Comments on: An Interview with Mary Jane Jacob

By: stonecutter

stonecutter — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:25:54 +0000

how about “where” we placed and not the actual number of votes?…..can ap do that for us?……i won’t come back if they don’t. period. big threat, ha!

By: Jordana Dickinson

Jordana Dickinson — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:08:53 +0000

Dennis, so sorry. I wasn’t meaning what you wrote looked like a serial killers writing, I was referring to the feeling I had when I was in the space with your art. The mood was kind of creepy. I thought it was fantastic though.

By: Macyn Bolt

Macyn Bolt — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:26:22 +0000

Interesting profile on ABC, Aaron. Congratulations.
I like the project… nice idea.

By: Aaron Heideman

Aaron Heideman — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:42:13 +0000

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.

By: Macyn Bolt

Macyn Bolt — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 04:35:57 +0000

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!

By: John Magnan

John Magnan — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:11:59 +0000

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.

By: Richard Kooyman

Richard Kooyman — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:50:55 +0000

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.

By: John Magnan

John Magnan — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:35:55 +0000

Cheap shot, Richard.

By: Aaron Heideman

Aaron Heideman — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:11:05 +0000

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.

By: Richard Kooyman

Richard Kooyman — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:49:01 +0000

I’m sure you are John.