Ditto on Tyler
Green's boredom with lazy art writing that is mostly focused on money
the ideas and cultural shifts that legitimize art, museums, interesting cities and the writing
about them... not so much the transaction fees (those fade). Saatchi said it best, "The rich will always be with us
Once that is accepted (the French and Bolshevik revolutions proved it) then
the real work of, "what ideas are being explored, what are the tough questions
of the age, etc." can be tackled. Sure, one has to be a little nuts to
go against the flow, but one also has to be more than bright and talented to
change the flow of that stream.
Also, I felt Holland
which spurred Tyler Green's words did bring up the most important
point, where is the cultural leadership? Is that kind of leadership a thing
any civilization can entrust to museums? Isn't that the domain of driven individuals
who want to change the world? I loved Cotter's take on cynicism as "exhausting
Portland from 2001-2003 went through a war between cynics and optimists. The
optimists won (or at least the knee jerk cynics stopped freaking out long enough
to become begrudging optimists who freak out less and ask better questions). Slowly but surely the city's
other organs of culture have been catching up in with the continuing growth
spurt. I'm pretty sure this ride wont be smooth so don't expect anything good to come from mildness or mere good intentions. To survive in the rapidly developing arts ecosystem here, cultural productions in Portland have to foreground an informed passion
and a real esoteric depth (there are no accidents in these departments). Yes, I'm still
working on my piece about Portland now (on Sunday it will be 8 years) and the
main tasks at hand.
Just two clarifying questions (and these are not meant to be criticisms):
1. When you wrote "To survive in the arts it has to have..." what does "it" refer to?
2. Can you clarify what you meant by esoteric depth?
1. it = cultural products or cultural productions (this is the sort of thing a copy editor would ask... a day later I see the possible confusion... I'll edit to clarify)
2. esoteric depth: Donald Judd is a good example, he did things his own way but had an ever deepening rationale for why he made his decisions. The result was his artistic practice was very precise and unusual.
The more I look at Judd's work, the more rewarding it gets. Conversely, the more I think about Paris Hilton the more bland it all seems.
Just taking over a town or the media's attention is just bombast. It takes something more to go beyond creating diversions...
Thanks for signing in,
. Now you can comment. (sign
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by
the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear
on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)