?  

Is artist defined by talent and skill, by length of practice or legacy? Are there common characteristics of all artists beyond the attempt to create?  Do we include those only within our sphere or all of those beyond our recognition?  If creation alone does not constitute conferring the appellation of artist, can one grow into the post?  If art is a process, are you an artist only when you have practiced your "art" for a term?  

Or is the definition of an artist and art best left to each of us to ponder for ourselves?  Would that conclusion make our work in the nonprofit arts easier, or axiomatically more difficult?

There are a thousand questions about how to possibly define the term "artist', why do it, why not, and what it might mean.  Where to start?  Where to stop?     

I don't know, but increasingly I think it at least has bearing, even if unintended and unrecognized, on what we do and how we do it, and we thus ought to examine the question.

Have a good day.  

Don't Quit

Barry

Jumpstarting Discussions Model

Good morning.
"And the beat goes on................"

There is a game on the internet that is gaining traction.  No, not Pokemon Go.  Meant to be fun, and maybe make you laugh, if not guffaw. Simple and silly.  You fill in the blanks for four words to describe:

How to Ruin A First Date.  
_______   _______     ______    _______

As in:   OH, THERE'S MY EX

Or:   MY RASH IS GETTING BETTER

YOU LOOK ALMOST HEALTHY

LOAN ME FIFTY DOLLARS

ALIENS ONCE ABDUCTED ME

A JOB ISN'T IMPORTANT

You get the idea.  It's endless.

And you can use any question.

I thought the game could be played in the arts, but with a more meaningful purpose -- to actually stimulate some thinking on some of our big challenges; a way to jumpstart conversations and get us into the mentality of asking some probative questions. An ice-breaker, designed to encourage a focus during a subsequent conversation.   Call it The Four Word Group Think or something.....

So:  How Do We Increase Public Valuation? might yield answers like these:

FOCUS ON KIDS FIRST

MAKE THE ECONOMIC LINK

ENOUGH ECONOMIC ARGUMENTS ALREADY

EMPHASIZE THE COMMUNITY CONNECTION

MAKE RELEVANCY THE PRIORITY

IMPLEMENT PUBLIC MEDIA CAMPAIGNS

PLACEMAKING AT THE CORE


OR:  Why Are Our Audiences Declining?  might produce answers like these:

THE CONTENT IS IRRELEVANT

THE COSTS ARE TOO HIGH

THE HOURS ARE INCONVENIENT

IT'S A BIG HASSLE

I'VE NEVER BEEN BEFORE

WHEN IS IT PLAYING?

OR:  How do we jumpstart equity in the Arts? with these answers possible:

MORE MONEY TO MULTICULTURALS

MORE ACTION, LESS TALK

DIVERSIFY STAFFS AND BOARDS

IDENTIFY STRUCTURAL RACISM POLICIES

ELIMINATE STUCTURAL RACIST POLICIES

SHIFT PHILANTHROPIC DOLLAR CONTROL

JETTISON "UNDERSERVED" "AT-RISK" TERMINOLOGY

MORE TRAINING FOR EVERYBODY

The answers might vary widely depending on the question asked and of whom.  As a tool this might be valuable to use at staff meetings, retreats, conferences, panel sessions, summits et. al. to address almost any issue and to get people involved.  It requires answers that are succinct and to the point, bans long winded analysis at the outset, and it allows for thinking that can be discussed, agreed or disagreed with, and invites subsequent deeper analysis.  It's just a new way to consider old challenges; one that lends itself to varied Step 2 processes and protocols - by breaking into smaller groups, narrowing the discussion to one or two responses, seeking expanded ideas, suggesting further research  etc.  Anything that fosters new thinking or new approaches seems to me of value, as we tend to get mired down in the same kinds of approaches and discussions, using the same tired tools and protocols, for too long. And, as a consequence, we get stuck.

So one question might be:

How do we get ourselves unstuck and moving again?

TRY NEW DIFFERENT APPROACHES


Have a great day.

Don't Quit
Barry

Sports Are On The Rise, While The Arts Are In Decline. Why?

Good morning.
"And the beat goes on..............."


I haven't been up to posting for awhile.  Apologies. 


Sports v. Arts:
Sports are on the rise, while the arts are in decline.  Why?

Sports and the arts are often lumped into the same box, as in treating them similarly in the context of school curriculum.  Both electives.  Both of value, but both often considered dispensable. Similarly, sports and arts are often linked in municipal agencies under the Parks and Recreation banner.

And while the Arts, in some respects, have made measurable gains in support, it is Sports (particularly professional sports) that has grown in public value, attendance, income, participatory  involvement, media attention and otherwise.

Why?  Certainly Sports have capitalized on America's penchant for contests and ultimately, winners.  Not to mention our all consuming involvement with the cult of "celebrity".  Sports has captured media attention and social platform time far more than have the Arts.  But I think there are other fundamental forces at play too.

I watched the Stanley Cup (Ice Hockey) Playoffs last month - mainly because the San Jose Sharks were in it for the first time ever, and San Jose is the local Bay Area team.  I admit I don't follow the game much, and don't even fully understand all the rules and the nuances of professional play.  And to be truthful I don't find it all that interesting.

I am not really a fan of ice hockey, nor of what we call soccer and the rest of the world calls, football.  I use to think the reason I didn't care much about these sports (whereas I have alway been an American football, basketball and baseball fan), was because they were kind of boring.  Not much scoring.  Tedious in a way.  But I've come to the conclusion that the real reason I don't much care about them is because I never played them as a kid. I had no experience with them, no legacy appreciation, no history of involvement.  We didn't play them in school. We didn't play them on the weekends.

I also watched the Warriors play for, but lose this year, the NBA Championship.  And because I played basketball as a kid and had an appreciation for the game, I was into the playoffs (and sports playoffs are always more fun if your team is playing).

When I was growing up kids played football, and baseball and basketball.  Not every kid of course, but perhaps most.  I'm not talking about being on the team and excelling.  I'm talking about on Saturday mornings or after-school afternoons or summer time - in the street, at the park or a playground, on someone's lawn.  By playing the sport we got to know the rules, the nuances of the game and could understand and appreciate what performing at a high level meant, even if that wasn't the level we performed at.  It gave us a foundation on which to watch professional football, basketball and baseball on television (or sometimes in person) and to understand the finer points of strategy, play calling and execution.  We had a local or regional team to root for, and we were glued to the tv when they played.   We were groomed to be lifelong supporters.

And then too, for most kids our fathers played a role in our love affair with sports, for playing catch or hoops with your father, or just watching games on television together was a sort of rite of passage and a bonding experience.  Then school gave you a chance to play on organized teams with structure and learn about the games.  And so a large portion of the male population grew to love sports - both as a diversion and escape from the daily grind, and as professions that had rigid and sophisticated structures within their ecosystems to respect.  And today, the sporting industries are big, big business with widespread support and public involvement.  Sports stars are celebrities, heroes and role models (even when they aren't). Kids dream of being like their sports idols.  And today, kids do play soccer on the weekends, and hence its growing popularity in America - though it will take another generation before soccer (football) takes a place along side American football, basketball and baseball.

There are other factors of course, including the competition, the challenges of winning and the jingoistic appeal of "my team" vs. "your team."  And while there is something simplistic and even banal about the competition between cities and the yearning to win, and not just win, but defeat somebody else, sports remain dear in the hearts of countless fans (men and women too); in ways which the Arts, unfortunately, do not.

But bottom line:  I think it has a lot to do with the fact that sports has succeeded in being part of kids lives to an extent that arts have not.

The heart of the sports complex support over the past fifty years has been the farm team system - and by that I mean that the audience for sports was created very early on in the lives of the fans - on playgrounds, in schools and in parks and streets - nurtured by parental involvement and camaraderie, and fanned by constant and widespread media coverage.  But at the core, was the reality that we played sports as kids.  And though we stopped playing not long thereafter, our interest kept growing.

Is there a lesson for us here?

Organized sports owes much of its success to unorganized sports kids play.

I think there is a similarity with the arts.  I think that for us to expand our fan base and support ecosystem to rival the benefits of the sports industrial complex, we too must provide the opportunity to kids at a young age to create in the arts.  It isn't enough that they have exposure and access to the arts, we have to provide the opportunities for them to make art - to dance, act, play make music, paint, sculpt, film and all the rest.  For fun, if not professionalism.  We have to use the schools to provide those opportunities, but we have to provide them outside the schools too - during after school hours, on weekends and during the summer. The goal is not for them all to become professional artists, but rather to have a history of art in their background which is valued. We need them to form a farm-system for arts support as it were.  And that won't happen even if the arts are firmly established in K-12 arts education, because that's just one part of the equation.

We also need parental involvement - side by side with their kids, particularly in the earliest stages of the creative process, and then as companion audience members as kids grow up.  It isn't the exposure to the arts that will make for future supporters and audiences, its the doing, the making of art and the parental sharing that will make the difference. Creativity -- parent and child together -- is key to the process of nurturing future arts supporters. While kids aspire to be sports celebrities, they also aspire to be music stars. We need to capture the spark behind the latter and make it applicable to all arts. And we need media coverage of some kind.  On a regular basis.

Kids who make art over time, and have parental involvement at the earliest stages, will arguably be like the sports fans later in their lives - interested, committed and supportive; not necessarily artists, but appreciative fans of the arts.  That's hardly new.  As a field we have known that for a long time.

Their are innumerable challenges to making that a reality, including the fact that while sports now enjoys a legacy of parental connection, as well as unparalleled media attention, the arts do not.  Thus it will be incumbent on us, as part of our strategy, to address how we get parents involved in the making of art early on - so as to complement our efforts in the schools.  We must also devise ways to make access to the making of art outside of, and in addition to, the school settings.  And perhaps the internet and technology have already solved that challenge, though we aren't likely maximizing its potential to help us in an overall strategy to develop future audiences and supporters.  And we have got to figure out how to capture some kind of sustained media attention that involves the public as an audience.  Art news, criticism, analysis and other coverage like sports news, analysis, and commentary is essential secondary coverage, but by itself it isn't the same as direct audiences for the performances - whether art or sports.

While the reality is that we haven't even yet got basic arts programs into all the K-12 schools, we are making progress as K-12 arts education is more, not less, prevalent than in the past.  But we have to now expand our big picture aspirations to encompass more than just getting arts in the schools. We have to make the arts and the process of creating available outside the schools and we have to get parental involvement at the early stages to complement media coverage.

Possible?  I don't know.

Have a good week.

Don't Quit.
Barry