|
|
|
« Live from the Walker | Bands, bands, bands » Arts policy conversationMarch 28, 2005 Every few months, a couple dozen people involved in the non-profit arts in Minnesota get together to talk about something related to arts policy. Today we met at the McKnight Foundation and talked about a new report from the Rand Corporation titled "Gifts of the Muse." You can find the report on the Rand web site. The report tries to give new arguments that can bolster the funding climate and policy base for the arts in America by describing the "intrinsic" values of the arts, as opposed to the economic arguments or other "instrumental" arguments. In other words, instead of saying the arts are good for the economy, or the arts improve school test scores, or other defenses that can be measured quantitatively, the authors try to articulate the values inherent in the arts that are perhaps not so easily measured (but are perhaps more powerful). Things like, the arts "captivate" -- art can "briefly but powerfully move the individual away from habitual everyday reality and into a state of focused attention." I don't want to give all their arguments here - but you can take a look for yourself and see what you think. You can also check out an interesting on-line discussion of the report, archived on artsjournal.com, where for a week, a few artists, writers, and policy wonks gathered to talk about it. So what does this have to do with the new 89.3? First of all, we had a lot of listeners among those assembled in Minneapolis for the conversation today, and that's always heartening. But again and again the conversation returned to "The Current" as a way of calling to question what our community means when we say "art." A lot of people think "classical" when they think of "art music." The underlying question is whether "art" in this country needs to be defined broadly enough to include many and varied forms of creative expression. I'm sure that listeners to the new 89.3 do not have any trouble calling the music we're playing "art," but for some people it isn't. What do you think of that? Posted by Sarah Lutman at 05:21 PM
| Comments (7)
You must be 13 or older to submit any information to Minnesota Public Radio. Your submission may be edited for length, clarity, or content, and may be posted on this or other MPR Web sites or read on the air. MPR reserves the right to reuse or republish your submission, or to withhold it from publication. See Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
I bet if you asked the people who made the music played on The Current, they'd call it art. For sure, much of it is poetry, and doesn't that count as art? It seems to me that the same argument is often used against modern art (I'm thinking of performance art of the 90's in particular, but there are others who are now considered artists were not considered so in their time). Posted by: jeanne at March 28, 2005 08:43 PMI think of art as a very broad subject, and as much a verb as a noun. There is art for art's sake, but our daily lives are filled with things that were designed or inherently have artistic qualities. Art includes discovery, design, creation, and appreciation, and should inspire further curiosity and creativity. So, yes, what 89.3 is broadcasting is art, but the station must always encourage listeners to make something new. I don't care if it's music, imagery, objects, or even text, but as long as someone is being inspired, the station is succeeding. Our consumer culture encourages us to sit by and let others be creators, but doing so drains us of our humanity. We start off in this world as very curious and inventive creatures, but often lose sight of this as we reach adulthood. Anything that can bring back some child-like enthusiasm is good in my book ;-) Posted by: Mike Hicks at March 29, 2005 10:35 AMI was taught to draw a distinction between "art" and "craft". I used to think this was a BS distinction. Having had about twenty years to ponder the concept, I now think it is a good distinction. As we live in a lowest common denominator culture, 90% of everything that enjoys mass success is crap. If you don't believe this to be true, consider the plethora of imitators and the dearth of originators in any area that could be remotely viewed as an artistic endeavor. Look - I used to hook up my iPod to the car and home stereo and never listen to anything but. Found the stuff I wanted to hear half by word of mouth and half by following my nose. But I haven't listened to my iPod since I found The Current. There's been no need - The Current actually trumps the shuffle play on my iPod. Where else can I hear The Ink Spots and The Chemical Brothers in the same set? What makes The Current unique is that the on-air staff has made a deliberate choice to try and avoid the 90% that is the utter crap, but instead focus on the 10% that is truly wonderful. I can't count the number of times I've caught myself shaking my head in amazement over the sounds I am hearing. Radio is FUN again. I don't know what art is or isn't, but I know what I like. I like 89.3. Posted by: Aaron at March 29, 2005 11:55 AMMore fuel for the debate: According to Merriam-Webster (www.m-w.com) . . . Main Entry: 2art What I found more interesting was the alternate definition of art as "be" or "are" in the old English (i.e. "thou art fantastic, 89.3!) It raised the question, is art inherent to our being? P.S. I agree with Mike -- some art, some craft. All great! Posted by: Catherine at March 29, 2005 06:18 PMThe thing is that rock music's had a complex about its role in the culture ever since "Sgt. Pepper"--it aspires to want to be Great Art and then shies away when things get too pompous (punk as a response to prog, for example). It both wants to be treated seriously and as just, in the immortal words of Lester Bangs, "stupid teenage noise." To me, rock and pop is the folk music of our times--it's just the "aural tradition" is now spread by recordings, radio and downloads instead of people singing to one another. Is it "art?" In a broad sense, yes--and some is just more artful than others. Also, a radio station like the Current that artfully presents music in a creative manner can be called "art," in a broad sense. And if you want to base all this on "we're only in it for the money," I would consider that there are many classical artists who make more money than at least half of the bands that you play on the station in any given week. Yeah, you're doing art. Don't let the "bring back WCAL" whiners tell you any different. Posted by: Mark Jeffries at March 31, 2005 11:55 AM
Post feedback
|
I've always thought of "art" as encompassing all things creative, whether that be painting, books, music, or improvisational comedy. But, like diversity, or eclectism, there are many definitions of art, most of which rely on one's own personal taste.
Posted by: Nate at March 28, 2005 07:52 PM