SFMOMA expansion

On Monday, San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom announced the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art's planned expansion, which includes taking over the Howard Street fire station, and spending $14 million to relocate it to a new building.

The additional space will house the contemporary and modern art collection of the Fisher family, founders of the Gap. Last September, SFMOMA announced that long time San Francisco residents Doris and Donald Fisher planned to house their 1100 piece collection at SFMOMA.

Brandeis faculty cuts

The Boston Globe just reported that Brandeis plans to cut 2 dozen faculty positions and eliminate a number of academic offerings, including grad programs in anthropology and theater. This, of course, is after Brandeis' controversial decision to close their Rose Art Museum. Read more about it here.

Update: The Rose

Brandeis University's art museum, The Rose, is making headlines again. In January, the university's president, Jehuda Reinharz, announced that the museum would close its doors to the public, and additionally, Brandeis would sell the museum's entire 7500 piece collection in order to raise funds for the school.

A group of professors immediately called for Reinharz's resignation, and many in the art community questioned the legality of the university's actions.  In February, Reinharz recanted some of his earlier statements: he told The Boston Globe that the Rose would not be closing, but instead would  transition from a public art museum to an educational arts center. Additionally, he clarified that

the university intended to sell just a small portion of the collection 'if and when it is necessary.'

Still, such clarifications did little to assuage the fears of the international art community. In July, citing museum ethical codes, which require proceeds from any sale of artwork be used only to purchase new acquisitions, three members of The Rose Art Museum's board of overseers filed a lawsuit in order to stop the sale of any work.

Then, last week, a Brandeis University committee recommended that the museum remain open to the public, although it failed to take a position on the arguably more important issue of the sale of its collection, valued at $350 million.

Days later, Reinharz announced his resignation to The Justice, Brandeis' student newspaper. However, he claims that he is ending his long tenure as university president because he's met his goals, and the resignation was not influenced by the outcry he created by announcing the Rose's closure.

We drive the bus, Roberta. Don't forget it.

In her September 9th column lauding The Bruce High Quality Foundation University, a free, unaccredited art school created by the artist collective The Bruces in the vain of Summerhill and The Art Students League, Roberta Smith criticizes academia's role in the art world as one that capitalizes on "the illusion that being an artist is a financially viable calling." She also criticizes the new Ph.D. programs in studio art as "cynical commercial opportunism." So, is it financially feasible to be an artist? And if not, is the Masters of Fine Arts, presently accepted as the standard terminal degree in artmaking, a useful degree? Would a Ph.D. program benefit artists?

Is "artist" a viable occupation? Smith should hope so; without artists, where would art critics be? As I read Smith's piece, I was reminded of Gregory Amenoff's words in Letters to a Young Artist:

Remember that ARTISTS DRIVE THE BUS... The entire enterprise is built on one central event: the creative act in the studio.

Artists generate jobs for art critics, art historians, curators, gallerists, art consultants, arts administrators, and art educators, among others. Thus, it's odd, even arrogant, for Smith to argue about the feasibility, or lack thereof, of artmaking as a profession. In fact, there are markets for art; it is possible to be an artist, although it's true that it might not be the most profitable or easiest route for one to take. But these days, what is? Law school, once thought to be a reliable path to a six figure salary, particularly if one went to a top-tier school, is now leaving students six figures in debt with no job prospects. And, those who are lucky enough to score jobs at a Vault 100 firm are stuck working 50-60 hours a week, doing mindless doc review. I may not be able to subsist entirely on my artistic practice, but at least my day job involves creating curriculum, working with leaders in my field on a regular basis, designing material for print and web publication, teaching and writing this blog post in my down time.

And, I am certain that MFA made me a more desirable candidate for my job. A good MFA program prepares its students not just by refining their craft, but also by asking them to relate abstract ideas and visual forms, to utilize available resources, to work under pressure, to work both independently and collaboratively with others, to criticize and evaluate ideas and works, and to effectively communicate, skills that are valuable in myriad settings. Of course, the goal of every artist is to be able to exist entirely off one's own art, to be a full-time artist, but it doesn't mean that one has failed if he must instead use the critical thinking and creative skills that he honed in art school to do something else.

Smith is rightly critical of the present model for advanced study in art practice that leaves too many young artists in debt, and struggling to find time to both survive and make art. However, this is not just "the big business of art schools." This is the higher education system in America, whose costs are rising at a much greater rate than our incomes are. What's more, she is too dismissive of the possibility of a more, rather than less, rigorous educational model for artists as the solution to this problem. Indeed, I don't know that a Ph.D. program is really necessary for artists, however, it's illogical to call the prospect of such a thing "cynical commercial opportunism" on the part of a university that chooses to offer one. In fact, most Ph.D. candidates are funded-- that is, they are actually paid (albeit not much) to study their discipline and often also teach undergraduate courses. Assuming this model would hold true for a Ph.D. in fine arts (and it seems to for the University of California San Diego's new program, one of the only such programs in the United States) this would actually be a good thing for artists. They would have the opportunity to be supported for five years as they made art, and would emerge free with all the connections that a graduate arts education affords, and a degree that would allow them to teach at the college level. Finally, five years of study is a much larger time commitment than the two, or sometimes three years required by MFA programs. Perhaps the greater time commitment will serve to weed out less serious candidates.

Last July, in a performance titled, "Explaining Pictures to a Dead Bull," the Bruces asked, “How can we imagine a sustainable alternative to professionalized art education?” Maybe the way to combat "the conflation of market, art, and academy" is not to abandon entirely any academic qualification for an artist, as the Bruces propose. Perhaps instead, it is to increase academic qualification, to let academia for once truly embrace the arts, to equate artmaking with original research. And maybe then, Roberta Smith will remember who drives the bus.

Higher Ed: Why do we still view creative pursuits in opposition to higher earning?

What is the purpose of higher education? Why should one attend college or graduate school? In the months before school resumed for many students, I found myself pondering just that, as I read articles about frivolous masters degrees, listened to an NPR discussion titled, Is college education worth the debt? and sorted through the comments that followed. Do we seek education for knowledge or to become higher earners?

Remember how, four years ago, in his book, A Whole New Mind, Daniel H. Pink declared that the MFA is the new MBA, to the delight artists and arts educators everywhere. He argued that, as technology automates many jobs, rendering them obsolete, and many of the remaining jobs in technology move to Asia, creativity is what will drive the success of the American economy. "Whole minded aptitudes, " or an integration of both logic and creativity will be rewarded. Those of us pursuing graduate degrees in creative disciplines, so often questioned as to why we were pursuing a "useless" degree felt vindicated: our time had come!

It seems that moment has passed. Indeed, as students returned to school earlier this month, many came back to universities with shrunken arts curriculum. To be fair, many schools were forced to make cuts across the board; it wasn't only arts programs that were affected. But, many argue that arts programs were disproportionately affected. This is in part, because of the structure of many programs. It's often not possible, due to space and materials, to expand a studio course from 16 to 24 people, so, if a section of a course is cut, many students who would like to take it are simply unable to. A lecture, unlike a studio, could more easily take on more students. And, although smaller seminars are ideal, a seminar with 24 people as opposed to 16 is certainly not impossible in the way that a studio course is.

What's more, arts programs rely more heavily on part time or adjunct professors than other programs do. Many schools, including UCLA explain that this is so that they can attract artists who are "in the thick of their careers." This may be true, but it also means that most art professors are not protected by contracts or tenure. It also means that schools can simply not renew a professor's contract, and it isn't reported as having laid someone off. In short, it's an easy way for schools to cut costs without having to appear as though they're cutting costs. The heavy reliance on adjunct professors by arts programs is a separate and complicated issue that I have mentioned in previous posts, and plan to devote a post exclusively to, but, for now I will just say that I wonder why more universities refuse to equate artmaking with original research. That is, why wouldn't the university support an artist with a studio and time to make work in the way that it grants, for example, a physicist a lab, and time to conduct experiments. If creative disciplines were valued equally to other disciplines, then the university would support an artist "in the thick of" his career, or even, support an artist so that he can reach a summit in his career, rather than let others sustain him, and then give him a couple thousand dollars to teach a class each semester.

Higher education is, indeed, an investment, but i's problematic that we measure the value of this investment in money, rather than knowledge. Knowledge is deemed valuable based on its connection to earning potential.

Thus, what one learns as a major in Sports Management, which remained at Washington State University as Theater Arts and Dance were cut, is judged more valuable than the creative knowledge-- including choreography and directing, that comes from performing arts curricula. In fact, the lack of support for creative curricula and programming in the universities is simply a reflection of the nation's values: America does not value making. Our economy is not a production based economy, but instead based on an abstract system of exchange and investment. We don't make things; we just make money, and that is, in part, what led to our economic collapse. Indeed, Pink was right when he advocated the rise of creative thinking; he just was wrong to think that it would be embraced. The irony is, had we recognized the value-- creative, informative, AND financial-- in artistic pursuits, perhaps we would not find ourselves in our present economic state.

My Michael Jackson Post

Because the world has been abuzz about Michael Jackson since his passing on Thursday-- This American Life titled its acts after Michael Jackson hits; Jamie Foxx was moonwalking at the BET awards, every bar I've been in has played a string of MJ hits, and because my boss at SVA is Bob Giraldi, who directed the music video, Beat It as well as the New Generation Pepsi spots with Michael, I feel compelled to blog something about the man in the mirror. What's more, Michael was nothing if not controversial, and I love to blog about controversy in the arts.

No one, save the now grown children involved, can ever truly know if anything sinister happened with Michael, who was accused and ultimately acquitted of child molestation charges. However, he was extensively investigated for over a decade, and although some odd things were discovered, no definitive evidence of foul play was ever unearthed. What's more, people like to fear what's different. Thus, it's my belief that Michael was accused of pedophilia for much of the same reason that homosexuals are often accused of it.

On Monday, Bob twittered, "Time 2 put MJ to rest-forget the rumors, move on 2 remembrance. USA lost 1 of its greatest artists, like Britain's Lennon, Spain's Picasso." Indeed, Michael should be remembered for groundbreaking music, for his thirteen #1 singles and thirteen Grammy Awards, for "I'll be there," and "Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough," for Thriller, the top selling original album of all time, and for "We are the World", which raised $50 million for hunger-relief in Africa. But more than that, he was in many ways an artist who should be placed in both the canon of pop musicians and that of performance artists like Marina Abramović, Bruce Nauman, and Vito Acconci, artists who's bodies are their medium. Indeed, most obviously, Michael's voice was his art. So too was dance, how he made his body move. He perfected and popularized the moonwalk; his dance was integral to the evolution of music video production style.

But, in addition to these things that made him an American icon, the multiple plastic surgeries that were the cause of debate in the African American community, contributed to his reputation as an eccentric, and were the subject of many jokes, were also a part of his art. And yes, they may have been art fueled by such things as vitiligo, a troubled youth, depression, even a body dysmorphic disorder, but much great art comes from personal struggle. Throughout his songs and videos is the theme of transformation-- transformation from person to werewolf ("Thriller"), or from person to spaceship ("Moonwalker"), transformation of the world with music and dance ("Beat it;" "We are the World"), thinking beyond racial stereotypes (Dangerous). His surgeries were not, as some believe, an attempt to transform himself into a "white" person. Instead, with each surgery he further metamorphosized into a person who was neither black nor white, masculine nor feminine, but someone who transcended these classifications: he worked to be aracial and agender. And, though this is not my own ideal, I have to respect someone who so fully embodied his art.

The role of the NEA: Is there a place for controverial art in the government's budget?

A piece about arts funding by David Smith, author of Money for Art: The Tangled Web of Art and Politics in American Democracy, was run in the Wall Street Journal today. The column discusses President Obama’s selections of Jim Leach and Rocco Landesman to head the National Endowment for Humanities (NEH) and the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), respectively. Many in the arts community are disappointed with these choices, as they seem to signal that there will be no change from the somewhat conservative status quo. But Smith embraces these choices; indeed, he argues:

Privately funded art need not steer clear of controversy, but publicly funded art should. In addition to hurting the endowments' standing in Congress, controversy undermines in the public eye the idea that the arts and humanities are important to civic life and are worthy of public funds.

What’s more, he distinguishes between grants made to individual artists, and grants made to programs:

On the surface there's certainly nothing wrong with either cultural agency disbursing grants to individuals. But the debate over such grants highlights the question of who should be the real beneficiary of the endowments: artists and scholars or the public? In truth, the NEA functions just fine without making individual grants. In fact, absent this practice it's easier to see the agency as its creators back in 1965 intended: one whose primary beneficiary is to be the American people as a whole.

The foundation for each of these positions is the belief that the American public as a whole does not benefit from controversial art. But is this assertion true?

In fact, some of the most valuable artistic contributions that have been made have also been controversial, in style, subject matter, or both. These include Goya's Naked Maya and Los Caprichos, Turner's The Slave Ship, the works of the Impressionists, Picasso's Guernica, and Warhol's Campbell's Soup Cans.

In literature, The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger, The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck, The Color Purple by Alice Walker, and Ulysses by James Joyce have all sparked debate and been banned or censored from various institutions.

In fact, one appeal of a lot of good art is its ability to provoke controversy, because this often indicates that it is also provoking thought. Certainly there is work that shocks gratuitously, but the fact that an artist presents something shocking or controversial does not make it gratuitous. Nor does it make it self-serving. I can think of no better way to benefit American society than to encourage and stimulate thought.

Smith trumpets such NEA sponsored programs as Shakespeare in American Communities and Poetry Out Loud because these programs foster a sense of appreciation for the arts, which he believes is in keeping with the spirit of the original NEA mission. But, the NEA's stated mission is:

to foster the excellence, diversity, and vitality of the arts in the United States, and help broaden the availability and appreciation of such excellence, diversity, and vitality.

If we are to foster excellence, diversity, and vitality of the arts, then we are to encourage not just appreciation, but also actual making. And, to be fair, the NEA does do that, in the form of grants to organizations that then redistribute the grants to individual artists. The Vermont Studio Center, The Women's Studio Workshop, Aljira Inc, Art in General, and Public Art Fund Inc are examples of organizations that have received NEA grants for "Access to Artistic Excellence," in other words, money that they will pass along to individual artists, often to do a specific project.

I don't know that returning to a system in which artists apply directly to the NEA for money would be the best way to pomote and advance new work. However, I would be interested in exploring whether eliminating some of the middle-men could be a cost-saving measure that doesn't undermine the integrity of arts funding.

Furthermore, Smith ignores the fact that grants for art appreciation could also spark contoversy. In fact, the poets whose work is included in the Poetry Out Loud program include Jimmy Santiago Baca, who spent 6 years in prison for drug possession and intent to sell, Allen Ginsberg, whose work Howl, was the catalyst for an obscenity trial against San Francisco book dealers, and Gertrude Stein, the lesbian author of one of the earliest coming-out stories, Q.E.D, and whose other works, like Tender Buttons, often commented on lesbian sexuality.

Indeed, many of the museums and arts institutions received NEA grants specifically for exhibitions that might be deemed controversial. The Williams College Museum of Art funded the exhibition of controversial African American artist Kara Walker with a $40,000 grant from the NEA. The recent Jenny Holzer exhibition at the Whitney, Protect Protect, which is highly critical of the Iraq war, was made possible with a grant from the NEA.

And that's a good thing. The government should not deny funding to artists or organizations that promote artists simply because the artwork is critical of a societal institution. To do so is indirect censorship. That is, it encourages those in the arts community to abstain from riskier, controversial endeavors in favor of safer, less critical projects that will more readily receive funding. And if we do that, then what we are not "fostering a vitality of the arts in the United States," but rather a degeneration of American culture.

Art and Privilege

This past weekend, while checking out my friend Joe Borelli’s work as part of the Bushwick Open Studios event, we got in a conversation about art and privilege: Simply, creative pursuits require money and time. Connections help too. As such, those who come from money and an upper class background have an advantage. They can take off for three months to do a residency that allows them to make more work and more relationships in the art world without worrying about how to pay rent and loans and bills. They can take low paying or even unpaid positions because they offer an opportunity to work with a well-known artist or at a prestigious institution. Or they can work part-time, not be burdened by an inflexible 40+ hr a week schedule; they can go into their studios fresh, rather than exhausted after a long day of work for someone else. They can make projects on a scale or with materials that others simply can’t afford to realize. Those projects then get recognition and more funding for even larger projects—the whole thing is cyclical. The rich really do get richer.

But, is this an issue that is unique to artists? Indeed, hasn’t the disparity between the upper and middle and working classes been growing? Hasn’t the cost of higher education been increasing exponentially? Isn’t this just indicative of a larger societal issue?

The answer is of course, yes. But, the issue is even more exaggerated in the arts for the following reasons:

1) Art is the artist’s job. Everything else, at least in terms of employment and career, is secondary. The goal is not to advance in the job or jobs that pay the bills. Those jobs, often only tangentially related to one’s real job of being an artist, offer little help in terms of advancement in the art world, and in fact, take away time from the research, making, schmoozing, and applying that is all part of being an artist—(No, I am not so romantic as to think that being an artist is only about making artwork). So, those with the means to pursue art without having to hold down another job or jobs are able to spend more time on their job of being an artist, and will have an advantage in advancing in that job.

Also, this is different from the lawyer who has to put in her time at a corporate law firm to pay off her student loans before she can start a small practice that focuses on domestic violence issues. She still gets to be a lawyer at the big firm, and is practicing and learning law-related things there. Or, she can choose to ultimately stick with the big firm, and join the ranks of the wealthy. Sticking with art brings no financial security.

2) Related to this, artists are more likely to be freelancers. This means that they have little security in their means of income. Freelancers aren’t eligible for unemployment when their contracts end, and they’ve often been working without health insurance or other benefits. The artist who lives paycheck to paycheck can quickly spiral into severe debt when he becomes un or underemployed, which leads to anxiety and depression, neither of which is good for artmaking (despite the tortured artist myth).

3) Education. The costs of education are rising, and the idea of studying to be an artist doesn’t seem like a viable way to pay back the loans that are often necessary to pay for school. And, many of the best art schools are also among the most expensive. But, unlike, say, the best engineering schools, or law schools, or business schools, a degree from one of the best art schools is still little assurance of making major career advancement as an artist (but it is not worthless— that MFA is a requisite for many galleries now.) This was the case before the economic recession (which admittedly has made job searches more difficult for most disciplines), and now the economy’s downturn has only exaggerated the issue for artists, as galleries close or scale back on shows, or cut down on the artists they represent. So, students without means can abandon the idea of becoming an artist, downgrading art from career to hobby, and pursue something else. Or, they can saddle themselves with the loans that make it necessary for them to take jobs that distract from their real job of being an artist.

The result is that the pool of working artists becomes less economically diverse. Because it takes a certain amount of privilege, or a certain amount of delusion that one can break into such privilege, to identify as an artist. There was an article in the NY Times yesterday about the collapse of Williamsburg, a trendy Brooklyn neighborhood that has found favor with many of the city’s artists, now that so many of the hipsters’ trust funds have dried up. (Full disclosure: my apartment and studio are in the burg) I’m not sure how I feel about it. I’d like to think that it’s the start of putting artists from different financial backgrounds on more equal footing, but in reality, it may just make it even harder for those of us who never had money to make art.