Entitlement - Love You Some of What Loves You

There has been much gnashing of teeth of late, it seems to me, on the issue of entitlement. I'm picking this up from musicians. People who are sensitive types - aware types. They receive the world this way. It is what they do. I have been wondering why we are not recognizing their situation and valuing their circumstances? If I can generalize here for a moment, I suspect that our ignorance in conjunction with world events may be subjugating artists we love to an abundance of unhappiness.

This subject surfaced last week when Dayna Kurtz, in an attempt to garner support and funding for an upcoming artistic goal, invited people to participate. This was seen by a fan as soliciting and unbecoming of an artist of Dayna's standing. Dayna composed a strong and articulate response to this fan and shared it with all utilizing social networking [Facebook]. It made me wonder a bit about how it is that we have come to expect so much from our artists.

I also see another factor preying on artists. Mass disasters, war and human suffering. An artist that is trying to piece together a living does not get to choose in the same manner that fans and listeners who hold labors do. An artist, being sensitive to these extremely painful worldly concerns, has to still try and garner support and comes up against the one thing that they intend to translate or record or somehow interpret. The money that would fund their enterprise wants to fly to the disaster of the week. Now there is a moral conflict.

I then read in a blog post of Krista Detor who in a moment of reflection, seemed to questioned whether she should allow herself something that you and I would never even think twice about giving ourselves. Is it bougeois to have a place to sit in her back yard where she could enjoy friends, sit with a cup of coffee or have space to write a song out in the bright out-of-doors? I read this, frowned and I thought to myself that this is just not right.

Later I was reading David Byrne's on-line Journal and I stumbled upon this March 25th entry:

"...Some see any presumed cleverness or market savvy on behalf of an artist or performer as distasteful. They feel that serious work should be driven primarily by passion or some kind of authenticity and purity, and that financial considerations — figuring out how to monetize one’s work and activity, as it is phrased in dot-com terms — is tacky, and goes against the rules. What rules? Where are these rules written down? Shouldn’t artists be cheered for making money if they can, if they don’t dilute their work?

The “rules” as I intuit them say that cultural production takes place on some moral and ethical high ground where money is not a consideration. According to these rules, for an artist or musician to take financial factors into consideration is to automatically lower and demean work that is supposed to stem from and engage our higher impulses. The work, once money enters the picture, is now assumed to be “work for hire,” to use the legal term. This is why fine artists often look down their noses on craftspeople, illustrators and graphic designers. During the Renaissance, they worked hard to separate themselves from the laborers of the trade guilds, and worked hard to gain acceptance for the idea that they were more than mere craftspeople — so to risk slipping back into that ignoble territory is completely unacceptable…

...According to the old fine art rules, it’s nobler to be poor — which is a cliché for sure, but one that is still held on to dearly. The assumption is that being paid well allies one with the bourgeois one is supposed to be busy offending and shocking. As if anything is shocking today...

There is something about fans maintaining this perception of exception that has to be recognized as destructive to an artist's creative process. I think there is an investment for fans to believe that art is divinely actualized and we should consider leaving off the faux religious aspect and embrace the reality of the situation. The internet - what I like to refer to as The Great Equalizer - has brought all of us an opportunity to democratically participate in supporting and interacting with our favorite artists like never before. We need to evolve as fans. At the very least, we need to encourage our artists towards abundance. Everyone benefits. Pay for the art you enjoy. Be a part of the solution and healing a world of hurt.

Time Enough to Be

I came across an interesting, contemplative, personal discourse on art and art history that includes how it is critiqued, valued, accessed and evolving. Written by David Byrne he recalls his experience with libraries (which would include a similar consciousness raising experience for us all, undoubtedly). I'd like to share it here. He writes this, in part, about a displaced library supplanted by a gallery expansion:

...But where did the books go? Reading, the part of the Victorian outreach that involved more interaction and could actually be brought into one’s house for a while, is gone.

Maybe, with the sheer volume of text on the Internet, it isn’t deemed as important to make books available for free to the poor and newly arrived in the East End. Art you have to visit and see, for the most part, and books you can buy, browse at bookstores or now download. Maybe part of the museum or gallery’s attraction is the social aspect — reading is solitary. The Whitechapel was crowded, and people would presumably discuss their visit later over dinner, or at the office the next day. Picture viewing is also fast, while on the other hand, it takes many hours to read a book — which is another reason the literary experience has such a profound effect. Viewing an exhibition can be done in an afternoon or much less, and if you don’t like it you just walk out. The speed of the visit doesn’t make it less deep — a short experience can also be profound — and visual experiences can imprint if we are receptive enough. (Movies and music, I’ve noticed, are like books — you have to commit a sizable block of time to the experience.)

I found the entry quite sincere and thought provoking. I find myself rethinking how we are working over our concept of time or time is working us over as a bi-product of our willingness to speed it up (...or both) and how this has affected my personal relationship to art. Is experiencing art at a clip or in a meditative focus of equal or lesser value? These are some of the questions I find myself contemplating.

The journal entry in it's entirety can be found here along with many other interesting entries. Treat yourself.