Imagine two communities:
- One is widely regarded for its high-quality theaters and museums – but very few of its residents participate,
- The other is undistinguished nationally for its theaters and museums – except for the fact that very many of its residents participate frequently.
I’m not asking in which community you’d rather live or visit. One suspects that the readers of Arts Journal blogs are routinely drawn to communities whose arts & cultural venues explore new ideas, seek out new expressions and boldly pursue ambitious agendas.
But which is closer to being considered a “great” arts & cultural community?
Is it the one that creates great “art”? Surely, there’s a lot to be said for a community that produces cutting edge work or gathers a critical mass of creative folk superbly skilled in the exploration of new ideas – even if that accomplishment is only appreciated by a relative few.
Or is it the community for whom “arts & cultural participation” is the routine way by which its people consider new perspectives, conduct dialogue and enjoy spending time together.
What do YOU think?
Should “greatness” in art only be defined as referring to the object or experience created by an artist?
Or is there room for “greatness” to be recognized based on the quality of participation, appreciation and meaning to people’s lives?
—
PS: The graphic featured with this blog comes from the Greater Denton (Texas) Arts Council. I don’t know the city (located North of Dallas/Fort Worth) and mean them no disrespect by associating them with the content of this post. Their graphic appeared when I googled images for “Great Communities” – and, at least from the promise of their graphic & website, it sure looks like a place with the potential to be a great arts & cultural community.
I guess I’m not sure what you’re saying. What are some examples of communities with highly regarded museums, etc. where very few people participate? And vice versa? I’m not trying to be perverse, I’m just having a difficult time picturing these communities.
Well, the NEA benchmark study on arts participation (last conducted in 2008) says that roughly 36 percent of the US adult population participates in arts & cultural activities on an annual basis. So, without arguing the merits of that particular study, let’s just imagine that this statistic is valid for Community #1. If Community #2’s participation rate was TWICE that – say 72% (even if they weren’t pioneering great new works like the first community) would you be willing to say that it truly is a GREAT arts community?
My point is: is “GREAT” a descriptor of the art itself – or can it be about the quality (and scale) of audience participation? (I’d like to think that there’s a significant role for the latter – though, I’ve rarely seen that point asserted anywhere!)
Insert obligatory cliche here about the tree falling in the forest…
If an artist creates art and no one is around to experience it, is it really art?
Matt, you framed a very interesting question. Of course there is value in both examples. We all search for that intrinsic moment where the performance, artwork, or language simply blows us away with its artistic craft and power. At the same time, those community experiences of participation, camaraderie, and community that the arts can develop are also of great importance.
My perfect community would include a variety of activities that attract participation in both the veins you spoke about in your article. I am the first to say that the arts can be a transformative experience, however, there is much to say about socialization and civic engagement through the arts as well.
From the finest symphony concert with world class musicians to community theaters, to cultural celebrations that engage dance, food, and storytelling, to festivals in our parks, the arts have always played a role in our American culture.
Thanks for posing the question.
Best, Bob
I was once told by a fund raising consultant that my orchestra had three reasons for being or “bottom lines” — artistic quality, public service, and financial stability. The trick is to maintain a reasonable balance. I would suggest that “great art” can be one thing in one community, and entirely different in another. But, it is only “great” anywhere if it represents the very best that artists have to offer, in ways that meet the needs of the community for entertainment, enlightenment, and education, and in ways that are financially responsible. Local or even regional companies can never hope to achieve the greatness and international acclaim of those in the very top tier. They can and do reach levels of greatness that are tributes to their passion, creativity, and and connection to their community.
Thanks for the chance to get away from the daily drudge for a moment!
John Graham
Thanks John! I’m delighted to give you a diversion from the drudge – and thank you for stating so succinctly what I was attempting to communicate.
“The mere object is not the work of art” (Heidegger, Martin. Basic Writings. 2nd edn., ed. David Farrell Krell, New York: Harper Collins, 1993).
I am certain that art inheres in experience rather than objects or events. The “work” of art, i.e. what it accomplishes in the world, is the creation of meaning. That meaning is generated through appreciation, participation, shock, horror, delight, ennui… and a host of other mechanisms.
So not only is there room for greatness “to be recognized based on the quality of participation, appreciation and meaning to people’s lives,” but to imagine that it is inherent in objects or events is merely fetishism.
What bothers me about your suggestion is that it implies that populism is a valid assessment of art. This is a growing idea which is promoted from the NEA’s ‘Our Town” grants and it’s Creative Placemaking programs all the way do through your regional and local arts organization.
We as a society no longer fund the production of art through direct grants to artists but the presentation of art by funding arts organizations who are the new gatekeepers of culture. It’s more politically safe to fund an organization than a individual.
This funding change combined with hard budget times has created a language and a urgency that everything that is publicly supported in the arts be inclusive, diverse, community based, and decided by consensus. While none of those things are bad it has created a populist chorus that is often vague and meaningless. ” Creativity” has become as vacuous a word as “natural”.
Good art, and by that I mean art that truly has moved people and change thinking has always led. What we now consider our countries greatest cultural products, jazz, abstract expressionism, hip hop, modern dance were all initially rejected by the general public.
To suggest that an art experience or a cultural event can become “great” simply by the fact that it is popular is not only dangerous it is changing the language of cultural to something as bland as “natural”.
Thank you for your insightful comments, Richard. I absolutely did not intend to suggest that popularity defines “greatness” when it comes to a work of art. I’m with you on that point.
But I am interested in what defines a “great arts & cultural community.” What leads some people to enthusiastically embrace the creative exploration and expression of new ideas and welcome the diversity of people and perspectives that come along with that? What leads other people to routinely retreat in isolation behind garage doors and walled yards. What makes one community fertile ground for the cultivation of arts & ideas – yet leaves others sterile and bland.
I’d like to believe that the idea of a “great arts & cultural community” speaks not to the popularity of its art, per se – but to the priority of ENGAGEMENT or CONNECTION among the people who live there. The idea of greatness speaks to the quality of togetherness or “community” that exists in a place. A great arts & cultural community would also have well used libraries, schools, newspapers, town halls, religious institutions and other forums (both real and on-line) for its people to engage with each other.
You’re statement is harsh, but I appreciate the point that “inclusive, diverse, community based” risk becoming meaningless terms.
But let’s not position “great art” as the opposite of “great engagement.” What constitutes “great art” is not a topic I’d wish to address myself – but thinking about what fosters great arts & cultural communities is something that we can (and should) all be actively thinking about and pursuing.