An Interview with Mary Jane Jacob
Guest Speaker, Mary Jane Jacob, Professor and Executive Director of Exhibitions and Exhibition Studies at School of the Art Institute of Chicago, interviewed by Nicole Caruth. An excerpt:
Nicole Caruth: What are your feelings about ArtPrize?
Mary Jane Jacob: … I think that openness has been a really strong aspect. The voting, which I normally would not be a fan of, here, I think, just from my short observations, it becomes a lens for people to look at the work and then have to assess, and that’s what it’s all about. Assessing it not based on, necessarily, if something is good or well made or things that we might use in the art world, but rather “Does it speak to me? What does it mean? Do I like it?” We, with much education and years of experience in that, also consider whether we like it or not. That is an honest reaction.
Even if you only go to one venue [at ArtPrize], you’re still looking at quite a large number of things. That has to be assessed with other things, which means it goes beyond just a first impression. Yet it also stays very personal. You have to ask yourself, “Why do I like this one more than the other, or equally?” And then there is a thumbs up/thumbs down kind of suggestion [by which] you could at least have a conversation with every work of art. Because you’re not just picking 10 to vote on, you don’t have to slice it so fine. Because it’s not going to be one or the other, it doesn’t have to go through some laborious ranking, because there’s way too much stuff here to do that, and many things are on par with each other.
My real misgiving strategically, long-term, with the project is the huge disparity in the prize money in an art world where artists need a lot of support — art always does.
We’re at the 48th anniversary of the Calder, which was a high point of public motivation of art, and the NEA’s flowering, and so forth. We’ve seen the demise of the individual artist grant program and we’re still suffering from that. Some grant programs were out there already, some ramped up further, like Pew in Philadelphia or Bush in Minneapolis. But then other ones with a lot less resources and smaller amounts have done volumes of work, like Creative Capital and Artadia. And nobody in any of those is getting $250,000. I think we’re not looking at $250,000 artists here. I have a problem with the division it creates when that amount of money, $500,000, could be spread in equal or on more egalitarian ways. That could support 10 or more artists.
… That confrontation, that nexus between the aspiring artist, emerging artist, overlooked artist and the broader public is a great conversation. We see it enacted here and it’s a great success, I think, on that level. But then when the final result becomes something that then shifts to a paradigm that is more like American Idol or winning the lottery, it doesn’t necessarily sustain either that individual or this system or the art world. I even find it problematic with colleagues from those institutions that I’ve named who are struggling to have something that doesn’t join the conversation of [artist] development, sustainability and support…To see that supporting artists is a positive and necessary endeavor has a great ripple effect.
NC: Actually you raise something that Peter Murray brought up. He said that one of his concerns is this pot of money. Would one spend $250,000 on some of the work that’s here?
MJJ: It’s out of line.
NC: He seemed concerned that it sends the wrong the message.
MJJ: I agree.
NC: I’ve been following the polls since I arrived — they show these buckets, the top 25, 50, 75, etc. — and looking at what’s in the top 25, I’m realizing that it’s mostly the biggest things, as I’ve written on the blog, the spectacles that people are voting for.
MJJ: And sometimes it’s just rewarding the effort. Because in a way, whether it’s conscious or not, you are trying to say, “Well, if it’s $250,000 then it ought to be big.” So, on one level it’s the spectacle experience, and on the other it’s the buying thing. Like what am I getting for this [amount of] money or whatever this person put into [it]? Even empathizing to some degree. I think that’s a problem.
Another problem that I feel is that artists have been very generous to come and participate. It costs them money to do that. They have even been asked to pay a submission fee, which I think is unfortunate. I think a portion of money should be considered — maybe you don’t end up with 1,200 artists, but maybe you still end up with hundreds of artists — and everybody should get a little subsidy to come, because [artists] are spending money to come here and they’re paying Grand Rapids to have a public event. They are paying the benefactor to bolster…there would be no prize if people didn’t participate; the people are paying to participate.
And then the institutions, whether they are bars or restaurants or another institution, I have heard people say, “Well, look what they are getting for it.” Well, you know, being on the museum side of it you can have a donor who says, “You know, I want to give you this work or art.” Or “I want to give you all my collection of X.” Well, it costs money to take care of that. We’re not talking about collection the same way in perpetuity, but it costs money to do what it is you want to do.
Artist’s work is not valued except for the work of art. The work of making it is not valued. People are saying, “But they have a great opportunity of exposure.” Exposure to what? Yes, exposure if they want to be here, and do a kind of audience analysis of what one’s art could be in a realm, which is very populous. You know, that’s what I do. I do think that’s very interesting. But, you can only do that to a certain degree. People have also invested…I think that this deserves some infrastructure money.
Next year, it becomes a challenge for everybody to scramble to increase their budgets or lose more sleep time to make it happen. You can do that once, but can you do that well on an ongoing basis? …There are serious things happening — you being here and talking about it. If it becomes a serious level of engagement, then how do you further develop, because that means there’s probably going to be even more demands and expectations and, therefore, resources. So, what are the resources? There is a structure, an infrastructure, which is needed for such an endeavor. I don’t say this to kind of kill the party. But [ArtPrize] does aim to go on and I don’t think the value of it is to degenerate, to be American Idol or the art lottery.
I celebrate the diversity of where these venues are, the self-curating thing. I think that’s a real engagement. I think the quantity of things out there is great. I don’t mind that it’s mixed. I’m not unhappy that they are not known artists, by and large. I think that’s a good thing.
You know, I have talked to some public press here and they have asked, “Do you think the art world is going to sit up and take notice then?” And I’m like, “No.” The only thing you are asking the art world to notice is that you have $250,000 to give away to one person, and $500,000 total. The other things can be a serious dialogue with the art world in terms of valuing or recognizing an audience that doesn’t look like the art world audience, all those other things mean that you have to continue to probe this and you have to also bring artists into that dialogue in some way.
NC: Before I arrived, I read an article that quoted an artist who said, to paraphrase, “You know, I don’t care about the money, I can put this on my resume.” That struck me, because a competition like this is not a resume builder. But, there’s that kind of expectation out there, perhaps, that art world eyes are on Grand Rapids and that simply being part of ArtPrize could get an artist a step further in their career, which is naive…
MJJ: Yes, because it’s a different tier. Being where we are, we don’t see it that way. But I would rather not make that the goal, because then you would have to completely change the character of [ArtPrize]. I think the value is what it says about an every day engagement with art.
There are so many lessons here. There are things that could be studied, that distinguish it. This is a city with a certain history with art, which is not irrelevant, and it’s very particular. There’s a story of Grand Rapids in the state of Michigan. There’s a story of Grand Rapids in itself. And it could leap ahead or at least find its own solid ground within, if you will, the high art world that we participate in, if it kept that really thoughtful and deep engagement
…. Three of my closest art world colleagues all come from Grand Rapids. Somebody who I was an intern with in the Detroit Institute of Arts, worked at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago with me, and worked at the Detroit Institute of Arts as well. He comes from a large Polish Catholic family in Grand Rapids. A colleague who I have written a number of books with, worked with and who was the director of the Hood Museum at Dartmouth, and the director of the Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive, she comes from a small, very different Calvinist Dutch family in Grand Rapids. And Kylie Wolf, who is the director of the Contemporary Jewish Museum in San Francisco, comes from a Jewish family in Grand Rapids. I don’t think it’s an accident that the three of them come from Grand Rapids. This is really fertile ground.
NC: Given your earlier work with the Michigan Art Train and your other connections to Michigan, I’m curious to know what changes you’ve seen in the arts in Grand Rapids, or in greater Michigan, from the time you first came here [from New York] up to now?
MJJ: Michigan was a real leader when there weren’t many. Quite some time ago, when I was in graduate school, Michigan was the second highest funded arts council in the country next to New York. Do you ever think of Michigan and New York together? No.
NC: No.
MJJ: … There was great industry in Detroit, I mean in the whole state. I don’t think I would’ve landed with a quite as assertive a public disposition within the museum, and therefore, taking it out of the museum into a public arena, if I hadn’t had the good fortune to have been a student in Ann Arbor, and worked at the Detroit Institute of Arts. There’s great support, and involvement here, and an innocence [that is] not stuck up or embellished on what it would gain you in social cache. But, rather, a very short connection to the public. People felt that sense of obligation and giving back. We have the Carnegie stories, we have the others. But, somehow there was a density here, whether it was down in Midland or it was Kellogg in Kalamazoo. Huge philanthropic things. Art was right there all the time. It wasn’t just education, it wasn’t just health. Art was there. Culturally there was a belief in it. So, this is a wonderful next, or new, version of that.
But, I still feel like that $250k…people say, “It doesn’t matter to me.” Well, the $250k hasn’t got somewhere yet. Earlier today, people were saying what they might do with the prize [such as] donate it back. Absolutely not. Artists need money. Art needs money.
Thank you for sharing this interview, I was hoping for some insight like this. I am also thankful to have participated in artprize, though it was actually something I would keep off my resume until I saw fit. I chose willingly, and I simply liked the whole idea of the experiment of the public at will, so very interesting. And though I hail from the Midwest, I have lived abroad and beyond for quite some time. I actually thought, what a nice thing that people, maybe thousands even, could see one of my works in person. And not just a jpeg. I did it for that.
This is one of the more thoughtful and critical interviews I’ve read. Kudos, Nicole.
I think Artprize has such an amazing opportunity to gain credibility in the art world, and to prove to the art world that the public vote is valid and worthy of notice. In fact, that should be the mission of Artprize: To prove that the general public has the capacity to discern quality works of exceptional importance. It can be done. But to make this happen, the first-round vote must encourage art education and context, and it must reflect public taste more accurately than what was portrayed in this year’s vote.
It seem to me that most of the interviews that have been made with the speakers that came to GR have this similar tone of being cautiously nice. No one is standing up and announcing that this should be the new paradigm. They, for the most part seem to politely respond to the potential and possibilities while avoiding a commitment on the question of whether the public can or should be the judge of “the largest Art Competition in the world”. Mind you I am not talking about the public enjoying, participating, learning, growing, having fun, support their city with an event like AP. I’m talking about having the potentially biggest and best Art Competition of professional Artists judged by people who may or may not have any knowledge of what they are looking at. Would that be a good model to support or not? Who comprises the general public depends on who shows up and where the competition is held but in looking at the top ten I don’t see Aaron’s enthusiasm for the potential and future credibility of AP.
Richard,
I think all of the speakers recognized flaws in this first year of ArtPrize. I believe they were honest about what, in their minds, needs to happen, change or at least be considered going forward if ArtPrize is to BECOME a model.
You also have to consider that these speakers weren’t in Grand Rapids for the entire event; they answered questions based on their own knowledge, what they knew about ArtPrize, and what they had time to see. I never asked them directly if the public should judge, because that just wasn’t a question for me. It’s a fact of this competition. As to whether this can or should be a new paradigm, I think it will take time (and maybe another ArtPrize) before anyone can answer that.
Thanks for your response Nicole. The public voting issue seems to be THE issue that separates this competition from any other. I’m curious as to why you felt it wasn’t a question to ask? The issue of whether public populism should replace knowledgeable opinion in ” the worlds largest Art Competition” is an opinion I wish I could have garnered from these speakers.
I have to agree with Richard. It’s a very important and central question that deserves more scrutiny. Personally (and contrary to Richard’s opinion), I believe the public has the intelligence to make an informed decision under an extremely well-executed voting process. I believe that Artprize failed this year to develop a credible outcome. I’m not trying to discredit the works that made the Top Ten or provide a personal critique of said works. What I mean is that I don’t believe the Top Ten reflects a sense of historically important value, even if public taste is arguably represented in the pieces. I also realize that under no circumstance could I have won Artprize this year, so understand that I’m saying this as objectively as possible. My belief is that Artprize has the potential to turn heads in the art world, but only if it stops pandering to the local community and local businesses, and emphasizes its respect for artists with fairness and equality in the voting process. If Artprize continues to pander to economic motives as its overall theme and mission, it will never amount to anything more than an over-publicized city-wide artwalk with a ridiculous and irrelevant amount of prize money for one person who may or may not deserve it. Shouldn’t Artprize try to do everything in its power to attract national and international artists? This year’s success at attracting far-away artists had more to do with curiosity and less to do with credibility. Next year (or maybe two years from now), Artprize won’t have the benefit of being new and experimental. It must achieve results, and those results must earn the respect of the art world. Additionally, the Grand Rapids public vote will need to reflect a hypothetical national consensus (if not internationally) if it wants to attract artists from other regions in the future. My recommendation is to open up voting internationally so that the winner is undeniably reflective of a worldwide public vote, and recognized and validated by the public throughout the world. Consequently, Artprize would grow exponentially as a result, as would tourism and economic stimulus. More than anything, Artprize needs to think outside of Grand Rapids if it’s going to claim world-wide importance. I’m assuming Artprize believes what it’s doing is important?
Richard,
I didn’t totally ignore the public voting aspect of the competition. I said I didn’t ask them directly. I asked almost all of them how they felt about the public vote, if they thought it was dangerous, or what the pros and cons were to them, that sort of thing. No one said “This is a new and credible paradigm for art” or “This is bad for art.” It sounds like you’re just not satisfied with what they had to say, because it wasn’t concrete. I think it’s important to keep in mind that the top 10 hadn’t even been announced when I interviewed these guests, and none of them were hanging out on the website like us — they didn’t know where the results were going. How can someone say yes or no to the paradigm, when they don’t know what the results are? Everyone needs time to assess.
Personally, I don’t think a public vote replaces the need for curators, and I would bet that these speakers agree with me (if they didn’t say it to me outright). But, I think, it’s important to include the public voice at the same time. Is voting the way to do it? I don’t know, but why not try. Can public voting be a new paradigm for an art competition? In my opinion, sure. Are there some aspects of the competition that might need tweaking? Sure. Does ArtPrize have to figure everything out today? No.
My last museum job was working with curators to make didactic texts and other forms of interpretation accessible to as broad an audience as possible; I was an advocate for the public, or “community” (who tend to get left out of conversations around art). This is no easy feat. It’s much easier to leave the public out than it is to create new models to bring them into what you do. My hat is off to anyone who sets out to make the public central to an art exhibition, event, etc. (Perhaps another reason why it wasn’t such a direct question for me.) It’s hard work, and one is often criticized by both sides just for trying.
Nicole,
I think everyone here loves the idea of getting the community involved in art. Why else would we be participating in this discussion? It takes a lot of work to pull something off like Artprize, and I agree with your sentiments about having enthusiasm for the conversation.
Richard, I think this is a perfect opportunity to clarify your reasoning for being opposed to Artprize. Obviously you encourage the public to go to museums and otherwise participate in art. Fundamentally, what’s your biggest beef with Artprize specifically? Would you be in support of Artprize if someone besides the Devos family had organized it? How would you feel if Al Franken had organized Artprize?
I’m not trying to coach your dialogue here (okay, yes I am), but I think your perspective adds another element to the conversation that is frequently overlooked by people not named Richard Kooyman. Any thoughts on the political implications of Artprize?
Great Post Nicole and Aaron. I’m finishing a review of ArtPrize that I hope to publish on my Facebook in a couple days but let me address Aaron’s clear question as briefly as I can.
One issue that I believe every Artists should be aware of is the source of the funding behind ArtPrize or any Art event. The Devos Foundation is a ultra conservative foundation that has spent money across the country supporting conservative social and political agendas. The have been a supporter of James Dobson’s conservative “family values” radio program and have donated large amounts of money to support Proposition 8 in California to repeal the rights of gay and lesbian people.
Dick Devos ran unsuccessfully for Governor of Michigan in the last election on a platform that included support of pro life legislation, public money for private schools and tax cuts for social and environmental programs in Michigan. He supported such ideas as intelligent design education and the repeal of Roe V. Wade.
This information, I believe, is important for two reasons. It’s important for Artists for them to be able to make a personal choice in their political actions. It is also important to access how the social- political philosophy of the Devos Foundation spills over into the social ideas of ArtPrize.
Betsy Devos said in the announcement of ArtPrize that “Dick and I share our son’s vision for encouraging everyone to explore the arts in a truly democratic way.” That statement along with ArtPrize’s Mission statement, “Artprize exists to reboot the conversation between the artists and audiences on a grand scale”, should at least give Artists pause to wonder what is meant by this declaration in terms of the past agendas of the foundation.
The mission statement on the Artprize website changed after several months of online discussion regarding whether in fact AP was a referendum against the established Art World. AP change the “Why?” section of the mission by adding that it was not “anti-jury, anti curator, or anti anything else” but it maintained it’s premise that ….
“Conversation, education and general engagement from the public rises when their opinion creates a tangible result. That’s what we mean by rebooting a conversation. When everyone’s opinion counts, everyone is included in the conversation”.
And this is my major disagreement with the AP ideology. I am all in favor of personal opinion. I want people to enjoy, love, and participate in Art more than you can possibly know. I think conversation, education and general engagement of the public about Art is a fantastic thing and potentially wonderful for future ArtPrizes. But personal opinion is different than knowledgeable opinion and AP isn’t asking people to voice or discuss their personal opinion, they are asking them to be the judge and jury in “the largest Art Competition in the World” as to what should or should not be good Art.
The use of words by AP like “decentralized curating” and “radically new” sound exciting. But the premise that the public will be given the power to decide what is good in Art does not have a very sound history. It’s easy to say we want to include the public more in our Art Institutions. It’s a nice, inclusive thing to say. But it has no definition as to who that public is or to what extent you want them included.
I’m sure Nicole is still smarting over Rudi Giuliani’s attempt to side with public opinion and cut the funding of the Brooklyn Museum over their “Sensations” exhibition. The man who defaced Chris Ofili’s painting in the show was given a slap on the wrist and told not to come back to the museum by the courts. Robert Maplethorpe’s photograph’s were declared to be pornography by the people of Cincinnati. And if you think that negative public opinion about Art is something of the past one only has to look at the recent negative comments directed toward Kendall Faculty Deb Rockmen when she dared question Rick Devos whether the Art World might look upon AP as a joke.
If education and conversation is so important to Rick Devos and Jeff Meeuwsen why wasn’t educated opinions, panels and forums involved and promoted way before the public vote. If education is important why is there no public information posted on which venues were professional curated and who those curators were. Why weren’t the curators names given credit? Why ,in fact, weren’t the curators of the UICA venue and The Old Federal Building paid? Are they considered less professional and imortant than the Artprize paid office staff?
We suffer in this country from a lack of funding for the Arts. We have been driving down a road where Art has been treated with less and less importance in our schools and cities. We politically debate funding major Art institutions and who should be in charge of them. Art is considered more and more an entertainment. And with that attitude we as a people lesson the importance of the knowledge of Art. The history of Art. The reason for Art in each of our daily lives. Knowledge is being replaced by opinion. That has a dangerous premise that should be carefully considered.
I wish every city in America had an Art event sort of like Artprize. I just wish that in a event like ArtPrize that knowledge and education was valued over personal opinion.
I think the Jacob interview has been the most insightful yet, and the following series of posts are most engaging. There is much to consider for Artprize to continue and truly benefit the art community of this state and at large. I hope that the organizers take heed to all the constructive criticism that has been offered and make the necessary changes.
I for one thoroughly enjoyed my participation in the event, especially the time that I could spend in my installation with visitors as they listened and wrote upon the copies of drawings or offered their verbal comments, not only about my work but the entire event, which suggests a microcosm of the overall experience.
Richard, I’m not seeing the connection between the “personal opinion” aspect of Artprize voting, and Devos’ political affiliations. I believe that if executed poorly, Artprize will be a champion of the status quo, but I don’t believe that result has anything to do with a political party platform or agenda. Artprize, I believe, is a concept that could remain politically neutral with some guiding principles. In it’s first year, it lacks integrity due to a flawed voting system and UICA sponsorship. Four of the top ten are within view of each other on the river. Another four in the top ten are at Artprize registration sites. Another top ten piece is at the venue with the most advertising. The current voting system makes the public look less intelligent than it really is, not because of the works voted on, but because of the locations that were voted on out of convenience.
Aaron,
My connection might make more sense to you if you replace the word ‘political’ with ‘social’ or ‘social/political’. How Art is viewed, treated, funded, organized can be looked at socially and politically. Your piece certainly is.
And I might slightly disagree with your assessment that this years voting outcome was flawed because of a flawed organizational system. Even considering your claim that the more popular venues received the more votes within those very venues were far superior works than those selected.
IN the UICA building Anja Mohn “One Another” and Dragana Crnjak’s ” I Thought I Might Find You” along with Heidi Kumao’s “Correspondence” were far superior to anything that made the top ten.
In the Old Federal Building work by J. Thomas Pallas, Reni Gower, Deniis Jones, Yolanda Gonzalez, Megan Heeres, Jerry Gretzinger should have easily won out over anything selected. So location and voting procedures, in my mind, does not begin to trump the poor public choices.
Touché. Quite frankly though, I don’t believe this year’s top ten reflects public taste. It reflects public response to a specific voting context. Who’s to say that voting on as many pieces as you’ve seen and like is the most accurate way to achieve a general consensus on art? And you have to admit, under this system, curated shows like the UICA have a huge advantage over other venues, especially when the UICA is a sponsor and registration site for Artprize. Okay, I’ve officially beat this horse to death.
Dennis, My husband and I thought your installation was neat,creepy,and it definitely promoted dialogue. We agreed it is something that could be in a scary movie like when they enter the serial killers room. Cool Idea.
Jordana, there was nothing in that room, written by me anyway, that would even remotely suggest a serial killer. Pehaps you meant a killer artist and not an artist killer? You’ve been watching to many episodes of CSI or something similar.
As an Art Prize artist, I was hoping that a few “art world” professionals would trip upon my art in the midst of the giant cartooning and find something worth critiquing. I am hoping a few art professionals visited Grand Rapids and found a few works worthy of “the establishment” . . . I think about 10 percent of the art I have seen is ‘good’ . . . and I think that is about the percent of the general public that would take more than 2 seconds to cast their votes . . . I saw people texting in while gliding through – in no way could they have experienced individual pieces . . . I am just hoping that all of the time and money put out results in some critical comments.
I would have enjoyed a seperate voting (without reward money) by several established 21st century critics . . . so you get the public (general) vote, but you would receive some feedback by art reviewers that are respected. As it is, even some ‘good’ art, which didn’t WOW the ‘public’ will have been lost in the shuffle.
What has been reinforced to me is that there is still gender bias in the art establishment and that it is almost impossible to make a living as a serious artist – I could have ‘sold out’ and made some crazy things . . . but that is not what I feel my calling is to express. I see Las Vegas style art and it is fun. I wish there was a place and forum for emerging artists.
I am in ‘moderation’ purgatory.
After more thinking . . . I am a little freaked at how disdainful some ‘experts’ (having read all of the interviews) seem to view ArtPrize. It is unworthy of a resume??? If I was one of the first 40 artists to receive a venue and if said venue is curated and rotates contemporary (curated) art as part of its mission and practice, why is that not resume worthy?
It was exciting to me to see all the art in one city – literally tripping over it and to see and feel the excitement in the air. I actually felt good about being in ArtPrize until I started reading these interviews. Now I am depressed and confused. I will never and would never change my content or give up craftsmanship or technique to woo a vote . . . what I hope is to present my social commentary and have it considered on and in a credible format, regardless of my race, gender, etc.
Given these interviews – unless there is a critical vote provided, I don’t know if I would enter again. I loved my venue and its curator – KCAD. I would be proud to exhibit there at any time – with or without ArtPrize. Not all of the artists were here to snag a check – we actually wanted some feedback and response to our work. In fact, we spent lots of our own money to get our work where it might be reviewed and spent money to print brochures and literature to help connect the viewers to a deeper dialogue with our work . . . I’m not sure if that has occurred.
Astoundingly, a lot of these interviews occurred without the viewing process before hand. How can you ‘review’ or comment about an event without experiencing it? I thought this would be about art, not about politics and red tape. Oops.
I made the effort to view most of the art that I could get to. It would have been nice to have that reciprocated by the ‘experts’ before being swept under the rug.
I too will be doing a post on my website about ArtPrize, about participating, my reasons for doing so, my thoughts in general on the project. Since the art world tells you that you are supposed to leave off your resume all juried competitions, I figured this is a more proper way to declare my thoughts, rather than adding it to a list. I also will soon be doing a post about a problem I find in art education today, the gap between Big Art School and Small Atelier/Academy. I feel that I come from an educational formation somewhere in the middle, and I find an enormous difference in the art that is appreciated in the US versus Europe.
Sher,
I think Ms. Jacob immediately picked up on something very important regarding ArtPrize. How many people voted as if the prize money was like a purchase versus a grant to a promising artist? It’s an excellent criticism and one I hope ArtPrize can address in years to come.
[...] to reflect on the significance of the contest through a series of written essays that included an interview with Mary Jane Jacob, Professor and Executive Director of Exhibitions and Exhibition Studies at School of the Art [...]
Wow, Sh*tload… This comment caused an epiphany: “To my mind, the “democracy” of choice promised by ArtPrize masks a more distrubing desire on the part of its major sponsors to do away with government support of the arts advocated by those who they imply are “cultural elites.””
…
Richard, now I understand your point of view.
Aaron,
Come to papa.
Haha! I’m not saying I completely agree with you, Richard. Not yet, anyway. But I definitely understand the danger and threat of a privately-funded (and politically-funded) organization like Artprize against government arts programs. If Artprize gets huge, it would certainly have the capability to use itself as a platform against government arts funding. Even more troubling, it will potentially have the power to stand up against intellectualism and let big money win the fight.
Last Tuesday, a middle aged women came abruptly into the space, and asked me, “are you the artist of all this?” I said, “I am.” She then responds, “respectfully, I think your work is just trash,” as she quickly turns on her heels to leave, I say, “thank you for your comment.” She then responds, “I said respectfully”, and I said, “I guess that makes all the difference then.”
Her commentary was made with a room full of people, but I imagine this could have been the first time that she felt freedom enough to express herself, which is a significant part of what the work is about.
I hope my installation was seen as a fly in the ointment for such an extreme right wing agenda…it purposely did not fit in and free thought will prevail. I’ve heard that visitors have taken to writng directly on the walls in the space, as most of the paper is filled.
Hey Dennis , Sometimes I wonder was fantastic ! It was like time stopped when i sat in that recliner. Here’s how you fix artprize. break it down into disciplines and have a public and proffesional vote. Divy the money up equaly between the top 50.
There would be no way i could pick a winner , I saw a lot of art that was top notch quality , i would love to spend more time with them.
Grats to the the winner and the rest of the top ten.
Johnny, thanks for your comment.
Social/political?
Thanks for posting here artists. I appreciate your respectful back and forth.
I think it is a reach to look at the political involvements of Rick’s family. The Strykers in Kzoo — as far left as the DeVos’ are right — could sponsor a similar event there.
Should I be suspicious whenever I go to the symphony at DeVos Hall, or to a hockey game at VanAndel Arena?
What about our annual festival of the arts? It’s commerce driven. Just because it is doesn’t mean that the sincerity or dedication of the participants should be questioned.
If The Devos family would have chosen the arbiters, I might be suspicious. But the whole point was that the selection process was democratic (small d), driven from the ground up, not determined from the top down.
Thanks again for your contributions,
Irwin
I’d like to know what pieces of art are purchased and stay in the area in public spaces where they could be re-visited. Like Johnny, I’d like to spend more time with some of my favorite pieces.
“But the whole point was that the selection process was democratic (small d), driven from the ground up, not determined from the top down.”
Kind of like the anti abortion movement or prayer and intelligent design in schools.
Richard: huh?
If one of the reasons, if not the prime purpose, for a juried art competition is to recognize and rank quality, I‘m still looking for a defender of ArtPrize to make the argument that the public as the sole arbiter/juror actually achieves that goal. If there is no standard for choice/vote, other than one that accommodates any level of understanding, what of value is really being determined? It seems it simply elevate everyone to “expert”, under the assumption that there is little, if any, value to anything other than common opinion. Without educated overview, we are subject to whim and superficialities when trying to evaluate the unfamiliar. That’s just human nature. However, if the new “democratic” paradigm is really a cogent position, why not apply the same criteria to all esoteric disciplines? Why not put up for public vote the validity of a new scientific breakthrough? Or perhaps we should have open, democratically determined outcomes in medical research. All are encouraged/empowered to vote. It doesn’t matter what your experience in the field has been. After all, applying the same logic as ArtPrize promoters, what value do experts have that the average man or woman doesn’t? Their view has been a resounding “none”. That approach towards critical and educated thought may work for Glenn Beck, but it has historically resulted in cultural and societal chaos.
Macyn, while I agree with you overall, I think that comparing ArtPrize to science or medical research is an unfair stretch. One must pass certain peer reviews to be a medical researcher, for example, but to be an artist one need only say they are an artist. Given such a low standard of entry into the field, the idea of public voting doesn’t seem so illogical to me. Besides, art connects at the level of human experience, a credential we all possess, even if our ability to judge formally isn’t well honed.
That said, AP is but a public art contest, and we should not try to judge it any more harshly than that. The “heavies” didn’t show up, did they? I didn’t see a Louise Bourgeois or Anish Kapoor sculpture in Grand Rapids, did you? Their work did show up at the Frieze in London last week, however. The really big name artists recognize AP for what it is, and go elsewhere.
As I posted in another thread, I enjoyed AP for the good time that it was, and for the opportunity to have many people enjoy the art, including mine. That’s all good. Does it fundamentally “jump start” the discussion of art? No, it doesn’t, not yet, but it might one day. It got attention this time because of the prize money, and would otherwise have come and gone like any of the thousands of public exhibitions mounted every year, juried or otherwise.
Will I apply to come back? You bet. It is what it is, and I had fun.
John, I don’t think that my comparison is a stretch at all. The “peer review” you mention as a requirement for medical or scientific credentials is an active ingredient for art as well. And it’s that very thing that is eliminated, by design, in the ArtPrize competition. Or, you could say that ArtPrize has allowed no qualification for peer status to exist. My argument is that art should pass through the prism of critical evaluation by those who are intimately familiar with art/history/culture before claims of superiority (1st, 2nd, 3rd prizes distinguished by the mammoth sizes exhibited here) can have validity. Replacing that layer with democratic populism as the sole means of evaluation seems shortsighted and is a disservice to art. By giving such a huge $$$ prizes- and by it’s very name- the ArtPrize venture elevates a standard of judgement/evaluation which repudiates serious “peer review”. (To put it in context: the two men who shared the Nobel Prize for science this year for developing the technology fortaking digital still and moving pictures each got $350,000.)
As for how art connects, what does it mean to say it “connects at the level of human experience”? How is that unique to experiencing art. What doesn’t connect at that level? Human experience is a fundamental element to gaining understanding and knowledge. Without it we couldn’t learn, communicate or evaluate anything. In terms of art, if left untutored, human experience becomes nothing more than knowing what I like, even though I may not know why I like it.
I’m glad you enjoyed AP. I think it has it’s value, as Adam Weinberg pointed out. But I’m just wondering if the real cost, in terms of sacrificing an important critical apparatus, might be a little steep.
Hi again, Macyn. I think we might be in violent agreement here. I accept your main point, which is that the $$$ alone separated AP from everything else, and unjustifiably so. I think we differ elsewhere. People’s human experience can help them appreciate art, and they need no training to apply that experience. In the minds of many, the viewers complete the art, each in their own personal ways. Human experience does little to help us understand other more complex fields where formal training is required. To say people need to be trained to judge art or to be validly moved by it borders on elitism, which many of us (even us with the MFA) ascribe to many curators. There is a fork in the evaluation road here, I think. One path is that to art that moves us; the other to that which moves us and also advances art history. Rather than distinguish the two, AP, by virtue of the enormous prize money, blurred them. It made most people assume the winner would advance the world of art. The critical apparatus you mentioned was indeed put in jeopardy, but not for long, and in the end the “art world” separated it just fine, don’t you think?
I hope I said all this well, as I do think I understand and agree with you message.
There is a “fork in the road” as John Magnan suggests. But that fork is whether we want a culture that fosters the best in science, art, medicine, literature or a society that fosters an easy , lite, populist notion of mediocrity.
Jerome Weeks of Artsjournal.com in a review of David Smith’s “Money for the Arts” suggests that since the dismantling of the NEA in the 1980′s……
” politicians (used) the arts as a flash point to inflame anger and suspicion against their political opposition, to punish that opposition. The fact is that tarring the arts (and arts supporters) has repeatedly worked as a political attack strategy, especially when artists, arts organizations and the NEA are used as stand-ins for a supposedly decadent, educated, effete establishment, whether that’s in Hollywood, New York or Washington, D.C.”……..
I think we are seeing this reenacted with another type of “tarring” of intellectualism, elitism, expertise and knowledge as something to be suspicious of. This is wrong and it is dangerous.
The premise of AP, that the publics opinion of Art is on par with any professional critique of Art, is the same type of fanning the flames of populist anti intellectualism that The Devos Foundation uses in their support of the anti- abortion and anti gay rights movements and intelligent design in schools. It’s the same technique that the Bush Administration used to denounce scientific expertise when it came to global warming. If you remove the value of expertise the problem goes away in the publics eye. If the “experts” no longer have a valid opinion then you don’t have to argue your point, you just have to sell it.
Macyn Bolt makes an excellent case that what we are then left with is a culture that views expertise and common opinion as equal in status. And I think Mr. Magnan is confusing the publics ability to enjoy Art as an inherent, ingrained ability with being able to be the judge and jury as to what is and is not good art.
This confused state of mind where Art is nothing more than simple light hearted entertainment doesn’t do Art it’s justice and ends up short changing the viewers experience of art. You can’t grow and learn about Art if you think you already know what it is or should be.
It seems to me that “good” art has indeed been defined by an elite group that set its own subjective criteria. Heaven forbid that someone else see it differently. How long did it take the art establishment to even acknowledge, must less appreciate, art that wasn’t white male Eurocentric? Gasp. Art is not science or medicine or mathematics with objective standards. I’ve sure sat through enough grad school crits, with so-called expert professors from NYC, to know that they are completely subjective, and as often as not wind up arguing with each other over what is “good,” totally ignoring the student. This simply did not happen when I was getting my math degree. A triple integral there had a bottom line. Art does not. And wayyyy too many of the art establishment don’t want the public to understand their subjective criteria. For those elite, the sharing of information is also the sharing of power. They fear that, because then they must let go of control. As much as you argue that Devos is trying to denounce expertise, they are also serving notice to the establishment that the rules must be shared.
I don’t pretend that AP found new art. But, sheeze, it’s only a contest. Do you really think the Devos family is using their contest as a surrogate to undermine the elite art establishment? Putting art “rules” on a par with science and math is a real stretch for me.
John, The point you see us agreeing on is not something I asserted. I didn’t say that it was the prize money alone that separated AP from other competitions/exhibition opportunities. Rather, it was the large prize money that brought the philosophical/political agenda of AP to the forefront. That agenda-the elimination of anything other than populist taste as a means of evaluation- is what ultimately distinguishes AP from the others. If we don’t value art enough when it’s presented for exhibition, to consider in depth evaluation by qualified individuals (and I don’t mean only academics or others trained in the field, but rather a range of experienced viewers with broad exposure) when deciding such a life changing prize sums, then I don’t see it really advancing a true understanding of art. The populist perspective promoted by AP accommodates a view that elevates any and all personal opinion above all else. That’s just not good for a deeper appreciation of art. If good art can make you think about our state of being and challenge our presuppositions about what is true or not, how can a system that legitimizes non-analysis- a “I don’t know much about art, but I know what I like” approach – be beneficial. That road leads to the kinds of abuse of art and it’s practitioners that Richard Kooyman mentions above.
Let’s be clear here, John. I’m not saying that art can’t be appreciated at a primal level. It’s important though that we advance from”being moved” by something to asking why we are moved by it (am I able to be objective?), to asking IF we should be moved by it (is it worthy or is it manipulative), what are the reasons that this work does move me, and so forth. I totally disagree with your assertion that “human experience does little to help us understand other more complex fields where formal training is required.” Human experience is the foundation for knowledge and is the ONLY way in which we can understand things to a greater and greater degree. Initial perception is always the beginning point, but to justify leaving it there is a disservice. That’s why including other, more experienced, minds into the discussion/decision process in an art arena such as AP is important.
This could be dangerous, but why don’t we make an analogy using religion? Anyone who is literate is able to read the Bible, correct? Yet churches are not simply buildings where people gather to do this or even take turns standing up front reading from the Bible (most that I know of, anyway). Congregations are led by pastors, preachers, priests, et al who have studied and become experts in their field. Can the common person still be a person of faith if they do not attend church and follow the guidance of an expert? Yes, but some would argue it is a diminished, lesser experience. If one truly wants to do more than dabble, they will seek out the experts and learn from them.
I don’t understand why the visual arts put themselves above populism. Music does not. Gourmet cooking does not. Movies do not. (and others fields of creativity) In those cases the public votes big time … with their wallets and their feet, not their cell phones. I hear no crying out about that. In fact, in most cases the public’s choice (indicated by spending and attendance) coincides with the award panels of experts (Oscar, Tony, MTV, etc.) Hmmm, you mean the general, neanderthal, untrained public can get it right? And the “winners” in music and movies make a lot more money on the public’s vote than the AP money gives. I suppose we should only value classical music, since the classically trained are the best, right? So the music experts say. I have so many CDs to throw away, as I’m not classically trained and can’t possibly understand what I’m hearing as well as a symphony conductor.
AP seems to threaten you. Why?
John, How do you know they’re getting it right? According to whom and according to what?
AP doesn’t threaten me. As a bloated art competition, I’m happy the “people’s choice” award helped out some artists, deserving or otherwise. Hell, I might even apply myself next year. But AP’s core assumptions just seem to be at odds with promoting a complete understanding of the arts… at least one that has some depth of purpose.
I never called any art novice a Neanderthal as you just did. Nor do I think the general public’s opinion is worthless. Quite the contrary. It’s vital… along with others. But what kind of elitism are you promoting with your categorical disregard for deeper thinking on the subject. By the way, I have some music, theatre, music, and cooking critics and teachers for you to meet.
John,
With all due respect you seem to have an emotional involvement here that is leading you to say some rather broad exaggerated claims.
I’m using the word elite to signify the best, the most highly regarded, the most knowledgeable. You seem to be using the word in it’s reference to abuse of power. Thats a telling choice.
The Art World is not your enemy. The Art World is a vast, multi faceted profession which today offers more choice for what ever style, form and media you may be interested in. We have classical museums, alternative space, temporary spaces, large corporate galleries that sell only to the wealthy and we have small intimate local galleries. We have classically trained academies and contemporary university programs. You can have a career building ballon sculptures or drawing realistic portraits.
The history of Art is varied and complex. You seem to be confusing the variety of type, approach, teaching technigue or theory with the word ‘subjectivity’.
You write……”It seems to me that “good” art has indeed been defined by an elite group that set it’s own subjective criteria.” …….
Who are you referring to when you make that accusation? Which group? What criteria?
Being knowledgeable about Art, being able to explain your position about Art, being able to be objective about Art is not pulling anything over on anyone. It’s not a trick or a sham. It’s simply talking intelligently about a subject. And any one can become knowledgeable and intelligent about any subject, including Art. Why be so angry?
Hey guys, I was responding to you, remember? I don’t see AP as a Devos conspiracy akin to the right wing movement against abortion and the other topics you mentioned, and I see nothing at all wrong with the people voting or the idea that they might actually discover a visual artist that the establishment wouldn’t otherwise accept.
That’s happened plenty, you know? It’s been the public groups that have had to wake the art establishment up to accept women’s art and art history, as well as that of minorities.
I think I’m seeing both sides of it.
But I think we’ve beaten this to death. I’m good with stopping here.
I’m sure you are John.
In the spectrum of this debate, I think of my views as being moderate. John, you make some good arguments. You suggest that there’s no harm in allowing the public to judge quality, which I can only assume is because the public makes the culture. Your reasoning is that Artprize lacks credibility in the Art world, so it’s not a threat. Richard and Macyn, you suggest that Art is too important to its culture to be judged by people that haven’t invested the time or energy to fully appreciate the work, and that purchasing a sliver of cultural significance with a $250,000 carrot is a cheap way of dumbing down the Arts. You seem to recognize a threat in Artprize which inadvertently gives it credibility as a challenging force against the Art world.
Personally, I believe that the public has the potential to become more educated in the Arts as a result of Artprize. Public taste will improve as the public gains interest. But public taste will never replace expert discernment in the Arts, because the public doesn’t collaborate to write the history books (well, until my book gets published anyway), and it doesn’t decide what gets into the museums (remember, Artprize was on the streets).
With that said, I believe the danger in Artprize has more to do with the lack of fairness to artists, and the conflicts of interest caused by a biased organization (Artprize). This is what causes Artprize’s lack of credibility; it’s not the public vote! Sorry for being redundant, but… By having Artprize registration sites located at competing venues, it provides a HUGE disadvantage to other artists, and only undermines AP’s credibility as a reflection of public taste. Secondly, offering professional curation ONLY at sponsoring venues creates another HUGE disadvantage to other artists, and again undermines AP’s credibility as a true reflection of public taste. To be truly democratic, I believe that NO venue should be professionally curated or promoted in arrangement with Artprize. That’s like putting the DNC or the RNC in charge of presidential elections. Who would want to live in that country???
If Artprize wants to be sustainable and succeed beyond its wildest dreams, it must remove economic ambitions from its mission. Grand Rapids will thrive as a result of Artprize. Don’t worry about it. Don’t worry if restaurants are making money. Focus on the integrity of the message! Artprize MUST remain politically neutral. Period. It’s not about Rick Devos. It’s not about Grand Rapids. It’s about ART. It can’t indirectly endorse candidates of the $250,000 by allowing its sponsors to professionally curate their spaces. Even with a general popular vote, Artprize must advocate for the creative artist, not the general public!!! If artists suffer, Artprize suffers. It’s all about priorities.
On second thought, Artprize can do whatever it wants. I’m just trying to help.
P.S. Is it possible to give artists the reserved middle section next year during the Winner’s Announcement, instead of corporate sponsors? I really would have liked to sit with Artists in the front and center. I believe my accomplishments and contributions to Artprize deserve that seat, and corporate sponsors should be willing to honor that.
Cheap shot, Richard.
Good points Aaron.
John, It’s not a cheap shot. You come on here with these broad exaggerated claims of elitism. I’m just ask you to back up those claims with some meaning. You don’t seem willing to do so. If you willing and able to back up those claims then please do so otherwise I’m rather sick of the whining.
Richard, the broad exaggerated claims were yours. To whit, AP “is the same type of fanning the flames of populist anti intellectualism that The Devos Foundation uses in their support of the anti- abortion and anti gay rights movements and intelligent design in schools. It’s the same technique that the Bush Administration used to denounce scientific expertise when it came to global warming.”
What?
I was really only responding to that point, which borders on hysteria.
It appears we have reached an end, at least for me. My last entry here is the same as my first. I have no problem with the general public weighing in on evaluating artwork. I think it’s very important and provides perspective. I actually like the role the general public can have and its involvement should be encouraged. I’m not saying that the public’s view on art is wrong. For one thing it’s not monolithic, nor is it totally free of informed thought. I just would like to see it’s power put in a different perspective than sole arbiter. What about combining it with critical overview from some that might be more informed on contemporary art. Neither the public opinion or the more experienced opinion has exclusive rights to what is best.
My objection comes more in AP’s extreme elevation of the public opinion as the truest/best mindset for critical thought and evaluation. It is the unavoidable point driven home by a prize amount that far exceeds similar people’s choice awards in any other national or international juried show. And it was the ONLY means of awarding special recognition. I would’ve preferred a broader jury pool. At the end of the day, I think its the sheer magnitude of the prizes that informs the debate about the means of judgement. If the top prize was $25,000 and on down, I don’t think the issue would be so red-lined. But at $250,000 it can’t help but make a big issue of how the “best of show” is determined, since the stakes are so high. And then there is the whole question about award shows altogether and what purpose they really have. That could keep us going for a long time, but I need to sign off.
Good luck to all of you. I appreciated the lively debate as long as it’s lasted. I’ve got to get back to my painting now!
Hey y’all, sorry to completely get off track here, but watch ABC World News tonight (5:30). They’re doing a segment on my Artprize entry. Kinda late, but cool anyway. It was supposed to air September 22nd, the day before Artprize started. Fortunately, the project is still relevent outside of Artprize. Yup, I’m proud of what I accomplished.
Interesting profile on ABC, Aaron. Congratulations.
I like the project… nice idea.