- What makes an artist, a "Los Angeles/New York/Chicago/Midwest, Southern, Canadian, Kansas City, Peoria, etc" artist? Did you notice any stereotyping as you read that list?
- Is identifying as an artist from a specific place relevant in understanding the work, or just a convenient byline to add to the bio?
- If too much emphasis is placed on identity and location, how is this different from regionalism?
- Does a city need or want a cohesive artistic identity? Why? Wouldn't that lead to a closed system or stunt artistic growth?
- Does simply being identified with an arts capital give an artist more weight, regardless of what kind of work they do?
- How does any of this affect the actual art being made and the opportunities for growth as an artist?
- Do artists still strive or need to leave smaller cities in order to live a fulfilled life in the arts?
- If there is a certain stigma to being an [insert city] artist. If so, why?
- Every now an then I see some Utopian arts village being advertised located far from the maddening crowd. Cheaper space, a community for artists, lots of valid reasons enticing artists to relocate. Why don't these work?
- How can smaller cities become more vital in the arts?
- Do all artists suffer from what was referred to as a "malaise" in being from a smaller city?
- When I lived in Chicago 15 years ago, people were talking about leaving to go to NY or LA, so really, what's place go to do with it; we can't all live in 2 or 3 cities?
The reasons are usually obvious why artists leave smaller cities, so I'm more curious on finding solutions or innovations for why and how artists can make smaller cities more vital.
And by smaller cities I mean cities independent of a major arts-centric city. Like for instance, Long Beach or Hoboken wouldn't cut it in my discussion.
Obviously, I've my own reasons for posing this question, but I'd love to hear from anyone, including dealers, gallerists, curators, collectors etc. who stumbles upon this post.
Thanks,
m.a.h.
7 comments:
i will reflect on this and answer a bit more, but off the bat, i have noticed that our place gives others a way to judge and place us in Their notions. but that is not to say that it is bad & all people judge - providing the info as a sense of connectedness, brings people together. it is part of our bio.
i just had to tell someone "hey i LIVE there, i am not FROM there..." even finding myself guilty of perpetuating something negative in reference to where i live now. a bad move.
what is key is finding your place no matter where you are...
I have thought a lot about all of these questions because I've moved around and always been identified by where I was before vs where I am now. But the answer is maybe somewhere inbetween or none of the above.
But the artist I am interviewing tomorrow talks about being from one place and going to another and all the culture shock. I think I will ask him just what being an Oregon Artist means....
Thanks to you both.
Eva, yes, it's the moving around thing that has prompted me to ask. I look forward to hearing the interview.
I'm working on an essay and wanted to hear from others.
I've done a 180 on this topic in recent years. I rather naively thought identity didn't matter, that people will respond well to good work. I believed being outside the art centers freed me from insidious influences. I believed in the creative possibilities of an independent art scene. I always thought this was so doable and exciting.
Recently the art scene here has changed. It's become much larger. It's very focussed on recognizable work, be it by an "art star" from somewhere else, or a locally grown reasonable facsimile. My little dream of independent vitality, for myself and for the region, is toast, as am I, unless I garner up some outside kudos.
So it depends on who you're dealing with. Where the art people are overly concerned with art stardom, identity matters big time. I think this is just blatantly moronic, but currently I just accept the situation, kick myself for hanging around, and am rethinking who I hang with and where I hang my hat.
I'd like to be more positive, especially as you are making such a big move, but it is what it is. Maybe my contribution here is, "whatever you do, don't slippery-slope your way into my mental state" :-)
Thanks, Jaded One.
Outside kudos. True that, but even that doesn't get street cred in some cities. I get the idea that some folks east of the Mississippi don't give LA props as an arts capital.
On a personal note, I too have been kicking myself for some errors of judgement that might have made put me in a better position, but who knew?
It's only when I start tracking the hype factor and bullshit that I feel slightly f*cked. For instance, in my inbox regarding spaces in Austin Texas: "I'm sure it won't surprise you to learn that wall-based work is somewhat out of favor among the young and hip in Austin - the easiest way to get your foot in the door is through non-commercial, ephemeral, site-specific, installation type stuff."
The wonderful thing about LA is that there's no need to apologize for being a painter. There's a strong roster of painters working in various styles and there doesn't seem to be a hierarchy, but I could be wrong. I try and keep my head in the sand about such things.
I do wonder about the hinterlands being innately insecure artwise, and so there is a tendency to gravitate towards stuff that's overtly considered more cutting edge (by a superficial understanding of art), ie. installation=good, wall art=old school.
You may want to start building your own crates, and keep your work coastal.
One of the things that influence the art you make is where you live/have lived. We can’t get away from that, though it may not be easily recognized in your work or emphasized.
Emphasis on identity and location, there is a place for that in art.
Do cities need cohesive artistic identity? That would be hard to find or build I think. Renegades are everywhere especially in art (one of the reasons artists colonies don’t work a lot of the time). My immediate reaction is; I don’t like the idea, think it is a bad idea because it would stunt artistic growth.
Does being identified with an arts capital give your art more weight?
Many believe it can, and that might mean it does.
Artists do often both strive and/or need to move to larger centres. Moving to a larger or different centre is a way to stretch your point of view, as well as give you more chance to be seen by a larger/different audience. Many artists believe that to be a fulfilled artist you must make a show of yourself outside of St. John’s or Cranbrook. Sometimes they need to move, sometimes not. I know of artists who live in smaller places and show in bigger centres. In some of those cases, though, they are established before they move to the smaller place. Or they move to a large centre and once they have acquired places to show their work move back.
Stigma of place: stigmas exist everywhere, including the arts. I live in Vancouver now and it seems that we are known for our photo based work. Whether you fit into your city's niche influences your chances to show in the "better" galleries
How can smaller cities become more vital in the arts?
Allot more money for the promotion and support of arts. Make/support a variety art forms. Educate children in the importance of culture. Some smaller cities i.e. St. John’s NL swarm with arts and culture and controversy around arts and culture, but it would not be recognized in the New York Region as being vital. It is.
Do all artists suffer from what was referred to as a "malaise" in being from a smaller city?
Many do.
Importance of where you live:
Some places are more supportive of the kind of art you want to do, for instance, painting in LA, installation in Smallishtown USA.
Post a Comment