Facing The Lack of Diversity in Photography and The Arts

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Originally Posted by paulfish4570

here's the way art works: without patrons, da vinci, raphael, michaelangelo, picasso, etc., would not have existed as artists. that is the way it was, the way it is, the way it will be. art is not democratic.

Actually, its not the way it is. The patronage system that employed large numbers of artists in the Renaissance/early modern period has disappeared. The concept of the 'starving artist' is recent, there was no such thing before the 19th Century.

Art, in many ways, was more 'democratic' in the past. While most people could not afford to buy art, art did appeal to ordinary people in the past to a much greater degree than it does in todays world, where far more people can afford art, but few actually buy.

Art today is largely irrelevant to the lives of modern people. Rather than being a part of, and a reflection of, the wider culture, art today strives to be obscure, opaque, incomprehensible. You didn't need a PhD to understand the work of Michelangelo or DaVinci; they made art about things that most people cared about and understood.

Today's artists and the industry that surrounds them (galleries, museums, publishers, etc) have turned their backs on the wider culture. In return, the wider culture had walked away from art.

[buzzardkid]

The comment on 'art' not equalling 'art world' I consider a very valid one. I've seen great things made by people, things that will never be on display anywhere. Great photography that only lives online, or in books. Live performances that are witnessed by many, in the streets and not in a theatre.

Also, I agree with Randy's comment on students often not being able to think and phrase coherently. As a (former) high school teacher I have found this to be true on many occasions. I try to interest my teenage kids in written and televised interviews, debates, etc and invite them to participate in conversations that involve reasoning. Well-spokenness, voiced self-esteem and a cared-for appearance go a long way, even if there is little knowledge of fundamental or current affairs.

With regards to the class people are from, an anecdote: In my childhood, I was a boy scout and a such read Baden-Powell's 'Scouting for boys'. One thing that always stuck with me was his comment on people's shoes. He wrote: "When encountering people, always be aware of their shoes. Because many people invest in new or fancy clothes for occasions but wear the shoes they already owned with them since shoes are often expensive. Shoes tell what people they really are." All my life I have found this to be true, although not always. One of the boy scout leaders would always arrive in old clothes and shoes but I could instantly tell that they had been expensive when bought new.

Nowadays I still often buy shoes in second-hand stores for next-to-nothing money, that sometimes even look worn but were expensive when bought new. Same for trousers and shirts. I make sure the shoes and clothes fit perfectly. Thing is, people you encounter cannot tell that it wasn't you that wore those clothes since new, but they often do recognize expensive quality. I have suits that make me look like a millionaire but set me back fifty bucks only. This has never let me down.

Good dress, eloquence and a friendly but firm demeanor all can come cheap and can get people a long way.

Here's hoping this is of use to anybody.

[charjohncarter]

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

There is no mainstream left-wing party in the United States; at least, not one that would be recognizable to the average European.

That's correct at least according to one poll that said 20% of US voters consider themselves Liberals. And the US Liberals can't be mainstream because they all live in either California cities or near or New York city or near, they just have lots of clout.

[paulfish4570]

chris, the patrons are still there. they just dress differently ...

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Originally Posted by paulfish4570

chris, the patrons are still there. they just dress differently ...

Here's my experience as a fulltime professional artist: I have had patrons help me financially by buying me gear or giving me gifts of money. My Nikon scanner, my Crown Victoria, one of my big Epson printers, and several smaller items came to me that way. The person who bought me the car also gave me the money to take my trip to New Mexico last year.

I truly appreciate all of that, which has made it possible for me to do a lot of my work, and has helped with life in general (the Crown Vic, for example...need a good car to carry on normal life where I live). Still, there do not seem to be the kind of patrons that men like Michelangelo had, the patrons who provide their artists with a regular, continuous income....basically a fulltime job.

Without that kind of support, life for an artist like me is always precarious. I never know if I'll have the rent for next month, or when I can pay my bills. Sometimes I have a lot of money, if i have sold a lot of stuff or gotten a lot of commercial work recently. Other times, it is a real struggle. I save money from the good times to cover the bad times, but sometimes the money runs out too soon.

That is true for most artists today, and it makes the difference between the lives of artists in the past, and those of us today who make art our life's work.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Originally Posted by photomoof

No one helped you with your education, are you sure?

No tax dollars, no endowment, no scholarships? I got lots of help, my school paid no taxes, but was supplied with city services. Many left money to my school so that tuition could remain manageable, as well as paying for new construction. My parents got a tax break, while continuing to take me as a deduction. Loans were subsidized by the government.

No one pays for anything in a collective society "by myself." I know people like to think that they do, but its not true.

Just by attending a state university, I got half my tuition paid by the taxpayers of Indiana. I went to Indiana University. All of the state's public universities charge Indiana residents half the tuition they charge students who come here from outside Indiana to attend IU, Purdue, and our state's other state universities and colleges. The half we Indiana residents pay is made up from the state budget. All state universities in the USA give lower tuition to residents of the state that runs the school, which means the taxpayer helps all of those students with their education.

[daveleo]

Originally Posted by Frontman

I don't agree with the spirit of your post, though it does make a point. In America, everyone does have equal opportunity, more or less. That doesn't mean everyone is equal, except in the eyes of the law. There are many people who are smarter than me, or stronger, or harder workers. There is no way to "level the field", I am what I am, and others are what they are.

Equality isn't necessarily something which comes from outside yourself. In America, if I want to be a doctor, a lawyer, or an artist, no one can stop me from doing these things but myself. It is true that pursuing one's dreams is harder for some than it is for others, but that's the way things are, and the way things have always been. But those who buck the trend inspire others to do it as well.

The borders between societies, races, and classes exist, but they exist mainly in people's minds. We all know countless examples of people who have, from the bottom of society, made it all the way to the top.

I myself come from an "economically-disadvantaged" background. But I have never let that hold me back. No one helped me with my education, I paid for it myself. I took no art classes when I was a student, I love art simply for what it is.

I think schools should make art available for everyone to appreciate, but if minorities want to make it to the boardrooms or to "the 1%", they had better study something other than art.

I understand your points. But let me highlight that I was not referring to "equality" (of people). I referred to "equal opportunity", which simply does not exist for everyone in our society.
Of course some people overcome some obstacles and disadvantages (most of us did); but of course that ignores the child buried in a life of unsolvable social problems, who will likely become yet another of everyone's "social problems".

This veers far from the original thread topic, but I was responding at the time some other comment about "Land of Opportunity" or "Make it on Your Own" or something I've forgotten now. It also didn't help any with that other guy who thought tests biased toward Whites wasn't a bad idea.

Okay . . . I'm dropping out of this and going into my "Read Only" mode.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by nikonosguy

if all things in life were truly equal, there would be no need for the wnba with lower goals and shorter distance courts...

Uh, the wnba and nba have the same size court and same height basket.

[zauhar]

Originally Posted by photomoof

He told me that he was not used to that in America - in Italy, people shout at each other and it's all forgotten, here in America if your "friend" discovers that your political leanings do not exactly match his, he cuts you off.
So, do you mean honestly that you cannot speak your mind to your friends? Are they really friends? Can Americans as a group be anyone's friend?

I once had a pretty heated discussion with an Italian colleague. Afterward I showed no hard feelings (truly!)

He told me that he was not used to that in America - in Italy, people shout at each other and it's all forgotten, here in America if your "friend" discovers that your political leanings do not exactly match his, he cuts you off.

So, do you mean honestly that you cannot speak your mind to your friends? Are they really friends? Can Americans as a group be anyone's friend?

The last statement I made troubles myself - are we that thin-skinned, that insular, that we are incapable of accepting others as they are? Can we only have as a friend someone who looks, acts, thinks exactly like us?

I have a friend who grew up in a very violent country. He remarked that if the US really faces a catastrophe, this is the last place he wants to be - his homeland would be better.

Randy

[MarylandBill]

Originally Posted by Nescio

ART is not the equivalent of the ART WORLD,

This is well said. Indeed, I question the whole discussion. What do we mean when we say Art? From the context of the quotes in the original post, it is clear that the discussion was originally centered around the visual arts, and most importantly visual arts that can be placed, shown and sold in museums that cater to a mostly white audience.

Lets draw back and look at the Arts in a broader perspective, and include the performance arts. I hope no one here is seriously going to argue that women are always under represented in the performance arts (If you look at the ballet world for example, the challenge if finding good male dancers while every position open for women has 10 talented dancers competing for it (at least)). Likewise, blacks play a leading role in Jazz music.. and if we broaden the performing arts to more popular arts, in the Blues and Hip Hop as well. Likewise, Latin music has gained enormous cross over appeal in the last few years.

Now, I suspect (Though I am far less familiar with the minorities in popular visual art) that they have their own types of visual arts that remain essentially a niche inside their cultural community. I have never gone into a home yet, white, black, Hispanic or other that didn't have some sort of art displayed, often reflective of their cultural background.

So this brings up the final thought. Are we trying to bring minorities into the arts to save the arts, or to reshape the culture of the minorities?

Mind you, I say this as a member of the Irish Diaspora (my parents were immigrants to America) who has often felt his native culture was dismissed by others. Even in the wake of River Dance, I still hear people talk about how all Irish Music sounds the same... or people "celebrating Irish Culture" by reducing it to U2 (Which while immensely talented, is really an adaptation of American/British culture). I suspect similar experiences are felt by people who are more clearly in minority groups than I am... indeed probably much more intensely since they can't blend in.

--
Bill

[Nescio]

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

1) Actually, its not the way it is. The patronage system that employed large numbers of artists in the Renaissance/early modern period has disappeared. The concept of the 'starving artist' is recent, there was no such thing before the 19th Century.

2) Art, in many ways, was more 'democratic' in the past. While most people could not afford to buy art, art did appeal to ordinary people in the past to a much greater degree than it does in todays world, where far more people can afford art, but few actually buy.

3) Art today is largely irrelevant to the lives of modern people. Rather than being a part of, and a reflection of, the wider culture, art today strives to be obscure, opaque, incomprehensible. You didn't need a PhD to understand the work of Michelangelo or DaVinci; they made art about things that most people cared about and understood.

4) Today's artists and the industry that surrounds them (galleries, museums, publishers, etc) have turned their backs on the wider culture. In return, the wider culture had walked away from art.

Dear Chris, I may not be a regular poster but always have read your comments and contributions with lots of interest.
However, I cannot agree with some of the points you're making.

1) Though the concept of the "suffering artist" is something from 19th century romanticism, that doesn't mean that starving artists didn't exist in the centuries before. Casanova's diaries come to mind and even Goya's last days in France. And these are just two of the famous ones.

2) If democratic means "participated or liked by", I can understand what you mean, but I still don't see the difference with today's popular art forms. Art for art's sake is as decimononic as your suffering artist and so is separating the means from the end which was intimately connected in religious art, for example.

3) Obscure and incomprehesible art is just a reminiscence of early 20th century vangardist art forms, in itself something like a "baroque revival", but in the meantime popular/pop art has come a long way. Don't get me wrong, I get equally bored about most of the newest "street art" as I get dissappointed with the latest neoconceptualist ectoplasm. But you cannot say that Jeff Koons is opaque and incomprehensible (apart form the succes he got) And also, luckily, we've got Tom Waits and Roberto Bolaño or Don DeLillo who perhaps ain't Lady Gaga, but get more than minority praise and sales.

4) I would agree on this if the statement weren't too general. Popular culture sure has turned its back to "official" art forms. But hasn't it always been like that? Usually it's the "higher" culture that starts taking the blood from below (like 19th century literature and classical music, folk tales etc.) Sooner or later both start dancing and no one knows who's first to strangle the other (though I'd put my money on the industry).

Cheers and best of luck,

Nescio

[zauhar]

Originally Posted by photomoof

Randy I am not friends with people who exhibit obvious callousness or lack of empathy.

That allows a lot of slack, friend-wise. I don't care for a-holes.

Fair enough , but the way you put it made it sound as if you couldn't express yourself to your own friends, which would be pretty tragic. I may have misunderstood your intent.

My sense is that most people who lack empathy have zero experience with anyone and anything outside their immediate circle (I am not counting internet comrades, or the "news" they selectively gather from the mass media). Tea party people who imagine "welfare queens" would quickly change their outlook if dropped here in west Philly.

(Yes , we have our share of bigots in the City of Brotherly Love - better say that before someone pounces.)

Randy

[dct]

Beeing not native english speaker I have fear my contribution wouldn't put my opinions in a nutshell. That's why I'm still in read-only-mode. But I need to mention how greatly I enjoy this socio-cultural discussion. The situation in EU is different than in the US in a sort. But the same basic problems.

Thanks for the profound post and: Keep on talking!

[DominikDUK]

The comparison between Renaissance Artist and modern artists is not valid. First in the middle ages and the Renaissance started in the middle ages an artist was a craftsman this view didn't change until the end of the 18th century. The access to art was much more open then it is today Church paintings go to church see art. Until the 19th century there simply was no such thing as galleries or artist as pure artists. Many artist were starving because they fell out of favor with their patrons church and other. Or some like Rembrandt couldn't handle money, thoug he did not starve to death. The starving artist as a chlichee is as Chris said an invention of the 19th century and one that pisses off a lot of artist because politicians and some people name it as a reason not to pay or to pay very little to artist. "You're an artist you work for art and not for money, money is beneath you."

It's also true that art does not equal art world, but unfortunately your merits as an artist are often not seen in terms of the quality of your work but in how much money you make and where you have exhibited your work. The money thing is not limited to art.

[paulfish4570]

a patron is a patron is a patron, whether today or during the renaissance, whether the roman church or a rich noble or wall street whiz.

[DominikDUK]

Originally Posted by paulfish4570

a patron is a patron is a patron, whether today or during the renaissance, whether the roman church or a rich noble or wall street whiz.

That's not true, the church was not a patron in modern terms the church was more of an employer than a patron. The artist had to work for the church he created the paintings for the church or some Bishop who wanted to have a naked person above his bed in the Vatican. The paintings commisioned by the church or rich families were often the results of precise wishes, down to every person and leaf depicted in the painting. Those wishes were often written down in contracts. So not much creative freedom, today's patrons give the artist a lot more freedom (most of the time)

A patron in a modern sense comes closer to a sponsor than a employer wouldn't you say.

[Peter Wijninga]

Interesting thread...the 'minority' advocates in the OP's post are all encouraging 'remedial' action in an entirely incoherent manner. The responders, of which the vast majority are white males, are wringing their hands providing equally incoherent responses. Not that it matters, of course... Art will live and prosper.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by Peter Wijninga

Interesting thread...the 'minority' advocates in the OP's post are all encouraging 'remedial' action in an entirely incoherent manner. The responders, of which the vast majority are white males, are wringing their hands providing equally incoherent responses. Not that it matters, of course... Art will live and prosper.

Incoherent? In suggesting that today, art is often a luxury produced not just for the financially overprivileged, but also by the financially overprivileged? As compared with the pre-19th century view of the artist as craftsman? What would you regard as coherent?

Cheers,

R.

[paulfish4570]

employer = patron.

[Peter_wrote:]

Originally Posted by paulfish4570

employer = patron.

maybe in countries, where you have no powerful federation of trade unions and no confident employees.

[paulfish4570]

church as employer is, in effect, a patron.

[Gumby]

Originally Posted by Peter Wijninga

... The responders, of which the vast majority are white males, ...

Perhaps, but I don't know how one is to tell that from a screen name. Gender maybe, but not race. And, it is entirely possible that a white male is in a societal context in which he is a minority. Trust me on both.

[zauhar]

Originally Posted by Peter_wrote:

maybe in countries, where you have no powerful federation of trade unions and no confident employers.

There are powerful unions of artists? Where? Or are the unions controlling what artists do?

Do employers hire artists when they are confident, or unconfident?

Randy

[haempe]

Originally Posted by paulfish4570

church as employer is, in effect, a patron.

Why this?
What's special with a church as employer?

[Peter_wrote:]

Originally Posted by zauhar

There are powerful unions of artists? Where? Or are the unions controlling what artists do?

Do employers hire artists when they are confident, or unconfident?

Randy

no, why should unions control, what artists do? they negotiate base salaries for employees.

sorry, in my last post i meant "employees", not "employers".

in an ideal situation, employees and employers are some kind of partners. one delivers work/product, the other the money/infrastructure. that i meant with confident employees. the employer as "patron" sounds very strange to me...
but maybe thats just some kind of misunderstanding on my side. "patron" sounds a bit like godfather to me...