http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/04/29/now-you Comments On: Now You by Jen Graves en-us Copyright 2009 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0800 Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:00:00 -0800 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by Eric F]]> Thu, 30 Apr 2009 23:19:40 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Eric F]]> Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:33:07 -0700 The Stranger The original "Projections" program included 10 Seattle and Tacoma artists, many at that point not "represented" and selected by Nate Lippens... that must have been in 2005 (sorry for my spotty memory). Then during "Make Your Own Life" Fionn Meade organized another "Projections" on artist run spaces and their kin: Crawl Space, SOIL, Punch, and others. So there is a precedent for Seattle based programs...

I came up with the "Projections" notion as a periodic, topical look at parts of the regional scenes. The two programs you mention were meant to do this. Admittedly it has been an infrequent program but a good one nonetheless. It's one modest but hopefully useful way I see for the Henry to help make some introductions and connections.
Posted by Sara Krajewski]]> Thu, 30 Apr 2009 15:54:45 -0700 The Stranger
Long Live the Slog.
Posted by Emily]]> Thu, 30 Apr 2009 11:58:24 -0700 The Stranger Thank you for your thoughtful response. I'm sorry to have come off as condescending, and I appreciate your continued efforts to get some answers.

You mention (@28) that the question of why artmaking can be considered an activity separate from that which is done for "non-art" purposes has not yet been satisfactorily answered. I'm of the opinion that this is one of those questions for which there is no answer, yet contained in the act of asking is a YES. So while brushing your teeth in and of itself may not be art, the act of declaring it art may well be.

Perhaps my personal version of Godwin's law is "the longer Emily talks about something, the more the chance of her bringing it around to religion/spirituality approaches one," so here goes. This line of inquiry reminds me very much of the kinds of conversations post-Enlightenment Westerners often try to strike up about God. That is, we ask questions like, "Is there a God?" which are, like your art question, perhaps quite fun to chew on, but circular and inherently unanswerable.

We may take as given that existence "is," and assume it to therefore have a source, or we may declare existence to be illusory, and inquire after the source of the illusion; either way, the act of defining obscures the primacy of Source. To paraphrase Augustine, "If you think you got God figured out, it ain't God."

I find this entire line of inquiry orthogonal to the reality that human beings, across times and cultures, have engaged in the practice of mythologizing and ritually observing that Source. God exists, if only a function of the human mind viewing the kind of math it's made of as worthy of reverence. Voltaire sez: "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." Evolution is God. So is the Big Bang. Jehovah isn't, but the mysterious, slippery stuff deep in our brains that makes it possible and even enticing for us to conceive of him as God IS.

In the same manner, Art (defined for this purpose as an activity removed from that which is undertaken for any reason other than "make special") exists because humans (across time, across cultures) do it. To call this category into question is fine, but then we must put a semantic marker in the place of the activity I previously defined as "art," which puts us back where we started. Thus, I do not mean any condescension when I respond to your apparent fixation on this feedback loop as "semantic orneriness." ;)
Posted by Emily]]> Thu, 30 Apr 2009 11:54:20 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Eric F]]> Thu, 30 Apr 2009 11:40:29 -0700 The Stranger
One need only read Scott's list of who was present at this Summit of Seattle April 28, 2009 to realize that the art community is better for Scott's contribution. Thank you, Scott.

Speaking specifically about Klatch 4/28, I was truly reassured by the calm charisma of the panelists Regina Hackett, Jen Graves, Matthew Offenbacher and masterful finesse of guest moderator and panel brainchild Eric Fredrickson.

I, like Scott, heart art critics, though I don't have a t-shirt to prove it. I really like Jen and Regina as persons. I was just telling Regina after the Klatch that she and Jen remind me of sisters, truly. I hear bluster and disagreement when I read the printed conflicts they have, but when I hear them in person, I can hear them fighting for the same thing in their undertones, LIKE SISTERS, LIKE SISTERS! It is SO endearing.

Regina's calm charisma after having lost the union gig after what- 27 years- was truly inspiring to witness. And she is so smart. Smart. She knows the whole thing is flowing here and there.

Jen's genius is also formidable, and indomitable.

It is the best of times, as Regina said, and I think because of the URGENCY of the times. Bravo.

Paul Pauper,
Form/Space Atelier
Posted by formspaceatelier]]> Thu, 30 Apr 2009 11:39:43 -0700 The Stranger Posted by timothy wind]]> Thu, 30 Apr 2009 10:55:57 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Eric F]]> Thu, 30 Apr 2009 10:38:33 -0700 The Stranger Posted by seanmichaelhurley]]> Thu, 30 Apr 2009 10:16:23 -0700 The Stranger
Posted by new man]]> Thu, 30 Apr 2009 10:11:16 -0700 The Stranger I thought the Fillip presentation at the Henry Art Gallery in early 07
http://hankblog.wordpress.com/2007/03/20…
and the related program of Portland artists assembled by Stephanie Snyder
http://hankblog.wordpress.com/2006/08/31…
were excellent core samples suggesting the cultural structures and artistic practices of each community. What might be interesting is to imagine a similar program about Seattle. How would we present our activities if asked to think of them as in part a collective enterprise?
Posted by Eric F]]> Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:44:09 -0700 The Stranger It seems like one point of contention between Jen and Regina is who each of you feel you're writing for. Regina, with her emphasis on "marketing," on getting work in front of as many eyes as possible, clearly feels she is working in tandem with artists, as a conduit. Jen mentioned that Regina accused her of negativity. I got the feeling that Jen feels she works in some regard on behalf of the public; if not as an educator per se, then at least as an appraiser. Of course, both of these perspectives are true; however, neither is fundamentally correct.
The reason for the large turnout among artists --- and I acknowledge this is a huge presumption, and if I'm wrong so be it --- is that both Graves and, until very recently Hackett, take for granted one element of their vocations that most artists struggle their entire careers to achieve, and that is a large and consistent audience.
An audience renders questions of quality irrelevant --- this is one reason (among many) why Hollywood is simultaneously maddening and magnetic. An audience is the ultimate goal of any serious artist --- and I mean a person who has devoted her or himself to a discipline of any kind and wishes to forge with and through that disciple some kind of communion with another human being. That seems to me axiomatic. And what can elicit a big reaction among this set is when someone --- a critic --- presumes he or she is somehow not playing that very game. Because in point of fact, Jen works for neither the public, not the artists, nor the museo-gallery complex; she works for Mr. Tim Keck who, if he is given a hearty kick to the head by young Reuben tonight, could well come in tomorrow morning, hand Jen a check and a kleenex, and hire Hilton Kramer. Or Matthew Kangas.
Think about this, artists of Seattle: You believe you are a Genius. Jen believes in Art Geniuses too, but she doesn't think you are one. Who is correct? I'll tell you: Nobody. The Genius Award is the only Genius in town. For the cost of about a third of one 84 page paper, the Stranger arts editors are ensured that they remain the arbiters of all things literate, aesthetic, and entertaining. Don't get me wrong; this is fine by me. Good parties. Great friends. But that is what the whole history of art really is: just a record of friendships and rivalries. It's all personal, and issues of quality, or authenticity, or novelty are at most wax to put on that big bus. When Jen no longer has a paper to write for --- and I'm sad to think how soon that will be --- people will keep on painting and filming and writing and whatever they feel like. And maybe even more will do so, and think that they too might have a chance at being a genius, if only because there is no one at the top to suggest otherwise.
Posted by seanmichaelhurley]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 23:07:39 -0700 The Stranger
I'm in the design department and I really feel like a solid foundation in being able to express one's ideas in writing is seriously lacking at this school. There is so much focus on everyone's major that writing and editing are overlooked. The school does encourage students to use the writing center, but there don't seem to be many students motivated to do so on their own.

I believe a lot of this problem starts with the foundation year H&S classes that combines "Humanities" credits with "Writing and Analysis" credits and grades on a pass/fail basis. It seems too similar to jocks receiving special treatment so that they can play in the big game, so I'm kind of excited to hear about "art writing" as a topic and wonder if my experience is isolated to the school I'm at or is part of a larger trend?
Posted by Manthony]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 23:01:59 -0700 The Stranger I wish I could go back in time!

I would have traded cramming into a room with 60+ people early in the morning for the crushing disappointment I felt when I got the email later in the day Tuesday. I just needed 12 hours additional notice. Mondays are my "no computer/internet" day (I may have to rethink that).

Very cool, sorry I missed it - keep doing all of the above!


Posted by Diana]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 21:12:05 -0700 The Stranger I asked a simple question, a question I would have asked at the "Klatch". A question that I am sure the moderators would have yawned over. A question I would have expected to get yawned over. It's a question that I take seriously but I know many people do not. (There are many nuances, which Emily has actually handled well without me asking, to the question that I just don't have time to go over now.)
Instead of the yawn, I get an extremely condescending response and a confusing response. I can take the confusion, we can talk that out. The condescension I can not. Art is already an elitist pursuit without belittling and condescending remarks.
That aside, Art is not a flexible idea. It is quite solid in each of us. It can be repaired and renovated but it stands on stable footings. Some people only have footings but no house. It is up to the critic to build that house. It is up to the person to decorate it.
One last thing. For a question that is a hundred years old it is a damn good one. It, in my opinion, has yet to be answered.
Thanks Emily, Scott. I would love to go on and discuss but I want to get back to brushing my teeth ("not art").
Posted by timothy wind]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:34:45 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Amanda M.]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 19:46:01 -0700 The Stranger
For you, perhaps that means you should start a blog and write about the art of your everyday existence. I'm not being glib (I can't gauge the tone of your correspondence) -- I'm being totally serious. I'm sure someone out there is documenting their daily activities and that's part of their artistic process as well.

@11: I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do you feel abused by the artistic community? If this is the case, perhaps a little praise and support is the best place to begin. Even if it feels self-congratulatory. I can only speak for myself when I say that I felt nothing but excitement at the possibilities in the midst of all those people.
Posted by sharonA]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 19:06:51 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Stephen Lyons]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:57:44 -0700 The Stranger
Yes! Definitely: writing can be an art practice. It has become an essential part of my art practice. I guess I made the distinction up there to start with because I see my writing and my art-making as two very different components within my art practice. I write mainly about my experience with other artists' work; it's not so much a stream of consciousness where my paintings left off. They are two different entities. Looking at other artists' writing blogs around town, that seems to be true for them, too. I think it's interesting that it is the writing that has brought us together.
Posted by gettingtoknowyoubetter]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:40:28 -0700 The Stranger Posted by gettingtoknowyoubetter]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:29:41 -0700 The Stranger
Logical fallacies aside, the reason this particular argument is "not germane" to the discussion is that you seem to want to fixate on a semantic discussion that, as LP points out, is at least a hundred years old.

Yes, OF COURSE, we may define art (and whatever other creative enterprise) in flexible ways. But the reality is that you engage in all those activities you listed above for non-art reasons. You go to the gym to improve your health, perhaps, and you go to work to pay the bills. Et cetera. And while all of these activities can (and should!) be done artfully, the kind of "art" we're talking about here is by definition outside the realm of that which is done for non-art reasons. There is an article in the current issue of the UW alumni magazine wherein professor Ellen Dissanayake defines "art" (across cultures, across time) as the practice of "making special." If this is the case (and I believe it's an assumption we're all operating on here) then doing those ordinary things which are required of us is by definition not art.

You could, if you wanted to play devil's advocate, make an argument that art made for commodification isn't art either. Now THAT would be a lively conversation to strike up with an art dealer, and I may even take your side. But this semantic orneriness doesn't contribute anything that hasn't been said a million times over—and a million times better.
Posted by Emily]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:11:33 -0700 The Stranger
Andy Warhol said its art if an artist says its art. Your life then, is art. But maybe its just boring for everybody but you, possibly indicating that its not very good.
Posted by mcartypants]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:07:31 -0700 The Stranger Also @18 I understand that his phrasing was meant to highlight the quality of my question.
@19 I think the question I proposed is TOTALLY GERMANE to this discussion. Why are actions like I listed above or, in your opinion, below critical discussion? I think criticality is too often left out of writing about art. I don’t think you should tell your reader why they should or should not see something; you should let them know why it is art.

Posted by timothy wind]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:21:39 -0700 The Stranger
No disrespect taken.

I'll be the first to admit that we operate with a very narrow band of this spectrum you speak of and this insular nature is part of the problem you're trying to illuminate. What I'm arguing here is that any mining in the veins of Cage, Beuys, Proust, et al ("everything is music," "everyone is an artist," "eating madelines is art...") is totally valid in theory and often in practice, but it isn't really germane to the conversation we're having in this thread or doesn't contribute anything golden to the practical aims I think we're seeking here.
Posted by lawrimore project]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:23:03 -0700 The Stranger