|
|
Re: Start Here
Posted:
Feb 10, 2004 2:07 AM
|
|
> With all due respect, Colin, your response sounds
> just a little bit lip-servicey to the exaulted
> instutitional ideal that pays your weekly check, and
> it is slightly patronizing. You asked for feedback as
> to why the forums are not popular with the community
> they're intended to reach. That's what I
> offered--sorry if they were put in
> less-than-happyslappy terms. For what it's worth, I
> don't feel victimized by coming to these forums. I
> feel pissed off at how they've been usurped by a
> noisy few with a blatant agenda or a well-meaning few
> who are looking for a mutual admiration society.
> People have repeatedly been chased away from this
> forum, and you have sat by and done nothing to help
> fix the echo-chamber culture of it.
>
> In my opinion, it's excruciating to read 90 percent
> of what's posted here, and it's depressing to know
> that the forums could be a much better utilized
> resource. It's also crazy how quickly we witness
> again the forces mounting whenever anyone (ie me)
> expresses dissent from the herd. ("You're right! Good
> point! That was really well stated! Gosh, that was
> funny! You tell him!") Obviously, nobody in this vast
> circle jerk read the article I linked; it's important
> that all here read it (see the text reproduced
> below). Organizations need dissent, not constant
> backpatting kneejerk approbation. ("Wow. Really great
> art! I love your stuff! You are so funny!")
> Otherwise, the closed organization (echo chamber)
> develops misguided ideas that have no bearing on
> reality. Take MN Mediocre, for example; or the MAEP
> election nonsense--both notions fell flat almost
> immediately when they reached the wider community.
> Now, the forum seems to be encouraging a notion that
> there's some sort of art-world cadre controlling the
> resources to the disadvantage of the few truly worthy
> artists (who happen to be posters on this site--no
> wonder nobody's getting anywhere), and there's one
> poster claiming that these forums are a gateway to
> great riches and international fame if only everyone
> else knew how to work it. It'd be hilarious if it
> weren't so dangerous. All these notions are
> absolutely picture-perfect examples of what the
> military calls "incestuous amplification" and what
> psychologists call "group polarization." (See article
> below for more info.) Because the group is so hostile
> to outside comment and criticism, the ideas grow
> unchecked within the closed chamber, until the
> notions meet their Columbia disaster.
>
> In the local arts community, I've heard again and
> again that artists want to reach a greater audience.
> Yet at the same time they spend most of their time
> with other artists (probably out of fear, mostly),
> mutually admiring each other's work. The work does
> not develop. The audience does not grow. And when
> someone comes along to point out the absurdity of the
> situation, people get angry and lash out (trust me, I
> received some major lashings in my day as a result of
> criticism I've written).The same seems to be
> happening in these forums. I've tried, in the real
> world through my organizing efforts, to change the
> relationship dynamic between artists and
> critics--arguing that critics perform a great
> checking-and-balancing function in the arts. It's
> bore some fruit, but more could be done. Probably
> that's why I'm still bothering with checking into the
> forums. I care enough to try to keep trying to change
> closed off minds.
>
> Still, I can't say it's really been worth it
> personally. I wish someone would point out what
> self-interest I have in venturing to post these
> opinions, so I can agree that it all has to do with
> my own ego--and I can slink away in the night once
> and for all. But I can't help but suspect I make
> these stabs in the dark because I happen to care
> deeply about the local arts.
>
> From what I know of you Colin, I respect the work
> you've done on the site. And I do respect the work of
> your bosses, to be sure. But this paragraph from the
> text below sums up the kind of organizational culture
> I'd like to see within these forums, rather than the
> ego-stroking cheerleading and self-serving bluster
> that's driving people in the arts community away:
> a distinctive kind of culture, one that
> discourages deference to leaders, sees dissent as an
> obligation, promotes independent analysis and insists
> on a wide range of voices. The broadest lesson is
> simple. Well-functioning organizations discourage
> conformity and encourage dissent -- partly to protect
> the rights of dissenters but mostly to promote
> interests of their own.
>
>
>
> The Power of Dissent;
> All organizations need it. Are you listening, NASA?
>
> Cass R. Sunstein
> Los Angeles Times
> September 17, 2003
>
> Successful organizations, in government and
> elsewhere, need dissenting opinions. If citizens are
> to be secure, leaders must encourage disagreement and
> skepticism. This is the largest lesson of the recent
> report of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board
> -- a stunning document whose implications go far
> beyond the space program.
>
> What accounted for the loss of the space shuttle
> Columbia and its seven-member crew? The board
> attributes the accident to NASA's unfortunate
> culture, one that discourages dissent. In the board's
> words, NASA lacks "checks and balances." It pressures
> people to follow a "party line." At NASA, "it is
> difficult for minority and dissenting opinions to
> percolate up through the agency's hierarchy" -- even
> though, the board says, effective safety programs
> require the encouragement of minority opinions and
> bad news.
>
> The board's report is only the latest in a growing
> body of research from many domains. Failed
> corporations, such as Enron, WorldCom and Tyco, often
> have a NASA-like culture, characterized by
> unrealistic optimism and pressures toward conformity.
> Companies do better with contentious boards of
> directors that treat dissent as a duty.
>
> Similarly, studies have shown that private investment
> clubs tend to lose a lot of money if their members
> know each other well, like each other, eat dinner
> together and discourage open debate (whereas
> financial returns are highest in clubs whose members
> have limited social contact and welcome criticism and
> disagreement).
>
> My research shows that on a three-judge panel, a
> Republican-appointed judge is often far more likely
> to vote conservatively when sitting with two other
> Republican appointees than when sitting with at least
> one Democratic appointee. The same is true for
> Democratic judges, whose liberal tendencies are
> dramatically amplified when they sit on
> all-Democratic panels.
>
> Without knowing it, the Columbia investigators were
> identifying a pervasive social problem, one that
> unites these examples and that leads to many failures
> in the public and private sectors. In military
> circles, this process is called "incestuous
> amplification." Among psychologists, it is known as
> "group polarization."
>
> In a nutshell: Like-minded people, talking only with
> one another, usually end up believing a more extreme
> version of what they thought before they started to
> talk.
>
> One reason for this is that when people's views are
> confirmed by others, they tend to become more
> confident and more extreme. Another reason is that
> most people are loath to come down on the wrong side
> of an issue on which there seems to be consensus.
>
> American researchers David Myers and G.D. Bishop show
> that white high school students who were unlikely to
> show racial prejudice became still less likely after
> discussions with one another -- and that white
> students who tended to show racial prejudice are more
> likely to do so after talking together.
>
> We can safely predict that people who dislike
> President Bush, or fear global warming, or approve of
> the United Nations will adopt a more extreme version
> of their views if they speak mostly or only with one
> another.
>
> The Columbia board also identified the biggest
> problem created by group polarization: missing
> information. When leaders and groups cherish
> consensus, conformist pressures prevent group members
> from informing others of their private concerns and
> doubts. Blunders and even catastrophes are possible
> results. The Columbia disaster is merely one
> illustration. Is it too much to speculate that our
> current difficulties in Iraq are another?
>
> What can be done to reduce this problem? The Columbia
> Accident Investigation Board emphasized the need for
> NASA to develop a distinctive kind of culture, one
> that discourages deference to leaders, sees dissent
> as an obligation, promotes independent analysis and
> insists on a wide range of voices. The broadest
> lesson is simple. Well-functioning organizations
> discourage conformity and encourage dissent -- partly
> to protect the rights of dissenters but mostly to
> promote interests of their own.
>
> Copyright 2003 The Times Mirror Company; Los Angeles
> Times
Well, today and tonight I was painting the wall at the new Gallery Shmallery along with Charlie and Eric. I got to meet the owner, John for the first time. Great guy. I instantly recognized him from first ave for years. Very open minded person and well-connected. Had a lot of good things to say about the older artists and professionals. He is very interested in everyone coming to the opening. Including Michael Fallon, Doug Padilla, and some other people I don't remember right now, but I recognized some names. After the conversation with him and the things it brought to mind, I feel there is the everything set up for the art community here to really change for the better and grow with the participation of the full range of artists and professionals. I do personally feel the time is right. As far as I know, none of the people posting here are making a lot of money off the arts. So I think a current financial reasoning behind anything said or done is just not there. Of course, we all have ideas to make more money on art than that other job we don't like so much. We all have egos, that is for sure, at least in my opinion. Artists are often somewhat unfortunately sensitive. Michael Fallon would have to be included in that as having been a more out in the open artist in the past, having been rejected for what I imagine were much desired shows. Michael, I think your a sensitive artist. Maybe that sounds silly, but its what I am beleiving. There is a lot of similarities in a lot of the people that have strong differences on here. Maybe at least some sort of relative paralells. I feel I am understanding more of this. The negative side of things here is'nt enough to deter me from continuing to try to understand the dynamics of the thing.
All parties involved cordially invite all parties involved here and anyone they can please bring with them to the:
Gallery Shmallery
1720 Madison St NE
third floor
friday, feb. 13th
opening reception is 7-10pm with music, food and drink. 10 on is a party for anyone who wants to hang out for awhile.
To get together. Older people, younger people to mostly just have a good time. Its in a warehouse by the railroad tracks. Raw like a lot of the old spaces I have heard about.
|
|
