Are The Ordinary Bits Of Beauty Being Designed Out Of Our Lives?

by:

Joe Patti

Tyler Cowen of the Marginal Revolution blog posted a short video meant as a preview of a long movie project discussing how we have eliminated ordinary beauty from our lives in the name of efficiency.

Sheehan Quirke moves about London comparing ornate, though mass produced objects from the Victorian era like lamp posts, door fixtures, etc., arguing that design has moved toward simple functionality and abandoned offering beauty in every day objects.

Perhaps the most striking example he provides is at the 6:50 mark when he introduces a location as being in Parliament before revealing the ornate room is actually located in a sewage pumping station, stating

Well people worked here and why shouldn’t people who work in sewers also have a beautiful place of work?

I have to think there is more to the story than the room being a reflection of Victorian sensibilities. Not too earlier he notes a neighborhood he was walking through was likely an overcrowded tenement area with sewage openly rotting in the streets. Beauty was not a priority everywhere.

As a commenter on the Marginal Revolution post noted, there is likely a bit of survivorship bias in operation where the really ugly sewage stations have all been razed while the gorgeous one has been preserved as a tourist attraction.

His point still bears considering. He didn’t mention it directly but I did start to wonder if the reduction of every day beauty in small things around us has resulted in an reduction of appreciation of art and culture. Perhaps even impacting the perception that one has the capacity to be creative.

I am reminded of the manhole covers in Japanese cities which evoke aspects of particular pride for that locale.

In the interviews with the former NEA chairs I posted on Monday, one of the chairs, (Bill Ivey, I think) mentioned the NEA has a program that helps mayors solve design problems in their city. I had no idea. I expected the program had been dissolved since Ivey’s tenure but it indeed still exists.

So if a community wanted to start thinking about how to integrate small pieces of beauty into everyday life, that NEA program might be a place to start.

Kitchener-Waterloo Musicians Still Keeping Symphony Going Two Years After Bankruptcy

by:

Joe Patti

Over the last two years I have been monitoring the story of the Kitchener-Waterloo Symphony which abruptly declared bankruptcy taking the musicians who had just negotiated a raise completely by surprise. Over the last couple years the musicians have managed to revive the organization, negotiating with creditors, and mounting a series of concerts.

There was a recent story on the CBC site with interviews with musicians reflecting on the two years since the bankruptcy.

Things aren’t back to normal for the group. One of the musicians was already working another part time job and shifted toward full-time when the orchestra went bankrupt. Another musician spent his life savings to move across Canada only to find the job no longer existed and started doing handy man jobs having never played with the organization. Where the season was once 90 concerts, they are down closer to 19.

I am glad to see that news organizations are continuing to revisit the story from time to time just to keep the musicians and the travails they have faced closer to top of mind.

The NEA At 60, Through The Eyes Of Past Chairs

by:

Joe Patti

Last week, the Arts Management program at American University released a series of video interviews with the former chairs of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) on the occasion of the NEA’s 60th anniversary.

These chairs are Jane Alexander, Bill Ivey, Dana Gioia, Jane Chu, Rocco Landesman, Maria Rosario Jackson. While the video says they interviewed seven chairs, only six videos are available. Perhaps Mary Anne Carter was interviewed but wasn’t videotaped.

There is a summary video of some of each of their thoughts which is interesting to watch.

There are also longer individual video interviews with each that I have linked to each name above. I haven’t listened to all of them as of this posting time, but it is interesting to see what each valued and brought to the job.

Jane Chu talked about how her father died when she was 9 years old and she didn’t have the words at that age to express what she was feeling, but that art provided her with an outlet. A fair bit of her focus was on the importance of the arts for social cohesion and self-expression. She cited some examples of how recognition of creative intelligence reveals aspects of people that measures of academic intelligence don’t.

Dana Gioia was apparently the first chair who set a goal to have at least one grant in every Congressional district. He said that given every district has about three-quarters of a million people in it, there must be at least one organization in there that was doing something worthy of a grant. He said this changed the relationship of the NEA with Congress and the people of many districts.

Though he also relates an anecdote where he essentially strong armed a Congressman into attending an advocacy meeting where the representative realized a lot of his campaign donors were passionate about the arts. He makes the point that legislators’ view of things is filtered through their staff so often direct interaction and advocacy is necessary.

Jane Alexander faced something of a similar situation when she was appointed in 1993 during a big uproar over the types of work the NEA was supporting. She said she realized she needed to better communicate the work of the NEA. So she visited over 200 communities soon after she was appointed. She said once people understood that NEA funds were supporting programs in their communities that they and their families valued, they began to advocate for continued support to their representatives and senators. Like Jane Chu she cited meeting people for whom the arts provided an outlet for expression during troubled times in their lives.

Rocco Landesman seemed relatively optimistic about the NEA’s future existence. Though he outright criticized the current politicization of the NEA where some of the other chairs were a little more circumspect.

Casino Developers Betting On Museums

by:

Joe Patti

Hyperallergic had a story about a couple casino developers who offered to build museums as part of a bid open some casinos in NYC.

According to the story, one would have developed a $15 million civil rights museum and the other “….included a museum dedicated to freedom and democracy, featuring works by international artists as well as pieces of the Berlin Wall.”

Both proposals, which were among about a dozen others, failed to pass review by two committees on the basis “…. staunch neighborhood opposition, increased traffic congestion, and negative effects on quality of life in their neighborhoods. “

Many of those submitting proposals also promised to build things like schools, concert venues, affordable housing, and hotels.

Apparently, the proposed museums weren’t really an enticing feature and didn’t elicit much conversation among committee members. Though New Yorkers are likely a little jaded by the plethora of museums and galleries available to them. In other communities the museums might have been more compelling elements.

A competing developer suggested

“…that the inclusion of a cultural institution as an amenity was merely a cynical ploy for public approval, rather than a sincere effort to improve communities. 

This said, the group that proposed the civil rights museum said they intended to move ahead with the project which they claimed had many supporters. Hyperallergic noted they didn’t comment on the site of the museum and who those supporters might be.

One member of the committee reviewing the proposals was concerned about the casinos competing with other cultural icons.

 He ultimately opposed the proposal because he feared the resort would detract from the Broadway theater industry, and because he did not trust the applicant to keep promises for future housing units.

A former commissioner of the NYC Department of Cultural Affairs said that pairing casinos with cultural organizations wasn’t an absurd idea, but did warn that the association may mar the image of the museum.

“Museums have to be cautious about what this does to their reputation,” Finkelpearl said, predicting that cultural institutions “will come under all kinds of fire if they’re seen as the group that opened the door for this use that people don’t want in the neighborhood.”

Artsjournal.com just linked to a piece on Artnet discussing this very topic of how corporate sponsorship can be a fraught topic for museums.

“There is no clear line as to what is considered good money versus bad money when it comes to corporate sponsorship,” said Leslie Ramos, co-founder of art philanthropy advisory firm The Twentieth, …“How long is a piece of string? What is considered a potentially good company and reputable company today is not necessarily going to be considered a good company in 10 or 20 years time.”

123783 Next