|
#51
CW, who are you?
|
||
|
CW, who are you? You have an interesting take on things.
I'd love to see samples of your writing. Can you post a few links to your work? Perhaps we can talk about collaborating on writing projects? BTW, thanks to you, Susannah and Kathleen. This has been a very interesting and illuminating and useful dialogue! |
|
#52
coyote blanco
|
||
|
Quote:
2 Cent Laundry list for the "wetback" crossing the (class) border. To increase readership you need to rethink what you are. The front page of the "visual art" window is a rotating screen of the art of 10,000 faithful, hopeful, unrecognized artists; it is over ridden by "favored collections" and crowded out by "articles". They are over 10,000 potential readers there. Are you asking the right question? "interested readers' want to know!!!!! Laundry list item #1 Get honest. Put together an editorial board that advises you once a month/ make sure that they represent the demographic of the greater population( not just people that get you). Make sure that they are the "readers" that do not read you at this time. They will guide you to the 10,000 readers that are at your e-mail tips,.....do this if you really want ot increase readership. Jimmy Longoria turn around manger for over 25 years |
|
#53
Editor, Arts Magazine, Minneapolis Institute of Arts
|
||
|
Hi, all.
I'm so glad you brought this topic to the public for discussion. I am both a writer/editor and a visual artist, working in the field of journalism for more than 25 years. I regularly read arts journalism at every level of competence. We desperately need concise, clear writing in all media. We need to respect our audiences and not talk down to them, as if from a lofty and condescending perch of all-knowingness. I see too much arts writing that is flabby with pretension, unintelligible with endless sentences, and supercilious with often-incongruous artbabble. I most appreciate arts writing that addresses the formal aspects of the art itself. Arts writing should be about the art. Arts writers should be open to editing, which is, itself, an art. Electronic media is particularly hungry for editing. With new media--as with old--nothing beats unaffected, respectful, clear prose. People are busy; media is everywhere; less is more. Thank you. Jodie Ahern |
|
#54
Jimmy Longoria Chicano Artist de Minnesota
|
||
|
Quote:
Please write about the developments of the crafts, politics and real life issues that go into the world of Art. Be unafraid to offend the circle of your friends and those institutions that may feed you. Minnesota tragically wallows in it's status quo and sinks into a mediocre funk which saps the spirit from all artists even as they hide in the studio. Raise up you writers head and write with "picante!". Become the leaders that all artists in minnesota await. Coyote Blanco |
|
#55
rant, rant
|
||
|
It's a good thing I can't figure out how to use the "quote" function in this thread; otherwise, I would have re-pasted CW's post in its entirety.
She (?) is right on. Especially in her attitude to the "serious arts audience." Understandably, people who live and die by art clamor for ballsy criticism in print. And I agree in principle with the notion that "polite" arts writing results in mediocre work. But, as CW learned in her dealings with that nasty curator, ordained artistic opinion is a scorching hot potato. And to get some one to handle it--and jeopardize their professional future--there needs to be an incentive. The going freelance rate is not enough to engage in the zero-gain, "semantic arguments" that the erudite audience demands. (Just today I heard a young artist fret about her giant sculptures not being big enough to qualify as "an installation." Yawn.) The best and ballsiest critics, I would surmise, are probably egomaniacs who don't mind the low pay as long as they can proselytize in formal print. They love arguments. That's their compensation. But it's a bitter, alienating one. And on the compensation note, I have to say it's a little bunk to reproduce a writer's work without paying for him or her. It's my whole beef with staff editors who don't write themselves. On the internet, people get paid to arrange and link to articles, while the folks actually writing them get left out of the deal. Every freelance contract has something in it about articles not appearing anywhere else. If you write an article about Ernest Arthur Bryant for City Pages, you can't turn around and sell another article about him to the Rake; even if the writing is different, the sentiment would remain similar enough to get you into trouble. So why should editors get to disseminate work for profit when the writer can't? Props to Susannah for being upfront with writers. But, given the option, I'd choose to keep my writing in one place. g. scott |
|
#56
you've only just begun. (RR)
|
||
|
Quote:
The way it is now, with a singular box you must click to rotate, hides the moment. Rather then showcase the Art, it is hidden within plain sight. It does no favors for the new initiate. Knowing that this must be a chronological archival system, it would be great to see a grid of the most recent images. Maybe a grid of 9 to keep it neat. Perhaps as many as the user/"reader" wants. Imagine a changing temporal interface displaying the 40 most recent uploaded images. The 100 most recent, even. Provide the option. I know it is a simple possibility and would garner instant innovative insight. <<< Would a ratings/ comment system kill the critical voice, or re appropriate it to the observer? I believe I value accurate observation over critical justification. Regarding money, how much will your "arts writing" be worth when a loaf of bread costs a million marks (U.S.S.R)? |
|
#57
Tough to be an artist working outside the metros, and in a style not in vogue
|
||
|
I live in northern Minnesota. My newspaper says there is "too much on the arts" already, but of course it is filled with fish hanging from lines and dead deer...there is never enough of that. Being that I live where I do, that is all the coverage I have. I do not feel we who work outside the metro areas are well represented, as most everything printed is about the Minneapolis area or larger artistic communities.
My work is not abstract, cutting edge or controversial. Been there, done that--I was an abstract painter for years. Now my work is realistic--still life, mostly--and it is what I love to do. I have been recognized around the world through artist magazines such as International Artist magazine, Watercolor Magic, American Artist, Artist and Watercolor. I have written a book on how I paint for North Light and have my signature in a number of watercolor societies including the Transparent Watercolor Society of America. I was just notified that I am in the top 100 artists for Paint America. But could I get into a gallery in Minneapolis?? I doubt it. They do not know who I even am. It is very disheartening. How does an artist who is not in that inner circle make it and get noticed? It is very disheartening, to say the least. I believe someone needs to write about us and our struggles to make it. Unless I paint fish and deer I will not get support from my local community. Because I paint still life in watercolor, "serious" critics and artists don't take what I do seriously either. I believe writers and editors have the power to change this. You would be surprised to know that there are a number of fantastic artists out there who live on the edges of the art world here in Minnesota, who have found writers from other countries to write about them. But no one here at home seems interested in what we're doing. It is a sad commentary. We do not ask for much. We are used to going it alone, but to be recognized as artists, who are also working here making their way too, would be very nice indeed. Thanks so much for hearing me out...I am not a writer, really. That is why I paint! --A Watercolorist in Northern Minnesota |
|
#58
|
||
|
Quote:
For that matter, take the excerpted quote above and substitute the words "producers," "curators," "publishers," "general public," etc., for where the the poster uses "artists" and substitue the word "artists" for where the postser uses "writers" and the Artsist are constantly producing and presenting work for zero dollars. I think of arts writers as artists too (they are writers after all). I think the fact that they are not paid well/at all for their work is just as wrong as the fact that I am not always either. But maybe that is also what opens up my own sympathy towards them - they are writing about art because they love to do it (no, probably not all the time but I don't always love making art either). Any one of us could give it up altogether for something that pays better and means less. But instead we stick with it, doing it for pennies and/or keeping other jobs that we care little about but which pay the rent. I do think this whole blog started on an alarmist note - there was a sense that mnartists wanted to make big changes that reflected some status quo TBD. Several of my friends were asked to chime in on this blog by writers for mnartists who felt that writings on the art forms they cover were going to be winnowed down. None of us took this as a plea to save their jobs, per se, but as encouragement to actually participate in this dialogue - not to just sit back and let potentially bad changes happen. So it is really disappointing to read some of the backlash on the site. People may not always agree with each other, but the call for blog posts was one for input, not consensus. Frankly, different art forms need different things from arts coverage. Although I am a visual artist, I really understand why coverage matters differently for those in theater or especially in dance (whose shows don't run as long as theater shows). The blogger who said he/she loves ballet but never knows what to go see would benefit from the preview articles another blogger wanted to see more of. So many dance reviews come out after the show is over. With galleries, the work is up much longer so arts writing makes a different kind of contribution. You can "test out" the writing by going to see the work yourself, plus there is a canon of art history discourse in which to consider both the artwork and the writing on the artwork. Just as there are different processes of making work - even within a single medium - the kinds of coverage and critique and the impact they have, also varies. I've liked that mnartists is trying to cover many different fields. It would be great if you could reflect that in how you cover them and avoid the temptation to supersize the site - you don't need to figure out a single, overarching arts writing formula. That would level things in a bad way. |
|
#59
|
|||
|
Thinking about these issues today at work, I had a couple ideas which actually follow quite well with the last two posts. I really liked Northern MN Watercolorist's comment, perhaps because my situation is similar. But mostly, I imagine after writing it, (s)he went right back to work succeeding in the avenues open to him/her. That's the type of initiative needed to make it in a very difficult field. Making good work and selling/making money from it are two separate issues.
In the last comment, I second the observation that I haven't seen anyone say writers should work for free. But again, the rules of business apply, just like they do to artists. When we're starting out, often we have to participate in the venues that will have us, just to get our work out in front of people and develop a resume. For writers, that may mean getting paid little or nothing for your work, just as visual artists will get little or no compensation from shows, even losing money in entry fees. But the hope is that as you learn and progress, you make a name for yourself and the quality of your "product" increases to the point where you offer something unique and valuable. At that point, you may (hopefully) cultivate a few collectors. Often, as part of your business model, you'll have to do something for free in one venue to support your fee in another. Learn as best you can from the experience of others, read both art and business books, and pick what works best for your situation. Implement your plans and evaluate your success/failure in order to come up with new plans. The scientific method is your friend. But realize, just as when you were starting from scratch, there are always young writers/artists following behind you willing to do it for little or nothing. So I think your best bet is developing a niche where you are the expert. This is what I think Michael Fallon does very well in carving out as his turf the idea of "artistic failure." He's created a distinictive voice that is memorable, provocative and authoritative. Whether he's right or not (he often is) is almost beside the point. I suspect he can't make it on the standard fees either, but he could use the position he's created as a launch pad to books, consultancies, catalog essays, etc. Nobody said it would be easy and that's why the vast majority fail. The odds of succeeding as an artist are less than making it in professional sports. Perhaps for writers, they're even worse. But hopefully, in addition to exposure, we learn from the experience of climbing the ranks. The story of the writer getting screwed by the gallery director who didn't appreciate their nuanced take on an exhibition is a case in point. Many artists have experienced similar situation working on prospective commissions (I know I have). Learn from that. Perhaps create a general contract stipulating half up front and the other half upon completion and acceptance by the director. That way, you'll at least get something out of the deal if it goes south and the director will already have a financial stake in the deal. And if the director refuses to agree to that, don't take the job. You're probably better off for it. But hopefully your name and experience will have earned you the right to make that demand. A quick shout-out to Tiff and Ariel working on ARP! as well. No, it doesn't pay anything and they're not making any money. But who knows? They're taking initiative and good things may happen, either for them, their contributors, or the art scene in general. Those are possibilities that didn't exist before. Buy the ticket, take the ride, and constantly improve along the way. Good conversation. Last edited by Sam Spiczka : 01-24-2008 at 03:18 PM. |
|
#60
|
||
|
I'm not sure that there's one right answer to any of these questions..
As a reader, I want to read articles that are both well researched and informative, but equally important is the emotion poured into the writing. I want to know that someone somewhere else felt something, good or bad, about the work that they're reviewing. It doesn't really even matter if they liked the work, as long as they (the writer) are informed about where it came from and what the artist (in any medium) was working to convey. As an artist, I suppose there's somewhat of a conflict of interest with how I feel as a reader. It only makes sense to me that a writer would be paired with an artist's work with whom the writer actually likes the work of. This seems like common sense to me.. you don't hire a die-hard country music fan to do a record review for a gangster rap album, because different people like different things. As an artist, I'd like to believe that the purpose of arts writing is to expose the work of an artist to a larger audience, and in a positive light. As both a reader and an artist, I'm always a big fan of well researched interviews. I could read those for days. |
