Fallon's news from the front

[Sam Spiczka]

Gabe - I agree with you that human contact is still the primary way to connect with an audience. I didn't mean to imply that the internet was anything more than a good way to increase communication and transparency. My fundamental issue with Michael's image of the artist simmering in their own resentment is that to live/think like that is counterproductive and indicative of failure no matter what your profession. Hell, if you're a garbage collector or school teacher and that's your attitude, you will not succeed/advance.

[Michael Fallon]

Good comments all around. I agree that marketing is a key for artists, but marketing demands a clear and clinical view of what's really happening in the market, and this means in all aspects of the market--for profit and commercial, nonprofit and governmental, societal and cultural, etc.

For the record, my statements about artists in their "dank studios" was not really intended for publication--even though I eventually did "publish" them here. They were part of a rhetorical e-discussion with an artist/friend. The questions I ask in that statement are rhetorical, meant to make a point. I don't really believe that all artists are resentful, though the attitude does exist. I do think, however, that most, if not all, artists have some degree ignorance about important business aspects of art making and about the realities of the arts market. I also agree that the resentment I describe in artists is ultimately harmful, and in fact this was the point of my e-rhetorirant to FG.

BTW, speaking of high horses and ignorance about the market and business, I find it curious and telling that an artist would so flatly dismiss the nonprofit sector, when that artist has benefitted from and been greatly involved in organizations, foundations, galleries, programs, schools, organizations, and sculpture parks that are themselves nonprofit, or primarily funded by nonprofits, or both. Every artist, even ones that believe their output to be the height of salable aesthetic production, relies on one degree or another on the nonprofit sector and the nonprofit tax code to establish and conduct their business, and every artist needs, as part of a business or marketing plan, to learn to fully negotiate the nonprofit world. Indeed, this very venue, mnartists.org, through which so many people have become connected and carried on arts activities, is a nonprofit org funded primarily by a nonprofit charitable foundation and supported by a nonprofit museum. The fact that artists take advantage of it is a good sign.

Additionally, this artistic reliance on nonprofits occurs not only in the realm of exhibition and financial support, but also in the necessary services that artists rarely think about (and that I have been thinking about and plan to write more about in coming months): health care, insurance, retirement and estate planning, low-income housing and subsidized studio space, legal services, and so on.

The nonprofit link in the arts is not a golden chariot, it is reality. To imply otherwise sheer, well, poppycock born of arrogance or some other bug-in-the-arse. Further, know artists, as I suggest in my original article, if nonprofit and governmental support continues to shrink, then you will feel the pinch. And it appears that this support will continue to shrink unless someone says or does something about it.

[Sam Spiczka]

Michael, I appreciate it that you continue these conversations online instead of just "dumping" the article on the frontpage and then ignoring the followups which happens the vast majority of the time. However, in your last response, you just did again one thing that drives me crazy about your writing. Why not just write, "it strikes me as hypocritical that Sam Spiczka utilizes the non-profit sector but is not that supportive of it"? Similarly, in your article about the giant "Ikea-like, corporate design" I can only assume you're talking about the new Guthrie Theater? I don't know, I haven't been there or seen it so I'd rather you just name names instead of dancing around them like you're a snake-charmer.

I do and have taken advantage of opportunities offered by non-profits (though none of the social services you mention) and there are many people working for them truly on the side of angels. They are part of the reality that is the art world in general and Minnesota in particular. Perhaps you missed my comments on mnartists.org and how beneficial I believe it is? I am aware it is funded by non-profits.

But non-profits are only one aspect of the art world, and I don't believe the one that will lead to sustainability for individual artists. If you want to talk about education or perhaps another field like theater, that's something different and I don't feel qualified to comment on that. I'm speaking to the ability of the individual visual artists to make a living from their work. I wish I had the current numbers, but back in the day they did a study and found 6 cents on the dollar of arts funding went to individual artists. It is unrealistic to believe that funding in that amount, dependent as it is on ever-changing selection committes and the fickle public, will be enough to keep artist's heads above water. To that extent, non-profits serve a role but not a primary role.

What we really need is to foster a collector-base in MN that buys art locally. The exhibition/media venues cultivated by non-profits work to create a solid background in the greater composition of the art market. The foreground is directly establishing relationships with the audience/collectors and selling the work. Both are necessary for the strength of the whole image, but each alone is incomplete. I'm merely trying to direct attention to the foreground whereas you focus on the larger background.

Your comments about the stewing, resentful artist may not have been meant for publication, but I believe I have read similar characterizations in past articles so I didn't think it unfair to comment on them.

[Sam Spiczka]

I think it would be helpful if I added a "for instance"...

This summer I spoke and installed a work at Franconia Sculpture Park, a great non-profit venue. I met some outstanding people there, talked about sculpture and art in general, and was able to exhibit a sculpture of mine where it would be seen by a superb audience. However, other than a room (and some of the best meals I've ever had), I received no money to reimburse the cost of my transportation, materials, etc. Effectively, though I would do it again in a heartbeat, I lost money taking part. (I would in fact consider this a donation on my part to the organization and community in general, though it won't show up on my tax statement.)

Even if you are one of the handful of grant recipients at the park, those grants, which appear quite large on paper, barely cover the costs involved for the artists. I consider every participant there to be "foot soldiers" in building the arts community. They do it because they love it. Their dedication and sacrifice are admirable, even with the increased prestige that being at Franconia entails. On purely economic terms though, it makes little sense and is not sustainable for the individuals. Places like Franconia are vital to creating a strong sculpture community, but they are not enough in and of themselves.

[Gabriel Combs]

Sam, I was just commenting on it as i've seen that truth of the dank, bitter studio minded artist played out so well, so many times. Its really common in some fields, and I believe its a service to have someone call it out. I remember that being touched on in one of your past articles also, Michael, and I think its a good thing you did. Simple observation, and after all, you're an arts writer. And I think the web has been fundamental for me at times, really. However, in the end, it would've been impotent had I not begun making contact. Its all inter-connected, and the web, the non-profits, the artists, art-buyers, arts writer all make it tick together. So, ultimately I think its pretty obvious that losing any aspect, or having that aspect shrink, would be detrimental. Afterall, mnartists.org has made a huge difference on my life as an artist. Naturally, its important to not become comepletly reliant on one element of the arts world. It is an artists' responsibility to get their work out there, and if its not being recieved, they've either failed themselves in finding their demographic, or they just are'nt very good at art. The latter unfortunately breeds more dank studio dwellers that are self-decieving and bitter.

Well, thanks again.

[S. Holster]

It would seem that this thread is touching upon a spectrum of issues that really do, ultimately, go back to the motives and tactics of the artists themselves. Once again, why is there the propensity to point a finger in every other direction than towards the self, the artist? Really now, in many cases, the self-proclaimed artist. The dank studio dwelling resentful P.O’d at the world and everything in it kind of artist that, yes Sam, crawls all over these twin cities and in every other city in this country, as well as the world. There is a long standing and simple truth that many see ‘artists’ in a less than favorable light. Personally I see this in evidence in the simple act of having lunch in the MCAD cafeteria on a semi-regular basis. These kids see themselves as the artists of the future, and project themselves as what they perceive as what an ‘artist’ is and how an ‘artist’ behaves, adorns, carries ones self. Dour, proclaimitory, outside of the operational ethos of the common world at large, {special}, existing in a realm where ‘rules’ don’t apply. To get cruel about it, it strikes me that the building is funded by the parents of a bunch of kids who had their asses kicked sideways for four years in high school and bolted for the shelter that ‘art school’ provides, and in turn are expressing themselves in any and every way that distances them from their future patrons. The ones that kicked their asses sideways in high school and became power brokers with the disposable income to spend on art and art objects that their wives (or househusbands, in this liberated age) demand that they buy to make their homes more inviting for the guests of their cocktail parties. With that, who the hell is going to support (buy something from) someone who is spitting in the face of every and anything that you are or represent?
Then there’s this faction of the art world that insists that it’s ‘underrepresented’ The faction that relies more on marginalized status in the world at large to receive its funding, quality of craft be damned, I’m underrepresented and smearing color on a canvass therefore I’m more deserving of public funding through birthright. This is a trend that needs to stop if any talented and skillful artist ever wants to see one cent of public funding. It happens in art, in politics, in business, etc – remove the entitlement ethos and we can and will ALL move forward in every aspect of our lives and culture. To dial it in to the creative world, and here I’ll reference a couple of Curtis’s statements – in particular the doling out of public funds to fabricators instead of artists…oooohhhh, that one really stuck in my craw for some reason….If you want your work in a public court you MUST know how to solidly construct something. The object. Physically. And make sure, sure as shit that a chunk isn’t going to break off and injure/kill someone. Art does not end with the idea. It’s not art, especially not art if it doesn’t physically hold up and you are not an artist if all you can do is come up with the idea. CRAFTMANSHIP MATTERS. Sorry if you don’t want to think the thing all the way through, IT’S YOUR JOB TO THINK AND EXECUTE IT ALL THE WAY THROUGH. If you can’t, well then you are just not that good and have no right to use the term artist in reference to yourself. I’m a fabricator and am called an artist. I gravitate to the title of fabricator and craftsman first, artist second, and artist only in the fact that that is what others refer to me as. SKILL MATTERS. TECHNICAL ACUITY MATTERS. This is a reason I hold high regard for Sam. He is an artist, artisan, craftsman, and skilled fabricator. He is an artist because he can take a notion from concept to object and follow through with the sales and marketing. Every step of the way without claiming a status of entitlement, his work speaks, his work is and stands on its own. It empowers itself without excuses. The man does the work.
Too many ‘conceptualists’ are labeling themselves as ‘artists’ and the decline in interest and funding is a direct result of a larger cowardice to call this out, to recognize the difference between idea and action, the fear of naming, labeling, calling a duck a swan instead of a duck…dig? Too many crafters are socially preassured into calling their craft art and blurring the lines. ( It was GREAT to read about crafters being uncomfortable with the tag artist in the article in ‘Exchange a+E Issue 11’ I’m thrilled that there is a recognition of this from the creator side, THRILLED) As well, ‘artists’ need to stop casting a dispersive gaze at the craftsmen amongst us, get the hell off that high horse that just stinks of jealousy in someone elses ability to craft a solid object or work that also has a degree of artistic merit. Artists, learn your freakin’ craft, know your tools and how they work and what they do before forcing the product out onto the world. Otherwise you are nothing but just another hack that sings a good song to make up for the fact that you really just kinda suck, but present yourself well.
Artists need to get back to the idea that art is a discipline and a craft that has a set of parameters and rules that must be followed before it can be labeled as art, and get comfortable with the idea that the word art is in and of itself a label. Stand up for it, quit making excuses and grandiose ‘statements’ when the work itself does not have legs of it’s own. Artists need to start making a mark as well, generate interest themselves, market themselves; the only way that someone else will actively take part in that process is when they think that they can turn a buck on it as well. Art is not a cop out, but has been treated as such by the artists themselves. Throwing the onus of failure or weakness on the ‘dumb public’ or ‘conspiratorial power set’ instead of the weak work and poor follow through of the hack presenter.
I’m rambling, I’m spinning out at this point, but I think y’all get the idea. Art is work. If you’re not down with that, get used to calling yourself a hobbyist.

[Curtis Ingvoldstad]

Hey S.

I find it funny that the question was what is wrong with foundations in MN and it turned a 180 to what is wrong with artist. I just answered the question with a survey of what I hear and see. But I realize that there is a huge dynamic range of possible fixes on all sides from all perspectives. Tragically we all have or own answers but truly can agree on few things. Which trends to complicate the conversation and makes the questions hard to answer. But for the sake of discussion I throw two cents. I think the bottom line os that we would all like to see meaningful and inspiring art coming from this area. The potential is here. I don't believe all the artist in this state are mediocre that's lazy and dismissive.

As far as my misconstrued comments. Shawn, I agree with you and that is my point exactly. Artist do need to develope skill appropriate for the work, as far as stability and longevity of artwork. But from my experience you learn that by taking on these public art project and having dialogues with city officials and trades people to understand the specs. for this kind of work. MY POINT BEING I AM WILLING AND ABLE TO DO THIS KIND OF WORK BUT I feel that I am not allowed the opportuninty because as you so foolishly assume(as others do of ever artist) I and all artists am not capable of such work. But on the contrary I have schooling in engineering and I am forced by my chosen medium to create in a purposeful way so the structure is always an issue. As far as craft or art the lines do blur dramatically I can see them both as legitimate. But don't be blinded by your own definitions. If you like neat little box and labels perhaps you would like the corporate world. Painting is a craft and and art. sculpture is a craft and an art. drawing is a craft and an art. and on and on. There is no limit but what you put on yourself.

In fact art has been around so long and influenced human life on this earth in so many ways I truly don't believe any on can put a label what a pure art form is. I think that is why the foundations and the artist struggle with this question over and over.

[S. Holster]

I'm not making an assumption or an attack on you directly, I find yours (sculpture) to fit the thought out and well constructed variety. I like anyone that works with chainsaws. As well, I think we are more on the same page than is being construed here. The five points that you made did indeed come across as observations, observations of prevelent attitudes that, well, simply chaff my cheese. The reason why I took it around 180 is that the organizations and the artists that they are supposedly serving is that it's the pool of artists and their attitudes that influence how those organizations work. The bold face type was directed at the hacks out there, not you specifically.
( I've mentioned it in previous posts and will again that this is the frustrating aspect of message boards, the ease in which words can be taken as hostile when that is not the intent. In ways it's good, forces all of us to become more effective communicators in print)
I look at the last paragraph in Fallons peice for this reference as well, where he is basically saying ( and correct me if I'm wrong) that we as artists need to be more proactive about our fates and carreers because no one else is going to do it for you, and one way to go about that is by being vocal. Which I hope to hell continues here, I'd like to see this thread continue and maybe, just maybe draw more out there into this discussion. I'm still waiting to hear from more voices than the usual suspects, the silence seems fairly telling of the apathy on the individual level out there.......

[S. Holster]

the comment about wanting or needing little boxes, well, how else do you go about coming to criteria? I really don't get this aversion to having the nerve to start drawing some parameters. Yes, words are multiple entandric, but c'mon man. We gripe about 'who's criteria' and 'what criteria' while at the same time we refuse to start grappling with some definitive terms and meanings. It just seems so namby-pamby across the board. And you have a good idea there, will be starting another thread tonight for these issues so as to allow this one to get back to it's original questions....

[S. Holster]

Originally Posted by Curtis Ingvoldstad

In fact art has been around so long and influenced human life on this earth in so many ways I truly don't believe any on can put a label what a pure art form is. I think that is why the foundations and the artist struggle with this question over and over.

Lastly, for the evening that is, I really don't think that I or anyone else are attempting to define "pure art" but I do firmly stand behind the idea of calling crap, crap, and giving fundamental reasons why the examples are indeed crap, and driving it out of the discussion and the market, the idea that this can't be done and shouldn't be grappled with as to not step on any toes or hurt anyones feelings is offensive and insulting to anyone who strives to acheive, and is crap.

Be well, and hope to continue this into the future. (no smilie use here, I find them to be a form of crap. Instead I'll say that these comments are made with the highest regard to you, Curtis.)