ARTBASE (2)
BIO
Jason Van Anden is a new media activist, artist, inventor and robot maker. His creations are exhibited internationally, receiving recognition in the art, science, technology and gaming communities. More about Jason and his work can be found at his website www.smileproject.com.
Re: Chalk up one more for NY vs Artists: De La Vega
I am always delighted to encounter De La Vega's work by chance. I am not sure that my aesthetic experience is justified when he delivers this by altering someone else's property without their permission. Is it the law that is the problem? Is this a Freedom of Expression issue? Should we ammend the constitution to include Freedom of Graffitti?
Why is an artist not also a criminal when he is caught breaking the law in the process of making art? How should the system distinguish a criminal act from an artistic one? I am not trying to be provocative here, I am genuinely interested in what the community thinks.
J
Why is an artist not also a criminal when he is caught breaking the law in the process of making art? How should the system distinguish a criminal act from an artistic one? I am not trying to be provocative here, I am genuinely interested in what the community thinks.
J
Sound Recording on Mac
Hi,
I am new to using the Mac (yadda yadda 10.3 -- making the switch... ), and I am looking for a simple (cheap) application to record and edit sound files with. Suggestions appreciated.
Thanks,
Jason
I am new to using the Mac (yadda yadda 10.3 -- making the switch... ), and I am looking for a simple (cheap) application to record and edit sound files with. Suggestions appreciated.
Thanks,
Jason
Re: Re: reality check?
> ... Ed Gillespie, the Republican chairman, said: "The parallels are there. I don't know how you miss them."
Dubya ran in 2000 as a "Compassionate Conservative". Doesn't this suggest he was different from the uncomapssionate conservatives before him?
J
Dubya ran in 2000 as a "Compassionate Conservative". Doesn't this suggest he was different from the uncomapssionate conservatives before him?
J
Re: commission voting 2004, the debriefing
> TURNOUT....
> Turnout was really low. Out of roughly 3000 eligible voting members,
> 51 (1.7%) members voted in the approval stage, and 19 (0.6%) voted in
> the ...
I find this to be the most relevant issue in the process. The really low turnout seems especially curious to me given that this community is made up of so many devoted artists creating interactive artwork. I wonder if this has something to do with the amount of effort required (looking through 50 proposals can be somewhat daunting - like, real work) balanced against the reward for participating (what do I get out of it if I didn't submit a proposal?).
When someone is selected to participate in a jury, the personal rewards are clear. They can be proud of the show or the work comissioned. They are recognized by the public for their work, if nothing else, it looks good on their resume.
Perhaps more people would be motivated to participate if a few of the members of the jury were selected based upon how actively they participated in the voting process. This could be setup as a lottery based upon the amount they voted.
j
> Turnout was really low. Out of roughly 3000 eligible voting members,
> 51 (1.7%) members voted in the approval stage, and 19 (0.6%) voted in
> the ...
I find this to be the most relevant issue in the process. The really low turnout seems especially curious to me given that this community is made up of so many devoted artists creating interactive artwork. I wonder if this has something to do with the amount of effort required (looking through 50 proposals can be somewhat daunting - like, real work) balanced against the reward for participating (what do I get out of it if I didn't submit a proposal?).
When someone is selected to participate in a jury, the personal rewards are clear. They can be proud of the show or the work comissioned. They are recognized by the public for their work, if nothing else, it looks good on their resume.
Perhaps more people would be motivated to participate if a few of the members of the jury were selected based upon how actively they participated in the voting process. This could be setup as a lottery based upon the amount they voted.
j
Beyond "Upper" Art - reprise
Why Are Artists Poor? The Exceptional Economy of the Arts" by Hans Abbing, Amsterdam University Press is a well written book that addresses similar issues Dyske Suematsu brought up in the following thread from last month. If you were as intrigued as I was with what Dyske had to say, then you will probably find this a pretty facinating read.
Jason Van Anden
Dyske Suematsu wrote:
> Beyond "Upper" Art
>
> Just as each culture has its own distinct taste, each economic class
> develops its own taste as well. This is easy to see especially in food
> culture--many in the lower class and some in the middle class live
> their entire lives not knowing what foie gras is. Not all mediums of
> art are popular across all classes. Some are tied to a specific class,
> like Fine Arts is to the upper class, and film is to the middle class.
> This means that success in each medium of art is measured by the taste
> of a class it is associated with. This has certain implications for
> artists who hope to succeed.
>
> The vast majority of artists comes from the middle class. As they
> become successful, they often cross over the lines of social classes.
> A natural way to look at this phenomenon is that with money comes the
> taste associated with it, but, in some cases, it is also possible to
> see it the other way around; they became successful because they
> acquired the taste of the upper class. In order to show what I mean by
> this, I will take Fine Arts and analyze the class dynamics within it.
>
> The upper-middle class and the upper class are the patrons of what we
> call Fine Arts in the West. For it to be financially viable, galleries
> must charge a minimum of several thousands dollars per work even of an
> emerging artist, a price which a middle class income could hardly
> afford for what essentially is a wall decoration. The success in Fine
> Arts, therefore, is contingent on the tastes of these social classes.
>
> What distinguishes the upper class from the upper-middle class is that
> the members of the former do not have to work. They have a lot of time
> on their hands to cultivate taste, and thus develop more radical taste
> than that of the upper-middle class. For the upper-middle class, art
> must still be functional to a degree. They cannot buy artworks and
> send them straight to a warehouse; they buy artworks so that they can
> display them in their houses. This severely limits the types of work
> they can purchase, which makes them conservative supporters of art.
>
> The upper class, on the other hand, has other reasons for buying art
> besides decorating their houses. One of them is pure investment.
> Buying art is as risky as, if not riskier than, buying penny-stocks or
> junk bonds. Like the way venture capitalists diversify their holdings
> in order to hedge their risk, if their motive is to make money, the
> collectors of contemporary art must also diversify. This is a strategy
> only the upper class can afford to execute. In order to beat the
> market, they must think more radically. The criteria for buying art
> cannot be confined to practicality. They have to think strictly in
> terms of the future potential of the artist.
>
> In addition, the upper class buys art in order to assert their
> identities. The middle class does the same by collecting books and
> CDs. Those who lack identities of their own must define them by
> consuming identities of others. Knowing what books and CDs a person
> owns is a convenient way to know something subjective about him. The
> members of the upper class go beyond mass-produced products of art.
> Instead of asking what books and CDs they own, they ask what fine
> artists they own.
>
> For those of us in the middle class, it is hard to imagine why anyone
> would buy a piece of conceptual art that consists of a DVD player and
> a projector for 10 thousand dollars. But, if your annual household
> income is 4 million dollars, 10 thousand dollars would be equivalent
> to 100 dollars of the middle class household income of 40 thousand
> dollars. It is not difficult to imagine collecting as a hobby
> something that cost 100 dollars each.
>
> The upper class being the sole supporter of radical contemporary art,
> the success of artists hinges on whether they succeed in pleasing
> their taste. In this sense, Fine Arts should be called "upper art" not
> "high art." Most artists are in the middle class when they start their
> careers as artists, but for them to be successful, they must cultivate
> the taste of the upper class. This means that initially their taste is
> out of sync with who they are, but as they succeed, their financial
> status comes in sync with their taste. Filmmakers and musicians have
> the opposite problem. They must please the taste of the middle class,
> but as they succeed financially and join the upper class, they must
> preserve their middle class taste. By failing to do so, they would
> alienate their market.
>
> Consumers of identities, whether middle class or upper class, are
> often drawn to what they are not. The White middle class is drawn to
> the Black street culture. Obedient kids are drawn to rebellious music.
> Suburban kids are drawn to urban culture. And so on. Successfully
> pleasing the taste of the upper class, therefore, does not mean doing
> as they do. Pandering to the apparent taste of the upper class would
> probably be a mistake. Exploiting their self-hatred or sense of guilt
> might be wiser.
>
> Since the tastes of the upper-middle class and the upper class are
> quite different, the artists who please the former may find themselves
> stuck with a moderate success, unable to achieve the status of "blue
> chip" artists. For them, a gradual shift into something more radical
> in taste during their mid-career might be strategically wise.
>
> How artists deal with the discrepancy between the taste they must
> cultivate and what they are in reality, has certain spiritual
> implications. Suppose what you do as an artist pleases you as well as
> the taste the upper class. If you are intentional in pleasing both, it
> is good business. It is like a baker who loves baking and pleasing his
> customers. If it does not particularly please you but it pleases the
> upper class, then it is prostitution. If it pleases you but you do not
> question where the money is coming from, then it is a shady business
> like selling bongs-the upfront premise of your business is to sell
> artistic substance (to smoke tobacco), but the buyer's true purpose is
> to satisfy their egotistical needs or greed (to smoke marijuana).
>
> In this sense, digital art offers an interesting alternative. Anything
> can be co-opted by the rich, but both the immediacy of access and the
> ease of duplication of digital art function as natural deterrents
> against it. This is true to some degree for photography. Many
> photographers like Robert Mapplethorpe appeal to the middle class as
> well as to the upper class. Once digital art establishes a market in
> the middle class, it would be an ideal medium for artists who have
> something compelling to say for the taste of their own class.
>
> Dyske Suematsu - April 13, 2004
>
> -
Jason Van Anden
Dyske Suematsu wrote:
> Beyond "Upper" Art
>
> Just as each culture has its own distinct taste, each economic class
> develops its own taste as well. This is easy to see especially in food
> culture--many in the lower class and some in the middle class live
> their entire lives not knowing what foie gras is. Not all mediums of
> art are popular across all classes. Some are tied to a specific class,
> like Fine Arts is to the upper class, and film is to the middle class.
> This means that success in each medium of art is measured by the taste
> of a class it is associated with. This has certain implications for
> artists who hope to succeed.
>
> The vast majority of artists comes from the middle class. As they
> become successful, they often cross over the lines of social classes.
> A natural way to look at this phenomenon is that with money comes the
> taste associated with it, but, in some cases, it is also possible to
> see it the other way around; they became successful because they
> acquired the taste of the upper class. In order to show what I mean by
> this, I will take Fine Arts and analyze the class dynamics within it.
>
> The upper-middle class and the upper class are the patrons of what we
> call Fine Arts in the West. For it to be financially viable, galleries
> must charge a minimum of several thousands dollars per work even of an
> emerging artist, a price which a middle class income could hardly
> afford for what essentially is a wall decoration. The success in Fine
> Arts, therefore, is contingent on the tastes of these social classes.
>
> What distinguishes the upper class from the upper-middle class is that
> the members of the former do not have to work. They have a lot of time
> on their hands to cultivate taste, and thus develop more radical taste
> than that of the upper-middle class. For the upper-middle class, art
> must still be functional to a degree. They cannot buy artworks and
> send them straight to a warehouse; they buy artworks so that they can
> display them in their houses. This severely limits the types of work
> they can purchase, which makes them conservative supporters of art.
>
> The upper class, on the other hand, has other reasons for buying art
> besides decorating their houses. One of them is pure investment.
> Buying art is as risky as, if not riskier than, buying penny-stocks or
> junk bonds. Like the way venture capitalists diversify their holdings
> in order to hedge their risk, if their motive is to make money, the
> collectors of contemporary art must also diversify. This is a strategy
> only the upper class can afford to execute. In order to beat the
> market, they must think more radically. The criteria for buying art
> cannot be confined to practicality. They have to think strictly in
> terms of the future potential of the artist.
>
> In addition, the upper class buys art in order to assert their
> identities. The middle class does the same by collecting books and
> CDs. Those who lack identities of their own must define them by
> consuming identities of others. Knowing what books and CDs a person
> owns is a convenient way to know something subjective about him. The
> members of the upper class go beyond mass-produced products of art.
> Instead of asking what books and CDs they own, they ask what fine
> artists they own.
>
> For those of us in the middle class, it is hard to imagine why anyone
> would buy a piece of conceptual art that consists of a DVD player and
> a projector for 10 thousand dollars. But, if your annual household
> income is 4 million dollars, 10 thousand dollars would be equivalent
> to 100 dollars of the middle class household income of 40 thousand
> dollars. It is not difficult to imagine collecting as a hobby
> something that cost 100 dollars each.
>
> The upper class being the sole supporter of radical contemporary art,
> the success of artists hinges on whether they succeed in pleasing
> their taste. In this sense, Fine Arts should be called "upper art" not
> "high art." Most artists are in the middle class when they start their
> careers as artists, but for them to be successful, they must cultivate
> the taste of the upper class. This means that initially their taste is
> out of sync with who they are, but as they succeed, their financial
> status comes in sync with their taste. Filmmakers and musicians have
> the opposite problem. They must please the taste of the middle class,
> but as they succeed financially and join the upper class, they must
> preserve their middle class taste. By failing to do so, they would
> alienate their market.
>
> Consumers of identities, whether middle class or upper class, are
> often drawn to what they are not. The White middle class is drawn to
> the Black street culture. Obedient kids are drawn to rebellious music.
> Suburban kids are drawn to urban culture. And so on. Successfully
> pleasing the taste of the upper class, therefore, does not mean doing
> as they do. Pandering to the apparent taste of the upper class would
> probably be a mistake. Exploiting their self-hatred or sense of guilt
> might be wiser.
>
> Since the tastes of the upper-middle class and the upper class are
> quite different, the artists who please the former may find themselves
> stuck with a moderate success, unable to achieve the status of "blue
> chip" artists. For them, a gradual shift into something more radical
> in taste during their mid-career might be strategically wise.
>
> How artists deal with the discrepancy between the taste they must
> cultivate and what they are in reality, has certain spiritual
> implications. Suppose what you do as an artist pleases you as well as
> the taste the upper class. If you are intentional in pleasing both, it
> is good business. It is like a baker who loves baking and pleasing his
> customers. If it does not particularly please you but it pleases the
> upper class, then it is prostitution. If it pleases you but you do not
> question where the money is coming from, then it is a shady business
> like selling bongs-the upfront premise of your business is to sell
> artistic substance (to smoke tobacco), but the buyer's true purpose is
> to satisfy their egotistical needs or greed (to smoke marijuana).
>
> In this sense, digital art offers an interesting alternative. Anything
> can be co-opted by the rich, but both the immediacy of access and the
> ease of duplication of digital art function as natural deterrents
> against it. This is true to some degree for photography. Many
> photographers like Robert Mapplethorpe appeal to the middle class as
> well as to the upper class. Once digital art establishes a market in
> the middle class, it would be an ideal medium for artists who have
> something compelling to say for the taste of their own class.
>
> Dyske Suematsu - April 13, 2004
>
> -