Support the Art that Well-Dressed People Want to Hear

[gurdonark]

"It's promotion of a new way of thinking
Instead of "Hey, orange drink," vendors
Will say, "get your souvenir posters of the ballet."

--Ron and Russell Mael, from "Simple Ballet"

Our local cable access channel featured the Allen Symphony Orchestra playing a Tchaikovsky piece last night. Allen's population is only something like 40,000, so I was surprised to hear a competent symphony, as opposed to, say, a nice chamber quartet. It was very nicely done.

I still wonder sometimes, though, why the public "arts" run down fairly predictable lines. I don't mean to criticize people's tastes at all--I like classical music, so I'd certainly not criticize folks who want to make it. But "public art" tends to mean such a limited number of things. It's as though it's not really "art" unless one can spend $ 125 for a season ticket, or attend an exhibition in a tuxedo.

Our area cities are discussing an "arts district" now, in which a joint performance hall will be built at the cost of millions of dollars to permit "the arts" to be "done right". This usually translates into a theater which can host "community theater" and "subscription season" type arts events. There may even be space for an upscale restaurant and a coffee shop. I'm not against this type of thing, of course, but I do imagine what could be done if a sum equal to the interest on the money it will take as my city's part of the "arts district" were just injected directly into helping people make art. We could have more public art displays, we could have more of those bands which appear in our parks during the summer, and we could maybe even spawn a community of "real artists" instead of a community of people who watch the musical "Oklahoma" whever a road show featuring a figure skater or star of a cancelled TV show comes into town (I love Rodgers and Hammerstein, by the way, so I'm not being elitist here).
We might even teach kids to draw and dream. Corporate heads could set aside their Sunday formal dress and learn to do spin art and fingerpainting. Old homes could be picked up for relatively nothing, and converted into little civic museums and art spaces.

It's really almost a civic commercial proposition--should a city support Marketable Art, or should a city support good old plain folk art? I am not at all really an Art person, marketable or otherwise, but it's an easy question for me--because more people will have more fun if we support more of the "little arts" and less Art. What good is a city if it isn't funding police, roads, schools or Fun?

Comments

[cathla143.livejournal.com]

Hear hear!

I live in one of the most densely populated, expensive, taxed-till-we-drop areas of the country, and there is very little of the "little arts". Oh yeah, I could go to the NY Philharmonic, or the Phila. Orch. or even the NJ Symphony (or visit Broadway), but funds prohibit doing that too often. As a musician I find it very frustrating that there are so few places to play, even for someone with my ability (not to toot my own horn, so to speak). The "average" musician is not encouraged to join some groups (they want quality, but don't want to pay for it AT ALL), so some just give up. I didn't play for many years because there was nowhere to do it (not in this area though). And the kids have NOWHERE to play except their high school bands, which leave a lot to be desired... Yes, "community arts" projects are what are needed... Not Art Centers for the elite. The Elite have enough given to them as it is...

[gurdonark.livejournal.com]

I know that the touring companies and professional symphonies bring a lot to the table, but I really prefer the small groups, the chambers, the innovative music, and encouraging local students.
I really think that the way to move from "watching art" and "listening to music" to having an arts and music scene is based on simple local germination with modest funds.

[marstokyo.livejournal.com]

I guess for a lot of people-- seeing a road show of Oklahoma when it comes to town IS a lot of fun.

[gurdonark.livejournal.com]

For that matter, it is a lot of fun for me, too!
I like musicals. But then the old question arises of "which is better, a hall to let a few hundred people see a show each year if they pay a staunch admission fee, or a program based on nominal fees that might reach everyone with something new?". I don't begrudge anyone their "Oh, What a Beautiful Morning" fix, though!

[woody77.livejournal.com]

Probably because the people that spend this money tend to think in elitist terms. I've always been shocked at how "high brow" city officials can act. They try to be all polished, blue-blooded, and sophisticated.

Really, the people _want_ good art, and of course that tends to mean a lot of different art, because people have different tastes.

I really enjoy local theater, and it can be had decently cheaply. They'd be best-off to build a big park, with an amptheater in it, or at least just a raised stage at one end of it. Then they can use this large space for all sorts of things, AND use it as a park when not being used for performances.

Art shows can be had on the grounds, musicians can play there on weekends, and larger performances can be setup by placing the seats out on the grass (or even just having grass seating only). Or a small area can be setup to hold the front rows of seats, with the catwalks for lights up above, and then left standing when not in use.

Lots of options, without having to drop millions for a place to perform the orchestra once a month....

[gurdonark.livejournal.com]

Yes, I like your idea a lot. I also like the idea of simple, 400 seat places for neighborhood concerts, and not "3 stages and convention space" things like some of our cities build.