an blog | AJBlog Central | Contact us |

rwx

issues in arts, technology, creativity

You are here: Home / Archives for culture

culture

Q&A: Sunil Iyengar

by

Director of the Office of Research and Analysis, National Endowment for the Arts

What’s the piece of news this week that is forefront on your mind when you think about technology, policy, and the arts?

I haven’t been following this as closely as I would like, but there is of course the Google Books verdict.  The whole idea that gets to the heart of Google decision: balancing the really exciting and delicious opportunities for getting more access to art online with the need for artist rights – in this case authors rights.  It has been interesting to read the arguments.

Why do you think this issue is relevant to the arts community?

I think there is a lot of discussion within the arts community about things like how intellectual property law needs modernization – or is it in fact where it should be? – in the face of the many more expansive opportunities to engage with art and also create art because of technology.

One of the places where the more expansive opportunities to engage with art comes up most frequently in our own work is the Survey of Public Participation in the Arts.  We survey for example about many types of performance, how people participate in performances, or even create art.  But what about things like mixing or remixing?  Or what people in the arts sector call the curatorial aspects of the arts?  Remixing may not be viewed by some as curatorial, some might view it as straight up creation or performance.

What are some exciting things happening in the nonprofit arts sector with respect to technology, policy or research?

On Friday the National Council on the Arts meeting had some really interesting presentations.  One of them was from the New World Symphony, who showed us some amazing things they had done with wall screens.  For me, this presentation really raised questions about the traditional infrastructure needed for arts organizations or for arts venues.  You know the idea that you have this portable aspect that can occur anywhere.  In one sense it could be venue neutral because you have a technology that enables presentation of art in a variety of different kinds of settings.  And that’s really interesting and it changes the way we think about where art is consumed or enjoyed, and how to facilitate that.  And of course there is a cost issue with that too.  Does that mean ultimately these organizations are going to have more costs and will need more infrastructure to do these kinds of things?  Or can these types of innovations happen relatively cheaply through more inexpensive media platforms?

Why is this exciting to you?

You’re just seeing much more of an understanding across the field. I’m glad that the NEA in a small way has been able to contribute to that understanding through the research we’ve done showing a strong connection between people who participate in the arts through, say, more traditional forms and through media.  You know this from our report Audience 2.0: How Technology Influences Arts Participation.  This study found that when we controlled for other factors, people who used digital media to engage with the arts or electronic media to engage with the arts are 2-3 times as likely as non-arts-media users to actually go to live events and to create art of their own.

I think there is a symbiosis here.  It might be bold to say symbiosis.  We can’t show any cause/effect relationship but certainly people are starting to understand the same values that drive people to go on the computer and look up art or engage with the art through electronic media are really what’s ruling demand for arts in other settings and other experiences.  For example the whole idea of interactivity.  That people are engaged in a way they can respond back in a way to the artwork or comment on it.  They can do their own mixing as we just talked about.  Their own curating.  That freedom, the choice that is reflected in these kinds of values is exactly what in many ways more traditional live arts more traditional live events are trying to emulate.

Fairs and festivals are a good example.  These have been going on for many years.  Performing arts festivals for example or visual arts fairs or festivals basically realize that part of the reason people go to these things is because they have that interactive element that you don’t necessarily get at some kinds of arts events.  At a fair or festival there is a freedom to choose the kinds of events you see.  You have options.  It’s kind of a smorgasbord of arts events in one place.  And there is freedom of movement.  All of these things that in other context you can think of as purely internet-related are virtues you see people programming in many kinds of more traditional arts experiences.

What do you see as a major challenge for the arts sector with respect to technology and copyright policy?

That’s an issue we certainly want to look at further.  Our office hasn’t focused on it very closely the last few years.  We are like a lot of people in the nation, who are still catching up with the technology and understanding what is permissible, what isn’t permissible and how do we ensure that the contributions of artists is recognized appropriately.

What do you think needs to happen to overcome the challenge?

A lot of it has to do with people’s ability to focus on an issue for a long period of time and having the resources to give it its due weight.  But clearly this is an area that has so many cross-cutting interests.  Getting people to talk about these issues and with a wide range of interests at the table – building a broad coalition – is probably what is needed to make a difference in this area.

Do you have a latest toy that you’re playing with that you’d like to comment on?

I recently got an e-reader for my dad and he’s become overnight almost a much more voracious reader.  And he’s going back to his old syllabi, things that he was assigned to read in college – maybe for nostalgia or something – and he never got around to reading.  So he’s really enjoying all that and I’m really tickled by his enthusiasm.

Anything you are working on that you would like to share?

We’ve been looking at the way Americans spend their time on arts activities – whether it’s going to arts events or doing arts and crafts.  We’re starting to see some interesting things.  Analogous with consumer spending patterns we’re seeing how people are spending their time doing art in the course of a day even.

For me, one of the big unanswered and unexplored questions is this.  Lets say that one of the core attributes of art is that is provides a space to reflect, and creates a safe space for people to really engage with something in a sustained way.  How is that impacted by this immediacy of art through media, this emerging environment where people can instantly interact with art?

Just like how the 24-hour news cycle was started with CNN, there is a similar cycle in terms of appreciation and enjoyment of art that is becoming shorter and shorter.  How does that change the way we appreciate, respond to and understand art?  We now have the ability to access anything almost at the drop of a hat and juxtopose different artworks with other kinds of art works.  I wonder how the meditative quality of art will fare over the long term.

Follow the NEA’s work: Website, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube

The Fight for Public Broadcasting (links)

by

The latest attack:  “Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) introduced a bill Friday to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which doles out federal funds to radio and television stations.  DeMint said it ‘should be an easy decision’ to halt taxpayer money for public broadcasting while the nation is ‘on the edge of bankruptcy.’  ‘Americans struggling to make ends meet shouldn’t be forced to fund public broadcasting when there are already thousands of choices for educational and entertainment programming on the television, radio and Web,’ DeMint said.” (via The Hill)

Arts organizations respond: “Non-commercial radio stations provide social and cultural value that their commercial counterparts do not. We value and appreciate commercial radio; in fact we wish there were more commercial stations committed to the traditional values of localism, competition and diversity. But we recognize that, ultimately, the overwhelming majority of today’s commercial radio stations exist to deliver specific demographic audiences to advertisers. When it makes business sense for these stations to discuss or promote a local symphony or band, theater performance or new gallery, they do it, and we appreciate it. But these are programming exceptions, not the rule.” (via Fractured Atlas Blog)

Artist respond: “Thousands of today’s artists rely on the exposure generated by NPR and non-commercial radio stations. Eliminating funding for public broadcasting would be tremendously damaging to working musicians, not to mention having a negative impact on local economies.”  (via CurrentTV)

But will it be enough? “To give in to that panic is to cooperate in your own demise. Which is exactly what the NPR board did by demanding that Schiller–a visionary leader who knew where NPR had to go in the digital age–resign immediately, and without a fight. This was a stupid and cowardly act, which will be justified as institutional realism, the price for one too many slip-ups. It is not realism. The decision to let Schiller go originates in a delusion, captured so well by Jon Stewart during the Juan Williams controversy when he told NPR: you brought a tote bag to a knife fight! The delusion is that you can keep doing that and somehow it will all work out in the end.  ‘Not only does this overreaction weaken NPR, it exposes them as an organization that is fundamentally weak,’ writes Joel Mearas in CJR. I agree. But I would add that this weakness is not simply a matter of missing backbone. It is related to the inability to think politically about what it takes to secure a space for public broadcasting in this country. It takes more than friends in Congress, and a commitment to an impartial news service. Imagination is also required. There has to be something in between arid non-partisanship and politicizing public radio. Schiller couldn’t locate it, but that doesn’t mean it cannot be done.” (via PressThink)

Q&A: Jeff Chang

by

author of the forthcoming “Who We Be: The Colorization of America“

What’s the piece of news this week that is forefront on your mind when you think about technology, policy, and the arts?

Lately I’ve been thinking a lot about cultural change and political change, and the relationship between the two. The events of the last month or so just bring back to me how crucial culture is in creating the conditions for political change. In Tunisia, a rap song by Hamada Ben Amor, aka El General, helped fire the young revolutionaries into the streets to topple the regime. And in Egypt the crowds in Tahrir Square and around the country were inspired by singing, street plays, poetry readings, and street art. All of this culture didn’t come from nowhere. Cultural change always precedes political change. The culture has been shifting and preparing those publics for these moments for decades.

Why do you think this issue is relevant to the arts community?

The arts have been treated badly by politicians, activists, and intellectuals. Demagogues condemn the arts as hell-bent on the destruction of the social order, and would leave the production of culture only to the marketplace. On the other hand, even those who support the arts often think of artists as “soft” actors in the drama of social change, unorganizable and unserious, as the velvet glove covering the fist.  Artists only get the call when it’s time to raise money or to be entertained.

It is silly to think that people are only interested in change when the elections roll around. Politics is where some of the people are some of the time. But culture is where most of the people are at most of the time. If movements for social change don’t play in the cultural realm, culture-making is ceded to the marketplace and subject to the opponents of change.

Recently, the culture wars have been coming back: I think of Chagoya’s art being destroyed in Loveland, Wojnarowicz’s work censored by the Smithsonian, Bush’s media push-back against Kanye. If people concerned with change are not disturbed by the rise in the intolerance and suppression of artists, if they are not thinking about how to do cultural work to win change, their movements are already doomed.

What are some exciting things happening in the nonprofit arts sector with respect to policy?

I think that the nonprofit arts sector has been beginning to rethink culture in a broad way. In the past decade, culture was primarily seen as something that declining cities could cash in on to rebuild their deteriorating downtowns. But at the same time, we saw the rise of local organizations that straddled old definitions of community organizing and arts organizing, many in the youth sector, reaching broad new constituencies. All of that people power and infrastructure played a role in Obama’s election. As in Egypt, all that creative outpouring did not come from nowhere. Culture revealed the mass desire for change in the country.

But then when the Obama administration stepped in, it cast culture back to its place on the margins and the excitement dissipated rapidly. We’ve now reached a moment where the nonprofit arts sector can focus much more intently on what kinds of culture work does encourage and foster progressive change. It’s a time to assess lessons and invest in experimentation.

What do you see as a major challenge for the arts sector with respect to technology and copyright policy?

Balancing creativity with compensation, and making sure artists are compensated over corporations. It’s pretty clear that the system that exists now does not work well at all. From music-making to documentary film-making, artists have lost so much to corporations over the past two decades. In one sense, it’s more difficult than ever to see this problem clearly–we are bedazzled by the sheer volume of cultural products on offer. But I think we’re really at a crisis point. It’s hard to see how one can continue to do the work without becoming in some real sense an outlaw.

Anything you are working on that you would like to share?

I’m working on organizing writers, poets, playwrights, and journalists around immigrant rights in a group called Wordstrike. In times of economic dislocation, immigrants become the first target of those afraid of change. But there is no better time than now to be envisioning the kind of nation we really ought to be, and there is no better group of folks than artists to begin to outline those visions.

Follow Jeff’s work: Website, Twitter

(Photo by Monica May for Theme)

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=culture_before_politics

an ArtsJournal blog