The Status of the Artist:

4 Comments

Everyone can draw, some of us very well. Some not so well. Does that mean that everyone is an artist? No, it certainly does not.

Pulse 2, acrylic 24″ x 30″

I recently attended a discussion in Calgary about The Status of the Artist, along with professional artists from various art practices including dance, theater, writers and visual artists. We were all invited to contribute our views on ‘What is an Artist?’, ‘How do We Contribute to our Society?’ and ‘What is Our Place and Role in that Society?’ Our goal was to provide information to the Alberta Government so it can develop Status of the Artist Legislation. I was eager to attend because I saw it as a first step toward an official recognition of the artists’ contribution to society and a foundation for improving the living conditions of artists. Most are still living below, or very close to, the poverty level. And no, it’s not because they’re disorganized and lazy. Well, maybe some of us are, but not in larger numbers than what you will find in any other field of work.

So? What … and who… is an artist?

There was no problem getting the discussion started; artists are passionate and devoted to their practices and the conversation was animated and interesting since many of us have very similar challenges and concerns. Most of us feel that the term ‘artist’ is used pretty loosely in our society, and that the actual profession of being an artist is not viewed as a very serious endeavor. But I guarantee that for those of us who devote our lives to the practice and understanding of an art form, it is serious and meaningful work. Maybe we should call ourselves ‘Professional Artists’. But would we ask the same of doctors and lawyers? Of course not.

Pulse 1, 30″ x 40″

Perhaps the ‘Artist’ title encompasses too many ‘hobby artists’ – those who like to do a little creative dabbling on weekends to unwind from the work that supports them financially. They may dream of one day chucking the job that supports them and being called an artist, but my advice would be to read my blog titled Naively Optimistic. In that blog I write about the challenges of being a ‘Professional Artist’. It might put a damper on some of that daydreaming.

Anyone can be creative, but that’s not what makes an artist. We need to do a better job at recognizing the training, the work ethic, the experience and the professional presentation of the work that needs to happen before one can call himself a ‘Professional Artist’. Malcolm Gladwell in his book The Outliers has popularized the expression “10 thousand hours”, the average number of hours one needs to invest in something before becoming good at it. Anyone who has attempted to be an artist will confirm that it takes hard work and dedication to become a competent and confident artist. Painting two hours a week and selling pieces to neighbours and friends doesn’t make anyone a professional artist.

Pulse 1, 30″ x 24″

Daniel Grant, in his blog titled How do you Define ‘Artist declares, “As opposed to other occupations that require a license, permits, state testing or even reported income, the label artist seems more like a value judgment….” He goes on to list a number of things that can be considered criterias required for someone to be called an artist:

– an artist makes art. Yes they do, as much as they possibly can.

– an artist declares artistic revenues as their main source of income. Not always. A lot of professional artists hold separate jobs that support their artistic practice. But they should at least take themselves seriously enough to declare all their art related revenus.

– an artist professionally presents their work to the public. Yes, they do. And that’s a critical part of a professional process. As an artist you must be challenged by how people perceive your work. It helps further your development and reflection no matter what the public’s reaction might be. And even though most artists start by presenting their work in non-professional contexts, (the church art sale for instance), they should rapidly move to jury-selected or curated shows to validate their professional status.

– an artist requires a studio or a professional working space. I have yet to meet a professional artist who doesn’t have a space dedicated to the creation of their work.

– an artist is someone whom funding agencies call an artist. And there it is: the ultimate validation. Is the person eligible to receive public funds to pursue their career as an artist? Hard earned money from the tax payer cannot be carelessly distributed and therefore requires some serious boundaries as to who is a professional artist and who is not. The Canada Council for the Arts defines a professional artist as follows:

  • has specialized training in the artistic field (not necessarily in academic institutions)
  • is recognized as a professional by his or her peers (artists working in the same artistic tradition)
  • is committed to devoting more time to artistic activity, if possible financially
  • has a history of public presentation or publication.

And Grant’s final criteria is:

– an artist is someone who calls themselves artist.

If you have read this and still feel confident calling yourself an artist, then go for it. But keep in mind that ‘Professional’ artists in your town, province and country work tirelessly to maintain their status, do you?

For those of you who would like to contribute your thoughts on the Alberta Artist Status, you can do so till June 30th 2018 though this Alberta Foundation for the Arts survey.

 

Is it Possible to Separate Art from the Artist? And Should We?

3 Comments

Can a misogynist, a racist, a rapist or a convicted criminal be a great artist? Can we value their work separately from our evaluation of the person behind the art? Should we support art done by people of low moral character?

When a friend challenged me to answer questions like these, I thought long and hard about the best way to answer. They’re appropriate questions, especially now. In the emergence of the Me Too movement, a number of public figures -who are also artists – have been revealed as having very questionable morals.

The White Horse by Paul Gauguin, 1898

I’ve stewed about this for a couple of days, and have realized that the question is just too big and broad for a short and simple answer. So, first let me start by saying that artists are no better or worse than others who live in the society they do. My guess is that that statistics would prove the proportion of good people and bad people in the art world in the same as in the rest of society. Second, it would be foolish to think that only people of good character can create good art. History is full great artists who had questionable morals. Charles McGrath, in his Globe and Mail article titled Good Art Bad People offers a long list of such artists including Picasso who was basically a bully, and Gauguin who had sexual relations with under-age girls. And yet I still love Gauguin’s’ work. Does that mean I support his behaviour? Absolutely not!

Maybe we’re confusing the meanings of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ when they refer to people and when they refer to art. People are judged according the moral standards of the society they live in. And, thankfully, societal standards evolve with time. As a woman, if I had been born 150 years ago, I certainly wouldn’t have been able to make a living as an artist, although countless men certainly did. Today, we wouldn’t dream of this kind of discrimination against women, but for most of human history, women had no choice.

But art has no moral compass. A piece of art is either well done, or it is not. It either speaks to you, or it doesn’t. It either accomplishes its purpose – be it as entertainment, as social critic, or simply as a beautiful object. Or it does not. So the words good and bad are used to evaluate different things when you’re judging art or judging character.

And what about the link between the artwork and the artist who created it? I am an artist, and I have a personal perspective on that subject. To me, once the work is created and I have applied the final coat of varnish, it doesn’t belong to me anymore. It belongs to the world. The world will value it, judge it and allow it to live or it will not. I am perfectly aware that most of my work will exist well past my expiration date. In that sense, the work matters more than the artist who created it. Think about it! When we travel and see all the incredible artwork around the world, we’re frequently unaware of who created it. Some of those artists’ names have long been forgotten, and some of them may have had questionable characters. But their art lives on and continues to enrich our lives.

Does this mean I could handle having one of Hitler’s watercolours in my house? No, I don’t think I could. But I could look at it in a museum and appreciate the technique – if it’s any good.  

As a society, I don’t think we should discard artwork created by bad people. We should provide context when we show the work, but we shouldn’t destroy it, ignore it, diminish its importance or hide it indefinitely in closets solely based on the character of the creator. The art should be considered based entirely on its artistic merit.

Yes, I realize that this opinion is harder to defend when it comes to living artists. Gauguin has been dead for 100 years and he’s not personally profiting from his artwork today. He gains nothing. But his art lives on. But art institutions are entangled with the society in which they exist. If they promoted the work of today’s sex offenders and racists, they’d risk offending their public audience. Thus, living artists who are exposed as morally corrupt run a serious risk of seeing their careers destroyed. They are just as vulnerable to societal censure as all their morally corrupt contemporaries. If their work is strong and relevant, however, it will outlive them.

I, personally, want to decide for myself what I support. And what I don’t support.  No one is forced to enter a gallery, to read a book or to watch a movie. All of us can make decisions as to whom we give our money when we select artwork. I’m not inclined to create financial benefit for people with questionable values, but I am opposed to ignoring art that has the potential over time to contribute to society and to nourish people’s minds and spirits.  

Public Art, Not Private Art: leave it to the pros

2 Comments

Sean Chu, one of our Calgary City Councillors, recently claimed to reporters that, “The private sector can do everything cheaper and better,” and wondered aloud why the public sector does public art so badly. He also mused, “The public sector has this view that art should be outside the box. What we should be doing is looking at acceptable public art across the board.”

YIKES! That statement scares me a lot. What is acceptable? Is it a pretty mural of lemons in bowls? Perhaps colts gambolling in a meadow? Art assists in social evolution. It bears witness of a time in history and helps moves humanity forward. It speaks of ideas that define us as a society. It makes us think. Beauty can be an integral part of this definition, but great art is much more than that.

I’m afraid that getting global buy in is an impossible task. But we, the artists and the Calgary Public Art Program, have – and will continue – to engage the community so concerns and ideas can be voiced. In fact, the Calgary Public Art Program has put a lot of dedicated effort into hosting community engagement opportunities for each new artwork. But sadly, very few people show up. Is it poor advertisement of those opportunities or lack of interest from the public? Probably both.

The news coverage of Mr. Chu’s opinion of public art went on to provide an example of a recent successful privately- funded public art work west of Calgary created by Alberta artist Vania Burton who lives near the community of Harmony in Rocky View County. The piece she created seams universally loved by the residents.

The Orchard, a community project in support of the KO Arts Center

A few years ago, I too worked with the developers Harmony Rocky View to create a community art project when they helped to fund an outreach program for the KO Arts Center in Springbank. I feel that this private corporation has an exceptional awareness of the role they can play in society and the importance of art. They consider contributing toward providing artistic expressions to be a primary corporate responsibility.

Sadly though, this is not common in the business sector. It’s been my experience that most business owners are not particularly concerned with their roles in the community, and are largely unaware of the place art occupies in their society. Perhaps they don’t know enough about it, can’t afford the time or resources to be concerned, or maybe it’s because money in their own pockets feels better than money invested in the community. So I’m afraid I have to disagree with Councillor Chu. When it comes to public art, the private sector will most likely “just not do it”, so forget about “doing it better”.

Last week, I was delighted to attend a facilitated conversation with the City’s stakeholder engagement team to provide input on the current Public Art process. Fifty professional artists who worked with the City on Public Art projects over the years gathered to discuss their experiences, and our conversation was passionate and animated. I was among artists who really care about doing a good job, artists who engage and actively listen to the members of the community, who do their best to represent the community’s values in the projects they create. It was an enormously positive experience, and even though we shared our frustrations with the City’s approach to certain aspects of the program, we agreed that there are some very competent city employees in the Public Art Program who seem to be handcuffed by the bureaucracy and by politicians.

I left that meeting even more certain that politicians and reporters should back off. It’s clear to me that the Public Art Program has been high jacked by some of the City Councillors who use it to leverage their own political ambitions. And of course, the news media feeds off that controversy. Back off! Let the professionals to do their job. Leave it to the pros: the City employees in the Public Art Program and the professional artists they work with, artists who are carefully selected and who are accountable.

Creating art for the public is an organic process that needs room to explore possibilities in order for each project to be collaboratively successful. There is not only one way to do this; a narrow path system with rigid boundaries can us of the wonderful and unexpected ways artists can answer challenges. To be honest, although I love the involvement of the community in every Public Art project, it can bog down the process when the moment comes for the artist to take their ideas and put them to work. Once the spirit of the work has the community’s buy in, it’s not necessary to discuss the tools of the artist’s trade. At that point, leave the work of creation to the professional.

Finally, what endears Public Art to people is the way it grows on them. They learn to love it as they see new meanings each time they pass by. My artist friend Sabine Lecorre-Moore says, “Art on the side of a highway just doesn’t work. It needs to be in a place where people can touch it, take a selfie with it, where they can have an experience with the art.” You put a big piece of art on the side of a highway where people can’t connect with the work, you risk missing out on that sense of appropriation. The reality is that people love Public Art and, although most are not aware of the many forms it can take, they cherish the experiences when they are in contact with it.”

The Public Art Program will never be perfect. And that’s as it should be. Public Art will never get “across the board buy in”. Pubic art work is meant to provide people with an experience, to inspire, to astonish, and yes, sometimes it’s meant to provoke us to think. And that’s the beauty of it. But we can all do a better job with the conversation between the artists, the city and our fellow citizens of this wonderful community. Removing political interference would be a great place to start; then we can begin to talk about art and society intelligently.