Art with a Point of View

Think about it. Great art in any genre succeeds because it has a unique point of view and has been elevated from obscurity to accessibility by virtue of advocates, be they organizations, cultural taste makers, or the public. Who would want to read a piece of literature where there is no clear point of view from the author, or go to a play with no dramatic arc or plot, or listen to a piece of music that was a random collection of notes assembled by a community of amateurs with no set of rules such as key, meter or dynamics? In this debate of who should lead and who should follow in defining the current cultural landscape, I think we should be wary of thinking that just because we now have more tools than ever before in more people’s hands than ever before stimulating creativity, that the act of creation is art. Artist and creator are not synonyms, they are different, each equally important but with different applications and outcomes. By making artist and creator synonyms we discount and ignore the essential role of the advocate and it is this advocacy that is a key player in creating an engaged and interesting cultural landscape.

Creating art with a point of view is the role of the artist. But artists need advocates so that their art can move from a personal, private exploration and process to a public process. Arts organizations are essential in facilitating that process both in advocating new work and in engaging broader audiences and understanding for the wide repertory of existing work. Organizations need the same discipline as the artist, running their organization with a specific point of view or mission, acting as an intentional curator of a season’s content, a museum’s exhibitions, or as a provocateur of debate. Throwing up a list of potential offerings and letting the public vote misses the opportunity to be intentional, of being message-driven, of gleaning a deeper understanding of each work when presented in a collection rather than by standing alone. If art is meant to be nothing more than pure entertainment, than let’s simply listen to what the public says they want and give it to them. My experience is that approach always disappoints, leaves an expectant audience wanting, not quite knowing what they are wanting or missing, but missing it all the same.

The role of the cultural taste maker is changing. The art, music, theater critic has played a varied, yet important part in the creation and discussion of art. In its best form it provides a road map and a sifting mechanism for the public at large, an accountability to both artist and the presenting or curatorial organizations, and a sense of perspective for a certain place, time and experience. Even though the critic or critique is a monolithic interpretation of the cultural landscape, it provides valuable reflection and can stimulate discussion and debate. A debate such as this one can benefit from informed insight to get the conversation going, but today we have the benefit of tools and networks that change the dynamic of a critique into a discussion with the public. (I will share how arts organizations can also be followers in this regard later in a separate post).

In order for the arts to flourish and to stimulate true meaning in its respective community, organizations, networks and artists need to approach their collective work more like a trusted friend than someone dispensing cod liver oil telling the public it is good for them. And that is where I think the real work has to be done: generating and honoring the trust of a dynamic public. Trust is earned and it takes work. It takes the type of work of not making assumptions that our audiences know what the point of view or curatorial intent is and taking great joy in sharing that point of view with them, asking their opinion and being truly interested in that what our audiences have to say, and constantly checking to see what makes sense and what is still opaque. It takes the ability for artists and organizations to have an environment where they can take risks and embrace failure as part of the creative process. It requires a true curiosity rather than a bureaucracy in delivering art/content/experiences. And at the end of the day it takes boldness. I believe we need to lead with the audacity to have a point of view, to have a vision that is larger than crowd sourcing, and the humility to see how that resonates within our selected communities.

About Kelly Tweeddale

Kelly Tweeddale has written 3 posts in this blog.

Kelly Tweeddale is Seattle Opera’s Executive Director. She plays a key role in organizing and supervising the Opera’s daily operations, in generating and overseeing the company’s budgets, and in developing and implementing the Opera’s strategic long-range plan. She is overseeing Seattle Opera’s future development project—consolidating the company’s operations including administrative, rehearsal, production, educational, technical support, costume and scenic assembly spaces—into one building adjacent to its performance hall in order to maximize community access, innovation and collaboration.

• View all posts by Kelly Tweeddale →
• Blog